Late submission from FORCE
The following submission was received following finalisation of the report and is included for the consideration of members in informing possible future investigation.
The text below has been extracted from an email received from Marion Fitzgerald, a representative of FORCE, on Mon 24th June. The two attached planning reports referred to below follow in this appendix.
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Dept have not been able to comment on the submission at this stage.
The first attachment is a report from Carlisle. It does explain the content of each relevant local policy in quite a bit more detail than we are used to seeing in Allerdale's reports. Although it concludes with a recommendation to approve a 79.6m wind turbine, the policy detail in the report would enable councillors, who happened to disagree with the recommendation, to formulate strong planning reasons to refuse the application. I have looked at a number of other Carlisle reports and this one conforms to the general pattern.
The second attachment is a report from Eden. Again it contains a helpful level of policy detail. This report leads to a recommendation for refusal but what caught my eye particularly is a comment which I am certain would never appear in a report prepared in Allerdale. The Eden officer expresses the concern that if permission is granted for the two turbines applied for, this could result in more applications coming forward. This, in turn, could result in unacceptable harm to the local landscape character.
The point made by my colleague at the last meeting of the scrutiny sub committee is correct. I have attended a great many development panel meetings in recent years and it is indeed the case that, when the councillors decide they do not wish to accept the officer's recommendation, no help is offered with the formulation of robust reasons for refusal. Although this is something which often occurs when wind turbine applications come before the panel, it is not necessarily just a turbine related issue. The most recent example I've witnessed took place at the last panel (11th June) when councillors who wanted to refuse the application for a major housing development in Dearham were given no help whatsoever with the wording of reasons for refusal. There was also, I noted, very little explanation of relevant policy in the officer's report for that application.
SCHEDULE A: Applications with Recommendation 12/0638 Item No: 01 Date of Committee: 14/12/2012
Appn Ref No: Applicant: Parish: 12/0638 Mr Edgar Orton
Date of Receipt: Agent: Ward: 03/08/2012 Planning Consultations Burgh
Location: Land to the South East of Flatt Farm, Kirkbampton, CA5 6NG
Proposal: Erection Of A Single Wind Turbine (500kW), 55.6m Hub Height, 79.6m To Tip Height And 2no. Metering Units
REPORT Case Officer: Shona Taylor
1. Recommendation
1.1 It is recommended that this application is approved with conditions.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The potential contribution of the scheme towards the regional and county targets for the generation of renewable energy; 2.2 The impact of the proposed development on the landscape and visual character of the area; 2.3 The impact on residential properties (noise and shadow flicker); 2.4 The impact on air safety with regard to Carlisle Airport and the Ministry Of Defence; 2.5 The impact upon ecology and nature conservation.
3. Application Details
The Site
3.1 The application site is located to the south east of Flatt Farm, in a field adjacent to Watchtree Nature Reserve, which is located on the site of the former Great Orton Airfield, approximately 0.5km to the west of Great Orton. 3.2 The site is located within open countryside with the predominant land use in the surrounding area being agriculture with scattered development. The land immediately around Flatt Farm is relatively flat with the local landscape continuing in a gently rolling characteristic.
3.3 The application site is located within a field approximately 700m to the south east of the farm complex and is surrounded predominantly by agricultural land used for pasture. The adjoining fields are delineated by a combination of hedges, post and wire fences and occasional hedgerow trees.
Background
3.4 When this application was submitted, there were two other proposals for the erection of single wind turbines being considered by Allerdale District Council, another at Flatt Farm and one at Watchtree Nature Reserve. The turbine at Flatt Farm was withdrawn and the turbine at Watchtree has been refused, as such, the applicant is no longer required to take these into account when assessing the cumulative impact.
The Proposal
3.4 The application seeks permission for the erection of 1no. 500kW wind turbine, which will have three blades, a hub height of 55.6m and a tip height of 79.6m.
3.5 Access to the turbine will be via an existing access road, but will require a new section of access track across the field. The access track, craneage and assembly area will be created using "I-trac" a heavy duty temporary road made from composite interlocking panels to create a road surface. These panels can be removed following the erection of the turbine without damage to the site and will leave no visual impact on the local landscape.
3.6 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, a Planning Statement incorporating an Environmental Report, an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, a Noise Assessment and a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
4. Summary of Representations
4.1 This application has been advertised by means of site and press notices as well as notification letters sent to forty neighbouring properties. In response twenty eight letters of objection have been received and one letter of support. The grounds of objection are summarised as;
1. the turbine will be an eyesore; 2. it will increase the existing noise which can be heard from the turbines at Watchtree; 3. the number of single wind turbines being applied for is gathering alarming momentum; 4. the application does not take into account the proposed wind turbines in the area; 5. the cumulative impact will be excessive; 6. 500m is too close to Great Orton; 7. there will be an unacceptable impact upon birdlife, in particular owls and woodpeckers; 8. the photomontages are unrealistic; 9. this farm is in Allerdale, why should Carlisle district be stuck with a turbine; 10. the turbine will be unsightly and will impact on the views around Great Orton; 11. the noise and visual impact will be unacceptable; 12. the application should be refused on cumulative impact.
5. Summary of Consultation Responses
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: - no response received; Ramblers Association: - no response received; Orton Parish Council: - object to the proposal due to Amenity, impact on the environment, noise, wildlife, carbon footprint and the creation of a precedent; Natural England: - no objections; National Air Traffic Services: - no objections; MOD Safeguarding: - no objections subject to a condition requiring the turbine to be fitted with appropriate lighting; Joint Radio Co: - no response received; Local Environment - Environmental Protection: - no objections; Cumbria County Council - Highway Authority: - no objection subject to the inclusion of two conditions; Cumbria Wildlife Trust: - no response received; Carlisle Airport: - no objection; Cumbria County Council - Transport & Spatial Planning: - the two other proposed turbines in the area should be taken into account when assessing the cumulative impact.
6. Officer's Report
Assessment
6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
6.2 As a result of the recent Cala Homes litigation, the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) remains in force and part of the development plan until the provisions of the Localism Act are enacted. A separate order is required to revoke the RSS; and until this takes place the RSS remains part of the Development Plan. For the purposes of the determination of this application, therefore, the development plan comprises the North West of England Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021); the “saved policies” of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016; and the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016. The application also needs to be assessed against the Cumbria Strategic Partnerships Sub Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 - 2028 (SRSpS), the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (2011), and the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (2007). 6.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was adopted 27th March 2012 is also a material planning consideration in the determination of this application. The NPPF has a presumption in favour of sustainable development with 12 core planning principles which should underpin plan-making and decision-taking. Members should note that two of the core planning principles are to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, encouraging the use of renewable resources and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
6.4 The NPPF indicates that when determining applications Local Planning Authorities should not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy and it should be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The NPPF indicates that Local Planning Authorities should approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. The NPPF also states that in determining applications for wind energy development Planning Authorities should follow the approach set out in the National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (read with the relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure, including that on aviation impacts). The National Planning Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure generally relates to large wind farms however it give guidance on technical considerations when dealing with onshore wind farms.
6.5 RSS Policy EM1 seeks to identify, protect, enhance and manage environmental assets. RSS Policy EM1(A) refers to the landscape and the need to identify, protect, maintain and enhance its natural, historic and other distinctive features. RSS Policy EM17 requires at least 15% of the electricity which is supplied within the Region to be provided from renewable energy sources by 2015 (rising to at least 20% by 2020). Criteria that should be taken into account in assessing renewable energy schemes include the impact on local amenity and the landscape.
6.6 JSP Policy R44 states that renewable energy schemes should be favourably considered where there is no significant adverse effect on such matters as landscape character, local amenity, and highways. The policy also explains that the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. JSP Policy E37 stipulates that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of the landscape. The assessment of any proposal being based on visual intrusion or impact; scale in relation to the landscape and features; and remoteness and tranquillity. Policy E35 seeks to safeguard areas and features of nature conservation interest.
6.7 In terms of the Local Plan policies, Policy CP1 requires rural development proposals to conserve and enhance the special features and diversity of the different landscape character areas. Policy CP8 deals with renewable energy and is permissive subject to a number of criteria including that there is no unacceptable visual impact on the immediate and wider landscape; and any new structure would be sensitively incorporated into the surrounding landscape and respect the local landscape character. A development principle of the Cumbria Sub Regional Spatial Strategy 2008-2028 includes the promotion of decentralised renewable and low carbon energy sources.
6.8 A Supplementary Planning Document 'Cumbria Wind Energy', which sets out Guidelines for wind energy schemes and includes a Landscape Capacity Assessment, was adopted by the Council in September 2008.
6.9 Other material considerations include Circular 1/2003 "Safeguarding Aerodrome's, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas".
6.10 When assessing this application it is considered that there are five main issues, namely:
1. The potential contribution of the scheme towards the generation of renewable energy 2. The impact of the proposed development on the landscape and visual character of the area including cumulative impacts 3. The impact on residential properties (noise and shadow flicker) 4. The impact on air safety with regard to Carlisle Airport and the Ministry Of Defence 5. The impact upon ecology and nature conservation
6.11 Addressing these issues in turn:
1. The Potential Contribution Of The Scheme Towards The Generation Of Renewable Energy
6.12 As stated above the NPPF indicates that Local Planning Authorities should not require applications for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy and should recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting green house gas emissions.
6.13 Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) encourages the promotion and greater use of renewable energy sources and includes a target of having 15% of the regions electricity production from renewable sources by 2015 and rising to 20% in 2020. The sub-regional target for Cumbria is to have 15 - 21 onshore wind farms by 2010 with generating capacity of 210 MW increasing to 247.5 MW by 2015.
6.14 The available records indicate that there are currently 17 onshore wind farms operating in Cumbria and seven more with consent with a total of 143 MW of generating capacity. In effect, the county target for 2010 has yet to be met and, at the current rate, the target for 2015 is unlikely to be met. This figure does not however include small-scale domestic turbines.
6.15 The current proposal would provide a total installed capacity of 0.5 MW and will therefore provide a contribution to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally.
2. The Impact Of The Proposed Development On The Landscape And Visual Character Of The Area Including Cumulative Impacts
6.16 As stated above, the NPPF indicates that Planning Authorities should approve applications if the impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. The NPPF explains that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Paragraph 118 indicates that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort compensated for then planning permission should be refused.
6.17 It is important that a distinction is drawn between i) landscape impacts that relate to the characteristics of the landscape; and ii) visual impacts on receptor points (houses and rights of way etc) that relate to individual outlooks within that landscape. These issues are separately discussed as follows:
6.18 i) Landscape
The application site is within an area defined as being within category 5 (Lowland), sub-type 5a 'Ridge and Valley' and adjacent to sub-type 5b 'Low Farmland' in the Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment. The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document indicates that this landscape type has moderate landscape capacity to accommodate a small group of 3-5 turbines or exceptionally a large group of 6-9 turbines. As such it is clear that the proposed turbine is within the size limits suggested for this landscape type.
6.20 The site where the turbine is to be located comprises relatively flat pasture land in an agricultural landscape with field boundaries being mainly hedgerows with occasional mature hedgerow trees. Small woodland blocks and shelter belts are dispersed across the study area.
6.21 The local landscape continues in a gently rolling characteristic and is largely farmed pasture. Several settlements, farms, dwellings and pockets of woodland are dotted throughout the landscape. The landscape is typical of lowland agricultural land in north-west Cumbria, but has been influenced by development, including other wind turbine developments, the electricity pylons which run to the south of the site and the A595 and A596 corridors.
6.22 Great Orton Airfield is home to an existing 6 turbine wind farm (68.5m to tip) immediately adjacent to the proposed development site. Consent has been given for a turbine 3.4km to the south east at Orton Grange Farm (1 turbine 65m to tip) and a smaller turbine (20.4m to tip) at Orton Rigg Farm.
6.23 A single turbine with a height of 74m to hub was given consent by this committee earlier this year at Midtown Farm, approximately 400m to the south of this site. It has not yet been erected, but is required to be taken into account when considering cumulative impact.
6.24 The applicants' Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) states that the rolling lowland nature of the landscape in the study area means that new additions to the landscape can potentially be seen from some distance. However, it goes on to say that existing woodland, roadside vegetation and localised landform undulations offer screening from many viewpoints.
6.25 The Officer is in agreement with the findings of the submitted LVIA, that, within the local context, the turbine would appear as a prominent feature but would not cause unacceptable harm to the local landscape character, a broad and expansive coastal landscape that is already characterised by other large scale man made features.
6.26 ii) Visual Impact
With regards to visual impact it is important to make a distinction between something that is visible as opposed to being prominent and oppressive. It is noted that right to a view is not a material planning consideration and the focus of the planning system is to regulate the use and development of land in the public interest.
6.27 When assessing visual impact upon occupiers of neighbouring properties it is also important to apply the “Lavender Test”. It is noted that outlook from a private property is a private interest rather than a public interest however in 3 previous appeal decisions; North Tawton (Denbrook), Enifer Downs and Shooters Bottom, Inspector Lavender indicated that where turbines are present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly, overwhelming and unavoidable presence in a main view from a house or garden, there is every likelihood that the property concerned would come to be widely regarded as an unattractive and unsatisfactory place to live. It is therefore not in the public interest to create such living conditions where they did not exist before.
6.28 In relation to the impact on the visual amenities of residential properties it is noted that there are various clusters of settlements, along with scattered residential properties in the surrounding area, particularly but not exclusively those located adjacent to the roads immediately to the north, south and east of the site. The closest residential properties are over 500m away from the proposed turbine.
6.29 Whilst it is accepted that some dwellings in the vicinity would experience direct views of the turbine from primary windows or gardens, it is the Officers view that the separation distances are such that the turbine could not be said to be overbearing or dominant. As such it is considered that the turbine would not cause a sufficient demonstrable harm on the living conditions of the occupiers of these properties to warrant refusal of the application on this basis.
6.30 iii) Cumulative Impact
6.31 Cumulative landscape and visual effects can arise in three distinct ways: Extension effects, Combined effects and Sequential effects. The LVIA carried out by the applicants has taken into account all three types of Cumulative Effect. The most relevant to this proposal is 'extension effects'. This is the effect of an extension of an existing development or the positioning of a new development such that it would give rise to an extended and/or intensified impression of the original wind farm in the landscape as seen from fixed locations.
6.32 It is considered that the siting of the proposed turbine is such that there would be an extension effect to the existing 6 turbines at Great Orton, and the single turbine which was approved at Midtown Farm. However, in most instances, the proportion of wind farm visible will not be extended as the proposed turbine will be viewed amongst the existing turbines. As such the extension cumulative effect is considered to be slight.
6.33 In conclusion, it is considered that the cumulative visual effect, taking into account the six turbines at Great Orton, is predicted to be slight to moderate, and not significant. Due to the comparable size, scale and design of the turbines, along with the distances between the turbines and the surrounding residential properties, it is considered that from most viewpoints the proposed turbine will register in the view as being part of the existing wind farm, limiting the visual impact.
6.34 It is acknowledged that visual impact reduces with distance. As such, with regard to other turbines which are visible from the A595 corridor, including Hellrigg, Westnewton, High Pow, Bothel, East Farm End, Lowca, Flimby, Tallentire, Siddick and Winscales amongst others, it is considered that the addition of this proposed single turbine would have a minimal visual impact upon the users of the A595.
3. The Impact On Residential Properties (Noise And Shadow Flicker)
6.35 The NPPF indicates that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life. The NPPF also indicates that in determining planning applications for wind energy planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the National Policy Statement For Renewable Energy Infrastructure (read with relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement For Energy Infrastructure). The aforementioned documents indicate that the impact of noise from a wind farm should be assessed using "The Assessment And Rating Of Noise From Wind Farms (ETSU-97)".
6.36 The recommended absolute noise levels within ETSU-R-97 cover two time periods: i) the quiet daytime period (defined as between 18.00 and 23.00 hours during the normal working week, between 13.00 and 23.00 hours on a Saturday and all day during Sunday, 07.00 to 23.00 hours); and ii) the night-time period (defined as between 23.00 and 07.00 hours). The absolute limit within ETSU-R-97(in low noise environments) lies between levels of 35 to 40 dB at LA90, 10 min day time level. The guidance in ETSU-R-97states that noise limits from wind farms should be limited to 5dB (A) above background noise levels for day/night time with the exception of low noise environments.
6.37 The applicant has confirmed that the proposed turbine will be a Enercon E48 model. A Noise Impact Assessment has been undertaken which indicates the sound levels for this type of turbine at various wind speeds and distances from the turbine. No background noise assessment has been conducted. 6.38 The applicants Noise Assessment has concluded that the noise emission levels predicted at the properties nearest the proposed wind turbine would be acceptable and would remain within the limit of 35dB(A) at all times. It also concludes that the cumulative noise from the proposed turbine and the operational wind farm at Great Orton will continue to meet existing noise limits.
6.39 In relation to the above, the Noise Levels generated by the proposed turbine are deemed acceptable and would not have an adverse impact upon the occupiers of any surrounding residential properties to warrant refusal of the application. If Members are minded to approve the application it is recommended that a condition is imposed within the Decision Notice controlling noise in accordance with the guidance contained in ETSU-R-97.
6.40 Shadow flicker is an effect that can occur when the shadow of a moving wind turbine blade passes over a small opening briefly reducing the intensity of light within the room. It is recognised as being capable of giving rise to two potential categories of effects: health effects and amenity effects. In terms of health effects, the operating frequency of the wind turbine is relevant in determining whether or not shadow flicker can cause health effects in human beings. The proposed turbine will have an operating frequency of less than 1Hz which is less than the frequency capable of giving rise to health effects.
6.41 Research and computer modelling on flicker effects have demonstrated that there is unlikely to be a significant impact at distances greater than ten rotor diameters from a turbine (i.e.480 metres in this case). The companion guide to PPS22 which is still relevant in terms of flicker effect indicates that in the UK only properties within 130 degree either side of north, relative to a turbine can be affected by Flicker Effect. No residential properties fall within this zone, and as such it is not considered that there will be any adverse effects on any neighbouring properties by way of shadow flicker.
4. Air Safety: Carlisle Airport And Ministry Of Defence
6.42 Following receipt of a detailed aviation assessment Carlisle Airport have confirmed no objections to the proposal.
6.43 The Ministry Of Defence have also raised no objections to the application, but have however confirmed that in the interests of air safety the turbine, if approved, should be fitted with aviation lighting (i.e. 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point).
6.44 In relation to the above, the proposed development is unlikely to have an adverse impact upon air safety.
5. Impact Upon Local Ecology And Nature Conservation
6.45 When considering whether the proposal safeguards the biodiversity and ecology of the area it is recognised that Local Planning Authorities must have regard to the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) when determining a planning application as prescribed by regulation 3 (4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), and Article 16 of the Habitats Directive before planning permission is granted. Article 16 of the Directive indicates that if there is reasonable likelihood of a European protected species being present then derogation may be sought when there is no satisfactory alternative and that the proposal will not harm the favourable conservation of the protected species and their habitat. In this case, the proposal relates to the siting of a wind turbine within agricultural land currently used as grazing.
6.46 An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been undertaken which included a desk-top survey and field survey. The study identifies that the site does not support statutory or non-statutory sites designated for their ecological value. No evidence of badger or red squirrel was recorded and the site did not support any features suitable for roosting bats, although it did conclude that the linear vegetation features may be suitable for foraging and commuting bats.
6.47 Taking into account the proposed development, its location and surroundings it is considered that there should be no significant effects from the proposal, and that there would be no harm to the favourable conservation of any protected species or their habitats. If Members are minded to approve the application it is recommended that advisory notes are imposed within the Decision Notice with regard to protected species and a condition is imposed within the Decision Notice regarding no construction works during the breeding bird season.
Conclusion
6.48 In conclusion the proposal involves the erection of a single turbine to serve the needs of Flatt Farm, with spare capacity feeding into the National Grid.
6.49 National planning policy promotes targets for renewable energy and looks to Local Authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts.
6.50 Taking account of the scale and technical specifications of the proposal, as well as the levels of screening from nearby properties, the existing turbines, along with the electricity pylons to the south of the site, it is considered that the turbine will not have a detrimental effect on the character of the landscape or cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
6.51 It is considered that the proposed development accords with the provisions of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016 and, as there are no material considerations which indicate that it should be determined to the contrary, it will be determined in accordance with the Local Plan and, as such, is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7. Planning History 7.1 There is no relevant planning history.
8. Recommendation: Grant Permission
1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of the grant of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2. The approved documents for this Planning Permission comprise:
1. The Planning Application Form; 2. The Site Location Plan 1 of 2 (PLAN-LOC-1) received 27th July 2012; 3. The Site Location Plan 2 of 2 (PLAN-LOC-2) received 27th July 2012; 4. The Site Layout Plan (PLAN-LAY) received 27th July 2012; 5. The Turbine Elevation Drawing (T-SPEC-DETAIL2) received 3rd August 2012; 6. The Switch Room and HV Metering Unit Elevation Drawing (T-SPEC-DETAIL1) received 27th July 2012; 7. The Design and Access Statement received 27th July 2012; 8. The Planning Statement and Environmental Report received 27th July 2012; 9. The Assessment of Environmental Noise Report received 27th July 2012; 10. The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey received 27th July 2012; 11. The Shadow Flicker assessment received 27th July 2012; 12. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Report received 27th July 2012; 13. the Notice of Decision; and 14. any such variation as may subsequently be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
3. If the turbine hereby permitted ceases to be operational for a continuous period of 12 months the operator shall give notice in writing to the local planning authority of the date this event occurs. Unless the local planning authority gives notice in writing to the contrary the use shall cease and the turbine and all components, listed in condition 2 above, shall be removed from the site within 6 months of the date notified to the local planning authority for the purposes of this condition.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to accord with the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP8 of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016.
4. The permission hereby granted is for the proposed development to be retained for a period of not more than 25 years from the date when electricity is first supplied to the grid. The local planning authority shall be notified in writing of the date of the commissioning of the wind farm. By no later than the end of the 25 year period the turbine shall be de-commissioned, and it and all related above ground structures shall be removed from the site which shall be reinstated to its original condition.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to accord with the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP8 of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016.
5. Prior to the turbine being erected on site, full details of the proposed aviation lighting, as recommended by the Ministry of Defence, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of air safety and in accordance with Policy CP8 of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016.
6. The access and parking/turning requirements, shown on the Plan, shall be substantially met before turbine construction work commences on site so that constructional traffic and materials can be accommodated on site. Once complete they shall be retained capable of use thereafter and shall not be altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The carrying out of building works without the provision of these facilities is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. Retention of the facilities ensures an appropriate standard of parking and access for as long as the use continues, in accordance with Local Transport Policies LD5. LD7 and LD8.
7. The access track shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. The access track shall be maintained in reasonable condition for as long as the Use continues and shall be removed and the ground reinstated within a year of the turbine being dismantled, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety and to support Local Transport Plan policies LD5, LD7 and LD8.
8. No logos, advertisements, lettering, lights or other information (other than that required for health and safety purposes or required for legal reasons including aviation safety) shall be displayed on the turbine, nor shall it be illuminated without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard the character of the area in accordance with Policy CP5 of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016.
9. The level of noise emissions from the turbine hereby permitted when measured in free field conditions at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive receptor which lawfully exists or has planning permission for construction at the date of this planning permission, or measured closer to the turbine and calculated out to the receptor in accordance with a methodology previously approved in writing by the local planning authority, shall not exceed 35 dB LA90,10min up to wind speeds of 10 m/s measured at a height of 10 m above ground level at a specified location near to the turbine which has been previously approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To minimise any potential adverse impact on nearby occupiers and in accordance with the objectives of Policy CP8 (Criteria 4) of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016.
10. The developer shall give advance notice in writing to the Ministry of Defence of the date construction of the turbine hereby permitted commences and ends, and shall include details about the maximum height of construction equipment, together with the blade tip height of the turbine above ground level, and the latitude and longitude of the turbine.
Reason: In the interests of air safety.
11. No construction works of any kind shall take place during the breeding bird season (1st March - 31st August) unless the absence of nesting birds has been established through a survey and such survey has been agreed in writing beforehand by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect features of recognised nature conservation importance in accordance with Policy CP2 of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016. Item No 2
Eden District Council
Planning Committee 14 March 2013
Planning Application No: 12/1029 Erection of 2 no. 80 kW Wind Turbines on 24.8m Masts
Nook Farm, Shap
for WJ & R Atkinson
Head of Planning Services
Site Plan:
1 1 Purpose of Report
1.1 The application is before Members as the application is for a wind turbine and objectors have requested hearing.
2 Recommendation:
It is recommended that full planning permission be refused for the following reason; 1. In the absence of overriding justification, the proposed wind turbines are unacceptable by virtue of their scale, incongruous appearance and prominent siting in the open countryside leading to an unacceptable over-industrialised impact upon the visual amenity and landscape character of the area, contrary to the provisions of Eden Local Plan Saved Policy NE1 and policies CS1, CS16, CS18 and CS20 of the Eden Core Strategy.
2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate through absence of a full site based noise survey that there will be no unacceptable impact upon persons at noise sensitive properties.
3 Report Details 3.1 Proposed Development: 3.1.1 Full planning permission is sought for two identical WES18 model 80kW twin blade wind turbines set on 24.8m monopole masts at Nook Farm, Shap. The total blade diameter is 18m, meaning the total height from ground to blade tip is approximately 34m. The turbines are of a horizontal axis type design with 2 blades either side of the hub and nacelle. The masts are proposed to be dull grey with a galvanised metal finish.
3.1.2 The turbines are to feed electricity into the national grid and support the farm business. The proposal is to involve the construction of concrete foundations on which the turbines masts are to be mounted. Underground cables are to be laid linking the turbines to the national grid.
3.1.3 It is stated that the proposed turbines have a maximum capacity of 386,000 kWh per year at an average wind speed of 6.6 m/s at this site. The turbines will help reduce greenhouse gases by up to 206 tonnes per annum.
3.1.4 The application is supported by an environmental appraisal, visual impact appraisal report with photomontages, noise report example and wind turbine specification. The applicant has however not produced a site specific noise assessment including measurement/comparison with background noise levels.
3.2 Description of the Site and the Surroundings: 3.2.1 The site of the 2 turbines is situated within attractive rolling open countryside on a rise in agricultural land and sandwiched between 2 lines of pylons (that measure approximately 20m and 40m in height). The land form steadily rises from the nearby public realm/road network. The site is located approximately half a mile to
2 the north east of Shap village and 400m to the west of the M6 north bound carriageway. The site is accessed off the Sleagill Road which links the A6 to the west and Sleagill to the east.
3.2.2 The surrounding land is agricultural with field parcels predominantly bounded by dry stone walls. A small number of mature trees exist within the immediate vicinity of the turbines‟ location. The area is remote from any housing development. The nearest non-associated dwelling is Ocean Wells located approximately 550m from the proposed site on the A6.
3.2.3 The eastern fells of the Lake District National Park is situated approximately 1 mile to the west of the application site. The main farm buildings at Nook Farm are situated at the north end of Shap village Main Street/A6. The complex is situated approximately 1 km from the site of the turbines across fields, A6 road and West Coast line main railway. 3.3 Relevant Planning History: 3.3.1 There is no planning history relevant to this report. 3.4 Method of Publicity and Summary of Representations: 3.4.1 The application was advertised by way of a site notice and neighbour notification letters. At the time of writing (22 February 2013) there has been received11 individual letters of support, 97 individual letters of objection and 1 letter of observation.
3.4.2 The following comments have been made/summarised in support of the application;
The erection of 2 wind turbines would be a wonderful addition in the effective, efficient running of their farm. The turbines are environmentally friendly and would cut down significantly on their carbon foot print. This is a more safer and cleaner alternative to nuclear which would not be a blot on the landscape or surrounding area and not damage the environment. We believe that M/s Atkinson should be applauded for looking to the future and for embracing wind power - in no way do we find the proposal to be inappropriate or unacceptable. I believe that the erection of the wind turbines are within the best interest of this country and Nook Farm my full support that will benefit the farm and the national grid. An ideal and eco friendly project that requires full acceptance and support by all.
3.4.3 The following comments have been made/summarised in objection to the application; Strong objection locally and when viewed from the national park. Wind farms are not an economical source of electricity and an eyesore. Shap is a beautiful area that attracts huge numbers of visitors. Please keep it that way.
3 The wind energy‟s own body BWEA (now Renewable UK) published research in 2006 (as quoted by the applicant) also said that 22% of tourists to Cumbria would be put off by wind energy development. A more recent poll shows that 43% of those who visit scenic areas in the UK for their beauty and natural heritage would be less likely to visit a scenic area with wind farms. Approval of Nook Farm would open up the flood gates for large scale commercial developments in this area which is of exceptional historic, archaeological and scenic value. The site is an upland area with views to and from the Lake District to the west, and across the Eden valley to the Pennines in the east. The aesthetic and visual impact of this construction is detrimental to the beauty of the landscape. It will adversely affect the view westwards to the High Street and Shap Fells and eastwards to the Pennines and Cross Fell. They will be seen from Shap Village and be visible for many miles around being located on the 290 metre Ordnance Survey contour. Shap as a stepping stone to the lakes and fells; it is truly an area of its own unique beauty with wonderful views of the fells and an important staging post on the Coast to Coast walk. The village attracts thousands of visitors staying or passing through each year and this forms an important contribution to local economy and need to preserve the uniqueness of the environment. The proposed turbines will be visibly and obtrusive in the landscape that has accommodated pylons and a carefully designed and relatively unobtrusive motorway. The M6 was designed not to breach the skyline, the railway too leaves the natural horizons intact. It should not be subjected to further despoliation of what is an intrinsically beautiful area. The site has old and unattractive electricity pylons running nearby, however following the Royal British Institute of Architects competition of 2011 for new pylon design, things will improve. It would be unfortunate to condemn this site to intrusive turbines. The turbines on the basis of pylons that are almost certainly going to be replaced within the lifetime of the turbines with a new shorter and less intrusive design. The area is one of great historical and archaeological interest. It has a pattern of limestone walls strongly characteristic of this upland area and dating from the enclosure and partition of Reagill Common in the 19th century. Moreover in the near vicinity of the Nook Farm site are 26 sites listed in Cumbria‟s Sites and Monuments Record. Many antiquities and old buildings of interest can be found in the area that would be adversely affected by the development. There is no evidence presented that this development will provide any sustainable jobs. The construction period is given as being 7 working days. How much project management will this require. Even if there was some truth in the claim, there is no local benefit. The Planning Inspector‟s report from the Whinash Inquiry stated “pylons fade against a background of rising fells and their open lattice construction, limited height and lack of movement bear comparison with the proposed turbines”. If turbines were erected the cumulative effect of adding these solid and sometimes moving structures would inescapable draw attention to the industrial 4 structures and detract from enjoyment of this landscape, which is in itself a visitor attraction. These wind turbines would be visually prominent in this simple, attractive, tranquil landscape with its scattered villages and farmsteads. The turbines will overshadow the village of Shap and the countryside its self. The height is very unreasonable given the proximity of Shap and nearby major roads raising issues of safety. Occupiers of Crook Syke, Shap - these wind mills will invade our privacy, spoil our enjoyment of our home by overlooking it and devalue our home. If Nook Farm need wind turbines let them put them in front of their own windows and small enough just to generate enough power for their own needs as other farms have done, successfully without invading on other people‟s lifestyle. Turbines will cause disturbance, particularly noise and vibrational disturbance. The nearest house is 500m and that is „nothing‟ for sound to travel, disturbing noise, vibrational hum, sound waves. From my own experience I know that noise can „funnel‟ very many km/miles and even end up amplified at a far distance. It can also make one very ill. I have lived in a house more than 10km from a mill which produced noise and vibration that we experienced constantly. Each of these turbines will require a concrete foundation each in the region of 100 tonnes, together with tracks leading around the site. These would cause irreparable damage to the local eco-system. The felling of trees at the site will actually release CO2 into the atmosphere and destroy a naturally occurring carbon sink. To remove the masts and their concrete bases will be a difficult and costly process so most likely they will be left to rot in the environment. There is no evidence provided that it will help sustain countryside management and diversify Nook Farm. These claims are spurious and unsubstantiated. It is ludicrous for the agent to include a report of a study carried out in the Netherlands in 1999 as evidence. The application does not contain sufficient information in respect to noise impact. The claimed electricity production is based on a load factor of 27.5%. DECC figures in 2009 suggest 10% would be a more reasonable assessment, at 140,000 kWh considerably less than half what is claimed. Furthermore, the claimed carbon savings are in excess of what could be claimed using the accepted calculation of 430 grammes C02 per kHw. Rather than 206 tonnes pa, it could drop to just 60 tonnes. This represents about a quarter of the emissions from a transatlantic flight. The benefit cannot outweigh the harm to Shap! This particular site is part of the hunting/breeding areas of peregrines, sparrow hawks, buzzards, kestrels, laplings and curlews and other birds. The Lake District Golden Eagle has travelled from its nearby nesting site to hunt over the fields; the turbines would obviously be a danger to their well being. Thousands of starlings fly in this area at dusk during the winter months. Since the birds are unable to see the rotating turbine blades, they could be killed or injured. No ecology study has been provided which would reveal the extent of wildlife and rare plants and potential harm the turbines could do.
5 Aircraft often use this area to practice low flying manoeuvres and there is significant risk an aircraft could make contact with one of these turbines and could result in a dreadful accident. The NPPF makes clear that consultations should be carried out with the local residents and no such consultations have taken place - this alone would give grounds for a Judicial Review should planning permission be granted. An extensive debate is currently underway into the effectiveness of wind turbines. The Government is seriously considering its policy on onshore wind turbines. The Met Office has reviewed its predictions on global warming which makes this application even more speculative. The working life of turbine is lower than that quoted ie 15-18 years rather than 25-30 years. The subsidy costs per unit of output will soar as will removal/replacement costs and associated disruption to local ratepayers and tourists will be significantly increased. The negligible benefits are far outweighed by the negative impact. If granted, it sets a dangerous precedent for further similar developments. The application is not in the public interest and should be refused.
3.5 Parish Council Response:
3.5.1 Shap Parish Council object to the application making the following summarised comments;
The application is flawed, inaccurate and several parts are contradictory. There is no information on how the electrical supply would be linked to the grid for distribution to the network, carbon savings of the scheme are exaggerated and are far outweighed by the negative impacts, the ecology report regarding noise dates from 1998 and was carried out in Holland and do not know if was for same turbine type.
The turbines at 35m tall are not minute. Shap has lost much local economy in recent years and tourism is now more important than ever and therefore any impact on the landscape, ecology and environment would be detrimental. The landscape is our economy in Shap and is the key to our tourism. To say that Shap Abbey is the nearest visitor attraction is erroneous; the whole area is attractive to visitors and there are many important archaeological sites within the parish. The area is well used by walkers and cyclists using designated long distance footpaths and routes. A BWEA (now Renewable UK) Survey from 2006 refutes the applicant‟s suggestion that there is no evidence that wind turbines adversely affect tourism. The survey from 2006 has shown that 22% of tourists said that wind farms would put them off visiting area where there were wind turbines. A more recent poll shows that 43% of those who visit scenic areas in the UK for their beauty and natural heritage would be less likely to visit a scenic area with wind farms.
6 There is an assertion in the application that the site selection means that there will not be any ecological impact. Once again there is no evidence to support this assertion in terms of the ecology in the vicinity of the site or any precautions that could have been taken to prevent destruction, disruption and contamination of the environment. The area supports a rich variety of flora and fauna especially ground nesting birds. There is also rich diversity of plants due to the limestone terrain. An office based survey is not sufficient to establish the true situation. In the application it states that the electricity generated by the turbines would be for the benefit of the farm and energy needs of the clients. The proposed development is some distance from the farm and separated from it by the main West Coast Railway line and the A6 road. No local benefit would result from this installation. No jobs would be created locally, not even in the short term. Because of the proximity of the „M6 corridor‟ many are ready to dismiss Shap as already blighted. The M6 was designed not to breach the skyline and the railway also leaves the natural horizon intact. The quarries make gradual and minor changes to the skyline. The pylons do break the natural skyline but due to their open lattice construction, the eye can ignore them due to their lack of movement. However, the eye cannot ignore moving turbines which would disrupt the skyline and draw attention to the pylons and detract from the natural landscape. Creation of a precedent: with reference to EDC document Material Considerations in the Determination of Planning Applications (2012) section 9h. This area has been considered for a wind turbine development in the past, which met with much opposition. In view of this there is a real danger that permission for the seemingly small installation of two turbines in this area would open the floodgates for other similar applications. Reference is made to policies of Lake District National Park and Eden Framework with no mention of the CCC Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Policy. Part 2.2 in part 1 of Cumbria County Council Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document 2007 adopted by Eden District Council 25/10/07 as part of Local Development Framework states that „Schemes of 2 or more turbines and those with a hub height that exceeds 15m, a full Environmental Impact Assessment is required in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Regulations‟. This has not been done. The site is on Higher limestone, and is described thus LC12 - could support a small group in „blander parts‟ - this is not a „blander part‟. Visual impact on the local landscape will be significant. The application is poor in quality and inadequate for the scale and potential impact of the proposed development which would be of no local benefit. The application is contrary to District, County and National Planning guidance.
7 The application will result in an impact on the Lake District National Park and will negatively impact on its landscape and economy. The community and visitors to this area gain a sense of well-being from living in and visiting Shap village and parish which despite recent downturns still has a great deal to offer. The image of Shap from outside is often very negative. We are proud to promote the village as the „Stepping Stone to the Lakes and Fells‟ as shown on our welcome signs. The village contains 3 guesthouses/ hotels widely praised as being the best on the Coast to Coast. Whilst the boundary line excludes the village itself from the National Park, a great deal of the rural parish lies within its confines, and we consider the parish as a whole to be a part of the beautiful scenery of the area and therefore benefit from the same protection accorded to the National Park. 3.6 Consultation Responses: 3.6.1 Newby Parish Council - Objects to the proposal. Concerns raised that the erection of wind turbines in this area would have an adverse impact on the Shap area and its community, the surrounding countryside, and the general economy of the area where tourism is a part of the economy. Concerns also raised about setting a precedent. A previous application for turbines in this location has been refused in the past. If these turbines were allowed it would set a precedent which would likely lead to a proliferation of similar applications in this and surrounding areas that Planners may find hard to refuse.
3.6.2 Lake District National Park Planning Authority - Objects to the proposal. Because of the separation from the National Park boundary (approximately 1.5km at the closest point), zone of theoretical visual influence, relationship to other manmade features in the immediate vicinity (including the tall pylons adjacent to the site), and strong national presumption in favour of renewable energy development, our view is that a wind energy development of the scale proposed has the potential to be satisfactorily accommodated in this location without unacceptable adverse impact upon the National Park designation.
3.6.3 We would however raise concerns about the poor composition and design of the current scheme, specifically the decision to site a pair of two bladed turbines. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD emphasises the importance of composition to create a stable and balanced relationship between developments and the landscape (policy LG9, part 2, paragraph 1.58). The Wind Energy SPD discourages twin turbine developments.
3.6.4 Twin turbine developments typically result in an unnatural composition within the landscape, where the eye (drawn to the movement) jumps from one turbine to the other and back again. In the case of the Nook Farm proposal this unnatural composition will be emphasised by the two-bladed turbine design, and skylining from some viewpoints. Two bladed turbines have a distinctive motion. When sited in pairs the unbalanced nature of this motion is accentuated, particularly when the turbines are turning at slightly different speeds. Such positioning and motion combined tends to appear uncomfortable in the landscape, and is more eye- catching.
3.6.5 Because of the current design approach at Nook Farm (that is the fact that the turbines would be sited as a pair, and two bladed turbines have been chosen) it is
8 our view that the impacts of the proposed development will be greater than they need be, and that the impacts of the development could be reduced through the use of three-blade turbines and reconsidering the number of turbines proposed.
3.6.6 Highways Authority - Raise no objection to the proposal. It is felt that the turbines have a negligible impact to users of County Highways. Recommend condition requiring whole of vehicular access off the Sleagill Road bounded by the carriageway edge to be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Highways Authority.
3.6.7 Highways Agency - No objection as the application being granted consent as the wind turbine will be situated a distance of over 250m from the M6 motorway, which is an acceptable offset distance from the highway boundary for a wind turbine in this instance.
3.6.8 Natural England - Response pending, to be verbally reported at meeting.
3.6.9 Environmental Health Officer - Objects on the grounds of insufficient information being provided to demonstrate that turbines will not adversely impact upon the amenity of any noise-sensitive premises.
3.6.10 National Grid - Raises no objections to the proposal and acknowledges the turbines are in close proximity to a High Voltage Transmission Overhead Line - ZX155. Informatives are recommended in respect to access and safe working amongst other things.
3.6.11 National Air Traffic Services (NATS) - No objection to the proposal.
3.6.12 Rory Stewart MP Response:
I am very keen to put on record my own objection to application 12/1029 for the erection of 2 x 35m wind turbines in Shap, and wish to support those constituents who have similarly expressed their strong concerns about this.
I believe this application should not be allowed for three reasons. First it is directly against the expressed interests of the majority of the community in the area. This is their landscape, their community, and they should be able to determine except in the most extreme circumstances the future and nature of their locality. Second, the construction of such turbines will have a deep and long term negative impact on the economy of Cumbria. Tourism is our main income earner - bringing in over a billion pounds a year - this tourism is directly dependent on our natural landscape (far more than in other parts of the U.K which may have tourism based on sun, our food, or historic buildings; people come to Cumbria for its wild and unspoilt landscape).
The views are what makes tourism our single largest income-earner, supporting over ten thousand families in Penrith and the Border. The landscape is precious in and of itself for residents and indeed for everyone in Britain. Finally, Dieter Helm of the Professor of Climate Science at Oxford has established that one could achieve the same reduction in carbon emissions currently planned through all wind turbine construction by converting our existing coal-fired stations to gas, and at a fraction of the cost. (The new
9 discoveries of shale gas in the US and Europe answer many of the concerns people had, even eighteen months ago, about energy supply and energy security, and Cumbria is already doing an enormous to generate non-carbon emitting energy). But it is the central arguments of landscape, economy, and above all community wishes that matter in this case.
My hope, therefore, is that we can as Cumbrians harness the strength of our opposition and highlight the importance of our landscape to our economy and our lives, and stop trying to force such developments through.
3.7 Main Planning Issues Raised: Benefits raised through renewable energy and consequent reduction in Carbon emissions in the context of national targets. Diversification of rural enterprise and economic benefits that may arise. Scale, siting and design and the visual impact and impact upon landscape character of area including Lake District National Park. Impact upon tourism economy. Impact upon highway safety. Noise impacts upon local amenity. Impact upon ecological interests. Concerns over precedent.
3.8 Planning Assessment: 3.8.1 Government policy within the National Planning Policy Framework encourages renewable energy schemes and requires local planning authorities to positively promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.
3.8.2 The Government is committed to providing 15% of national energy source through renewable energy by 2020. This figure of 15% is also represented to be achieved at a regional level by 2015, in accordance with Policy EM17 of the still extant North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy. The Strategy further promotes a regional figure of 20% by 2020. The figures provided in the Regional Spatial Strategy are however given little weight in light of the Government‟s intention to abolish this plan. That said the 15% target by 2020 is still very much a current National objective.
3.8.3 Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan supports renewable energy schemes where there will be no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively. Support is to be given where there is relationship with other utility infrastructure, no detrimental impact upon local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications. Proposals must take all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on landscape, environmental, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. The policy further requires measures to be included to secure the satisfactory removal
10 of structures/related infrastructure and remediation of land following cessation of the operation of wind turbines.
3.8.4 Policy CS20 of Eden District Council‟s Core Strategy supports renewable energy proposals where there will be no significant unacceptable effects which cannot be mitigated or are not outweighed by the national and regional need for renewable energy development or the wider environmental, social and economic benefits that the scheme may bring. Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy requires new development to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the District‟s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area, and protecting and where possible enhancing the Districts distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.
3.8.5 Saved Policy NE1 of the Eden Local Plan requires new development in the open countryside to meet local infrastructure needs or if a need is established in the location which is sufficient to outweigh environmental cost. The policy further requires development to be appropriately sited with landscaping to minimise impact, the design and material to be appropriate to the location and for no unacceptable level of harm to be caused upon interests of acknowledged importance.
3.8.6 The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document identifies the site as within an area of low/moderate landscape capacity. This zone is recognised as a higher limestone area and the assessment suggests that a small group of 3 - 5 turbines may be acceptable. However, while the study refers to small group possibly being acceptable, this must be balanced against the specific site impacts.
3.8.7 In assessing the application, the two turbines will produce up to 386,000 kWh per year and reduce greenhouse carbon gas emissions by up to 206 tonnes per annum. This is not so insubstantial and clearly carries weight in favour of the scheme that will help towards reaching the Government‟s national renewable energy target of 15% by 2020. Likewise, weight is attached in favour of the application to the farm being able to reinvest its energy costs back in the local economy. Although details are lacking as to how the electrical connection will be made from the turbines to the farm, details can be secured by condition in principle should Members deem the proposal acceptable.
3.8.8 While there are clearly tangible benefits to be had by the proposal as with any renewable energy proposal, in this instance there are considered to be far worse negative impacts that result in the proposal being considered unacceptable.
3.8.9 It is considered that a fundamental objection exists in respect to a harmful impact upon the visual amenity and landscape character of the area. The turbines are proposed to be sited near the ridgeline of attractive rugged and rolling open countryside. As confirmed in the Zone of Theoretical Visual Influence Maps (ZTVI) supplied by the Lake District National Park Authority (see appendix 1), the turbines at both hub (25m) and blade tip (34m) will be seen in all directions from large areas of surrounding land at both short and long distances. This includes the attractive immediate open countryside at the application site, the surrounding Shap countryside/village and the eastern fells of the Lake District National Park. The site location affords an attractive intermediate landscape setting adjacent to the National Park (approximately 1500m to the west) while also being attractive
11 when observed within its own immediate surroundings. The turbines will be hidden in part or in full within the land form at only a few locations from the public realm - eg from the A6 to the west/south west of the site. The existence of adjacent similar sized vertical pylons and the M6 motorway are not considered to alleviate the considered harmful impact upon visual amenity and landscape character. The M6 is generally positioned within the land form and the pylons are of a fixed lattice design. Through such visual impact mitigation measures the existing level of industrialisation is considered to be at a level that does not overburden the high standard of visual amenity and intrinsic landscape character of the site concerned. The turbines, through their scale, form and rotation will draw far greater visual prominence and attention to the location than existing man made structures and roads. The turbines will introduce a level of industrialisation to the landscape that is considered harmful and overburden some to the visual amenity and character of the attractive open countryside. The level of harm is exacerbated in light of the high numbers of persons/receptors that pass by the area on main transport routes - such receptors gain a high appreciation of the visual amenity and landscape quality in light of the existing qualities. In summary, the application is considered fundamentally unacceptable by virtue of its harmful impact upon visual amenity and landscape character aside from any further concerns to be discussed.
3.8.10 Objections have been received that the turbines will directly harm the area‟s tourist economy. There are various reports and surveys that point towards there turbines either being a draw or putting people of visiting an area. In looking at the application, attention must be drawn towards fact. There is not considered to be any firm and robust demonstrable evidence that could support the objectors‟ assertions that the proposed wind turbines will affect the area‟s tourist industry.
3.8.11 Turning to concerns raised in respect to perceived harmful distraction of drivers using the adjacent main routes, it is noted that the Highways Authority and Highways Agency have no objections in this regard in light of the separation distances from such routes.
3.8.12 Objections have been received in respect to the application not containing evidence demonstrating that there will be no adverse noise impact upon noise sensitive premises including private dwellings. The applicant has not put forward site specific measurements in respect to the application site and surroundings. A statement has been made that the background noise level is high as it is sandwiched between the A6 and M6 and accordingly noise was not a concern when siting these turbines. There is no evidence to support this statement. Noise can travel and background noise can vary. Noise from the M6 is not readily apparent by virtue of it being well sheltered from the application site through being well contained in the landform. The Council can not be sure that there will be no unacceptable noise impact unless it is provided with demonstrable evidence. In this regard it is also recommended that the application be refused.
3.8.13 Concerns have been raised regarding perceived harmful ecological impacts that the turbines will bring. A full ecology report has not been requested in light of aforementioned fundamental objections. Should Committee be minded to approve the application, it is considered that the ecological impacts could be reasonable controlled through a condition precedent requiring information and any identified mitigation measures to be put in place prior to the commencement of the development.
12 3.8.14 Turning to concerns over precedent, while each application is to be judged on its own merits it is considered that should the Council approve the application for wind turbines it will lower the landscape quality and future resilience against other possible similar unacceptable wind turbine schemes in the area.
3.8.15 In conclusion and in balance of the merits and negative impacts of the proposal, it is considered that the harmful impact upon visual amenity and landscape character far outweigh the benefits. In this respect the application is considered contrary to the provisions of Eden Local Plan Saved Policy NE1 and policies CS1, CS16, CS18 and CS20 of the Eden Core Strategy. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that there will be no adverse noise impacts. It is therefore recommend that the application be refused for the reasons outlined in this report.
3.8.16 Finally, concern has been raised by various objectors stating the need for a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Consideration of the need for a full E.I.A is required in accordance with the Regulations. Following consideration of all relevant issues, there is not considered to be a need for full wide scale EIA given that impacts are primarily connected with the impact upon visual amenity and landscape character and land use impacts and risks are considered very minimal.
4 Policy Framework 4.1 The Council has four corporate priorities which are: Housing Quality Environment Economic Vitality Quality Council
4.2 This report meets the Housing, quality Environment and Economic Vitality corporate priorities. 4.3 This report addresses the strategic action in the Corporate Plan.
4.4 This report helps to meet the adopted Planning Policies of the Council.
4.5 Relevant Local Plan Policies: 4.5.1 Eden Core Strategy CS1: Sustainable Development Principles CS16: Principles for the Natural Environment CS18: Design of New Development. CS20: Renewable Energy.
4.5.2 Eden Local Plan (Saved Policies) Policy NE1 - Development in the Open Countryside
4.5.3 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan
Policy R44: Renewable Energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs.
13 4.5.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document Eden Farm Diversification Planning Document
4.5.5 National Planning Policy Framework
4.5.6 Regional Spatial Strategy (North West Plan)
5. Implications 5.1 Legal 5.1.1 There are no legal implications to report as a result of the recommendation. 5.2 Financial 5.2.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
5.2.2 In adopting the Corporate Plan 2011-14, the Council confirmed its use of its stated Resource Allocation Categories. These help the Council prioritise the allocation of funding to reflect corporate priorities. The financial implications of any proposal must be consistent with this.
This service falls within category B for resource allocation purposes. This category includes services which are a corporate priority and where modest but consistent improvement is required and Investment would be made either:
i) to make modest improvement to existing performance; or ii) on an „invest to save‟ basis to improve performance related to a business case; or iii) where new legislation/standards are imposed.
5.3 Equality and Diversity 5.3.1 There are no equality and diversity implications arising directly from this report.
5.3.2 The Council has to have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010 and related statutes.
5.4 Environmental 5.4.1 Refusing this application will have implications upon the Governments overall renewable energy target of achieving 15% of its energy consumption by renewable sources by 2020.
5.4.2 The Council has to have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 5.5 Crime and Disorder 5.5.1 There are no crime and disorder implications arising directly from this report.
14 5.5.2 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the Council has to have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 5.6 Children 5.6.1 There are no child welfare implications arising directly from this report.
5.6.2 Under the Children Act 2004 the Council has to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 5.7 Risk Management 5.7.1 There are no risk management implications arising directly from this report.
6. Reasons for Decision/Recommendation
6.1 On balance and in the absence of overriding justification, the proposed wind turbines by virtue of their scale and prominent siting in the open countryside would have an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenity and landscape character of the area, contrary to the provisions of Eden Local Plan Saved Policy NE1 and policies CS1, CS16, CS18 and CS20 of the Eden Core Strategy. The applicant has further failed to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable impact upon persons at noise sensitive premises.
G Clark Head of Planning Services
Governance Checks: Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Adam McNally Telephone Number: 01768 212487
15