to
14 February 2014
Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 25 February 2014 at 1.00 pm in Council Chamber - Allerdale House
Membership:
Councillor Peter Bales (Chairman)
Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong Councillor Carole Armstrong Councillor Bill Bacon Councillor Nicky Cockburn Councillor Len Davies Councillor Bill Finlay Councillor Chris Garrard Councillor Joe Holliday Councillor Margaret Jackson Councillor William Jefferson Councillor George Kemp Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Billy Miskelly Councillor Ron Munby Councillor Sam Standage Councillor Celia Tibble Councillor Martin Wood Councillor Joan Wright
Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. If you have any questi ons or queries simply contact Paula McKenzie on 01900 702557.
Agenda
1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 6)
To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 4 February 2014.
2. Apologies for absence
3. Declaration of Interest
Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.
4. Questions
To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.
5. Development Panel 2.2013.0600 - Outline application for residential development comprising of 16 dwellings a mixture of houses and bungalows, Land off School Brow, Brigham, Cockermouth (Pages 7 - 22)
6. Devel opment Panel 2.2013.0845 - Proposed erection of a single wind turbine 50m to hub and 77m tip height above existing ground level and other associated infrastructure, West End Farm, Edderside, Allonby (Pages 23 - 60)
7. Development Panel 2.2013 .0827 - Demolition of existing squash courts and erection of detached dwelling resubmission of 2/2013/0431, Squash Club, 16 Senhouse Street, Maryport (Pages 61 - 72)
8. Development Panel 2.2013.0858 - Installation of 1 x 5kw small wind turbin e (evance R9000) 15m to hub 17.4m to tip, Croft House, Bromfield, Wigton (Pages 73 - 90)
Corporate Director
Date of next meeting Tuesday 18 March 2014 at 1.00 pm Council Chamber - Allerdale House
Agenda Item 1
At a meeting of the Development Panel held in Council Chamber - Allerdale House on Tuesday 4 February 2014 at 1.00 pm
Members
P Bales (Chairman)
J Armstrong W H Jefferson C M Armstrong P G Kendall N Cockburn B Miskelly L Davies R Munby B Finlay S Standage C Garrard M G Wood T Gear J Wright J Holliday
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Bacon, C M Jackson, G Kemp, J Lister and C Tibble.
Staff Present
S Brook, T Gear, K Kerrigan, S Long and P McKenzie.
437 Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 14 January 2014 were signed as a correct record.
438 Declaration of Interest
None received.
439 Questions
None received.
440 Public participation
The following objectors/applicants addressed the Panel.
Paul Crooks and David Colborn on behalf of Boltons Parish Council outlined their objections to application 2/2013/0037. The agent Andrew Philpott had a statement read out on his behalf.
Brendan Kelly outlined his objections to application 2/2013/0848. Ward Councillor, David Wilson, had a statement read out on his behalf. The agent Jeff McMaster exercised his right of reply.
Page 1 441 Development Panel - 2.2013.0037 - Proposed 2 wind turbines - Snowhill Farm, Caldbeck, Wigton
The application: Proposed siting of 2x24.6m high (hub) wind turbines, Snowhill Farm, Caldbeck, Wigton.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal.
The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.
Members were advised of 45 letters of objection and 4 letters of support.
The Senior Planning Officer informed members of 1 additional letter of objection that had been received.
Councillor W Jefferson moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor R Munby.
Councillor J Holiday suggested that due to the large amount of local objection in regard to this application it may be beneficial to add that as a reason for refusal to show the Development Panel were listening to their views.
The Head of Development Services advised that this information would be better put in the appeal statement if there was to be one rather than adding it as a reason for refusal.
A vote was taken, 14 in favour of refusal, 0 against and 1 abstention.
The motion in favour of refusal was carried.
The decision: Refused.
Reasons: 1. The proposed turbines, by reason of their scale and elevated location on an exposed hillside, are considered to represent a significant harmful intrusion into the landscape, including the landscape setting of the Lake District National Park, to the detriment of the landscape character and visual amenity of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, and Para’s 7, 14, 17,96,97, 98, 109 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy July 2013.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and concerns with the proposal and determining Page 2 the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority was willing to meet with the Applicant to discuss the best course of action and was also willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.
442 Development Panel - 2.2013.0812 - Conversion of 2 barns into dwellings and demolision building
The application: Conversion of existing attached barns into 2 no. dwellings and demolition of existing redundant agricultural buildings, Fieldside Farm, Dovenby, Cockermouth.
The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.
Members were advised of a further letter of objection from the Parish backing up their objections.
Councillor S Standage moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor P Kendall.
A vote was taken, 13 in favour of approval, 0 against and 2 abstentions.
The motion in favour of approval was carried.
The decision: Approved.
Conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: B1180 P 01 - Existing and Site Location Plan B1180 P 02 - Proposed Barn 1 B1180 P 03 - Proposed Barn 2 B1180 P04 REV B - Proposed Block Plan (Amendment received 21/1/14) B1180 P 05 - Door and Window Details Sewage Treatment Proposals (amendment received (7/1/2014) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.
3. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the method of foul water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Page 3 Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of non-mains drainage in accordance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).
4. The proposed development shall not be occupied until the five agricultural buildings as shown on the approved plan B1180P04 Rev B have been demolished and removed from the site. Reason : In the interests of visual and residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre-Submission Draft May 2013.
5. The development shall be undertaken only in full accordance with the mitigation and recommendations within the Bat and Barn Owl Survey dated 28/6/2013 Ref. ET13BAT002.001. Reason : In the interests of safeguarding wildlife protected by law in accordance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).
6. Before development commences, details of the design and siting of a barn owl nesting box within 200 metres of the site and an accessible nesting space for barn owls in Barn 2 shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. These measures shall be implemented as approved and in full accordance with the recommendations within Bat and Barn Owl Survey dated 28/6/2013 Ref ET13BAT002.001. Reason : In the interests of safeguarding wildlife protected by law in accordance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).
7. Prior to the carrying out of any construction works the existing buildings occupying the site shall be recorded in accordance with a Level 2 survey as described by English Heritage's document 'Understanding Historic Buildings, A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006', and following its completion a copy of that survey shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a permanent record is made of the buildings of architectural and historic interest prior to their alteration as part of the proposed development.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no external alterations or additions shall be made to any dwelling hereby approved and no buildings, extensions, gates, fences or walls (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be carried out within the curtilage of any dwelling without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Page 4 Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the original building and its surroundings.
9. Before any of the dwellings hereby approved are occupied, the first 10 metres of the existing access shall be surfaced in tarmacadam or other cement bound surface. Reason : In order to protect the surface of the public highway in the interests of highway safety.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
443 Development Panel - 2.2013.0848 - Change of use from A1 retail to A5 hot food takeaway - 56 King Street, Aspatria, Wigton
The application: Change of use from A1 retail to A5 hot food takeaway, 56 King Street, Aspatria, Wigton.
The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.
Members were advised of 6 letters of objection and a further letter from Councillor Campbell raising her concerns.
Councillor W Jefferson moved refusal due to traffic problems. This was seconded by Councillor J Wright.
Councillor B Finlay moved refusal due to traffic problems and un-neighbourly development. This was seconded by Councillor N Cockburn.
A vote was taken, 3 in favour of refusal due to traffic problems and un- neighbourly development, 12 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of refusal due to traffic problems and un-neighbourly development was lost.
A vote was taken, 8 in favour of refusal due to traffic problems, 7 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of refusal due to traffic problems was carried.
The decision: Refused. Page 5 Reasons: 1. The Local Planning Authority considered the proposed takeaway would increase on-street vehicular traffic movements and parking congestion on the A596 in the locality of the application site to the detriment of highway safety contrary to Policy RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
444 Appeal Decision - 2.2011.0973 - Wind turbine - Brayton Park, Brayton, Aspatria, Wigton
Appeal noted.
445 Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0488 - Wind turbine - Land off Charity Lane, High Harrington, Workington
Appeal noted.
446 Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0706 - Wind turbine - Clea Mire, Westward, Wigton
Appeal noted.
447 Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0753 - Wind turbine - Firs Farm, Crookdake
Appeal noted.
448 Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0315 - Wind turbine - Land to the west of Goose Green Farm, Crookdake, Aspatria
Appeal noted.
449 Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0682 - Wind Turbine - Land adjoining airfield, Wiggonby, Wigton
Appeal noted.
450 Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0838 - 8 dwellings including 2 affordable dwellings - Shawbank Brow, Dean, Workington
Appeal noted.
451 Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0603 - Wind turbine - Land to east of Prospect House, High Scales
Appeal noted.
452 Appeal Decision - 2.2013.0245 - Residential Development - Land adjacent to Cockermouth RUFC Lorton Road, Cockermouth
Appeal noted.
The meeting closed at 2.40 pm Page 6 Agenda Item 5
Allerdale Borough Council
Development Panel
2/2013/0600
Reference No: 2/2013/0600 Received: 27 June 2013 Proposed Outline application for residential development comprising of 16 Development: dwellings a mixture of houses and bungalows Location: Land off School Brow Brigham Cockermouth Applicant: Fitz Estate Drawing Numbers: S61 P 02 Rev B - Site Plan/Location Plan/Section (amendment received 5/2/2014) ET13SCO003.002(R1) Ecological Scoping Report (amendment received 6/2/2014)ET13SCO(GCN)003 Survey for Great Crested Newts 2013-669 Phase 1 Desk Top Study Report RO/11049.3 Drainage Statement RO/11049.CR.2 Culvert Report (amendment received 14/1/2014)
Policies: Policy EN13 - Flood plains and flood risk, Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved)
Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)
Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment, Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN27 - Protecting SSSI's Policy EN3 – Landscaping Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN4 - Tree & Hedgerow Preservation Orders Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land
Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved)
Policy HS8 - Housing design, Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing Policy EN13 - Flood plains and flood risk
National Planning Policy Framework
Page 7 Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre-Submission Draft May 2013 Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development, Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S7 - A mixed and balanced housing market
Relevant Planning None History:
Representations: Parish Council – Object regarding cumulative impact of residential development including the approvals at Kirkcross and Lawson Garth extending the size of the village in an unsustainable manner with limited local facilities. Comment on the school being at full capacity with no realistic prospect of extension without land purchase. Observation that the highway fronting the site is subject to heavy traffic including lorries from the local Tendley quarry. Object to the proposed mains drainage despite the acceptance of United Utilities.
Cumbria County Council . Do not object with appropriate commuted support for education as accounted for in the report.
Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions as accounted for in the report.
Environment Agency – No comment as the application falls outside the type of development the EA wish to comment on. The site is not in a designated zone of flood risk.
Allerdale Drainage Engineer – Comments that the application can be supported with appropriate conditions for the completion of the culvert survey and implementation of any mitigation and/or repair.
Environmental Health . No objections regarding contamination subject to conditions for a scheme of remediation as necessary. A condition for a Construction Management Plan recommended to safeguard amenity and highway safety.
County Archaeologist – No objections
Fire Officer – No objections
Allerdale Housing Services – No objections subject to an appropriate Section 106 Agreement to secure local affordable housing reflecting the proven need.
United Utilities – No objection in principle to connecting to the main foul sewer, subject to full details of surface water and foul water drainage on separate systems.
Page 8 Natural England – No objection regarding ecology following the updated survey and habitat survey for the Great Crested Newt. No impact upon the R Derwent SSSI anticipated and no further assessment required.
The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. Adjoining landowners have been notified. Forty-eight letters of representation have been received as accounted for in the report.
Report Proposal
Outline application (considering access) for residential development. An illustrative plan proposes 16 dwellings of varying house types including 3 dwellings reserved for local affordable occupancy. A screening opinion has been provided concluding that an Environmental Statement is not required (SCR/2013/0054).
Site and Surroundings
The site of approximately 0.87 hectares is sited on the edge of the existing settlement of Brigham and is undeveloped agricultural grazing land. The site has a road frontage and is gently undulating, enclosed by traditional walls, hedgerows and fencing. A number of scattered trees within the site are noted.
The site has frontage to the public highway with an existing pavement linking the school to the west with the village of Brigham.
Existing residential development is noted directly adjacent to the east (Hillcrest and with a row of semi-detached dwellings opposite (School Brow). A small row of terraced cottages are noted adjacent to the west (Ladywath Cottages) and the local primary school is 150 metres to the west.
Policy Context
Allerdale Local Plan
The site is beyond the Settlement Limit of Brigham as defined within the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved). Policy HS4 considers such residential development in the open countryside to be unacceptable unless there is a proven agricultural need. This Policy is now out-of-date having regard to guidance within the NPPF
Policy EN25 considers non-essential development in the open countryside.
Policy HS8 (First Alteration) considers housing design and
Page 9 requires that ‘proposals are well related to existing development’ with the assessment of various criteria including iii) form and massing….’new development should not be intrusive and should relate well to existing development and natural features….’
Policy HS9 (First Alteration) considers infrastructure for housing namely access from the public highway and drainage.
Policy HS7 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration 2006 Saved) implements a sequential approach to the release of housing land, normally requiring the development of appropriate brown field land before green field sites. However although the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) it does not require it.
Whilst brownfield development is sustainable, sequential tests are no longer fundamental to the requirements of decision taking and therefore Policy HS7 carries little weight. Members have supported this concept in the determining of other large housing development sites at greenfield sites at Harrington, Stainburn and Maryport and more locally at Lawson Garth, Brigham.
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its presumption in favour of sustainable development means that all sites are to be judged on their own merits regardless of location and is given significant weight over and above superseded or out- of-date policies.
The NPPF advises the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development which has three dimensions.
“These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:
Para 7…
• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and
Page 10 support its health, social and cultural well-being; and • an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.
The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts, should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does however provide considerable emphasis in the need to have an up-to-date plan in place and the weight that should be given to out-of-date plans.
The relevant Local Plan policies relevant to this application that are ‘saved’ and seen to be in accordance with the principles and aims of the NPPF.
At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. When considering planning applications this means:
“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:
Para 14….
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole: or • specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.
The core principles of sustainable development and guidance within the NPPF consider the appropriateness of housing in general terms.
Para 17….
Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These 12 principles are that planning should:
be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area.
Page 11 Plans should be kept up-to-date, and be based on joint working and co-operation to address larger than local issues. They should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency;
proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities;
Para 216….
From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
The emerging Policies S1, S4, S32 and S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre –submission Draft May 2013 can also be given weight.
Assessment
Principle of Development
As an outline application the planning merits of the development centre on the principal of the proposal. The benefits are that the proposed development site is physically well related to the existing settlement limit of Brigham and appears as a natural extension to the Settlement Limit without affecting settlement or landscape
Page 12 character.
This site is of a modest scale providing an illustrative layout of dwellings.
Brigham is a recognised settlement in both the current and emerging Local Plans by virtue of its services including school, church and shop and with a bus route in reasonable proximity to Cockermouth and the full range of town centre services and facilities. It is currently defined as an infill village within the current Local Plan but is proposed to become a Local service Centre in the emerging Local Plan (subject to the ongoing examination).
The Council presently has a four year housing land supply which is below that required under the NPPF guidance. This weighs in support of the application.
In terms of the principle of development and the core principles of the NPPF the proposals are acceptable. Policy HS4 is considered out of date and of no weight to this application.
Cumulative Impact/Prematurity
Representations received in relation to the application raise the issue of the number of applications submitted for residential development in the village.
The Council has approved 3 schemes in Brigham that will yield a total of 75 residential units. These approvals will lead to a 24% increase in the total number of dwellings in the village, based on the number recorded at the time of the 2011 census.
Two of these schemes (Kirkcross Quarry 2/2012/0784 and Lawson Garth 2/2013/0260), accounting for 72 of the units have been approved in the last 7 months. In addition to these, there has also been an application at Ellerbeck Brow (2/2012/0660) for 34 units that was refused by Members (18/12/2012) and dismissed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate (17/9/2013)
This application of 16 units, therefore, represents the fourth major residential application received in the village in the space of 15 months. If approved, it would lead to a 29% increase in the total number of dwellings in the village.
There is concern that the number of approved and pending applications for residential development in Brigham (and the yield of these sites) is both prejudging and pre-empting decisions that should be taken through the local plan site allocations process. In the emerging Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Brigham is identified as a Local Service Centre. The Plan identifies that 20% of the total
Page 13 housing growth identified for the Allerdale Plan Area should be directed to the Local Service Centre tier, which contains 11 settlements in total. The role of the Site Allocations DPD (Local Plan Part 2) is to apportion the 20% growth between these 11 settlements in a sustainable manner, taking into account
• The Local Plan strategy • Policy requirements (such as the need to deliver affordable housing) • The availability of appropriate land as being suitable for development • The level of current housing commitments and completions since 2011 • Infrastructure requirements and constraints • Key constraints such as the natural environment (including Natura 2000 sites), landscape, the historic environment; • The ability to accommodate growth without harm to character, setting or the surrounding landscape.
There is a concern that that development decisions for Brigham are being application led and not plan led, as advocated in Para 17(i) of the NPPF. It is important that distribution of growth between the 11 settlements that form part of the LSC tier in the emerging Local Plan is properly considered and proportional so that the options that perform most strongly and sustainably - taking in both the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment requirements.
It is therefore considered that in view of the incomplete Local Plan site allocation process, approval of this current application would be harmful and premature. Prematurity can be seen as a reason for refusal where approval of an application would undermine the development plan process as remarked by the Inspector at the recent examination of the emerging Local Plan. It is considered that this weighs against the proposal.
Landscape Impact
Whilst the site is outside the current development limits, it is considered that as the site represents a logical extension of development of Brigham that it would not adversely impact on the character of the wider landscape. Views from the Derwent Valley already have the backdrop of the line of houses on School Brow which limits any visual impact. It is therefore considered the proposals does not give rise to any fundamental conflict with the provisions of Local Plan Policy EN25 which seeks to safeguard against development that results in unacceptable harm to the landscape. Likewise the proposal is not considered to be at odds with the NPPF which seeks recognition for the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
Page 14
Highways
Access is a consideration as part of this outline application. The proposed access from the public highway has been accepted by the Highway Authority with appropriate conditions. The access and visibility splays can easily be achieved with some hedgerow removal and set back. Approximately 17 metres of hedgerow is required for removal to create the principal site access. This has been justified by a qualified hedgerow assessment concluding that the hedge is not classed as an ‘important hedgerow’ within the scope of the Hedgerow Regulations.
Reference has been made to the Planning Inspector’s comments regarding the Ellerbeck Lane development refused by Members and dismissed at appeal. The Inspector commented upon the highway conditions with parked vehicles and the ability to secure the visibility splays. The requirement for a Traffic Regulation Order (yellow lines) to overcome this has been discussed with the Highway Authority who has concluded as follows.
The Highway Authority has assessed the site as being conveniently located for pedestrians to reach the nearby school 150 metres west, by means of the existing pavement and proposed footway link.
The visibility splays are considered more than adequate exceeding the standard for the development and highway conditions at this location. There is no proven need or recognised highway dangers to suggest that yellow lines are required. Such yellow lines would not be enforced within this 30mph zone and the Highway Code would be relied upon that resists parking within 15 metres of a junction. The Highway Authority makes reference to the countless junctions to residential developments in the County where such traffic regulation is not required. They comment that breaches of the highway code regarding parking are common near schools across the District which becomes a law enforcement issue. A traffic regulation order can be employed at a later date should the perceived highway danger become a reality.
It is Officer opinion that the highway conditions at School Brow are very much different from those at Ellerbeck Lane with no obvious conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. The road is wider and kerbed with footways and street lighting. The road is classified and has far better connectivity, traffic control and signage. The Highway Authority’s conditions are considered adequate in assuring highway safety consistent with many other residential developments of this type. The siting of the development is unlikely to generate traffic flows that would impact upon the traffic conditions within the village with direct routes to the A66 and
Page 15 onward avoiding the village centre.
Drainage
Foul drainage is planned to the main sewer and accepted by United Utilities with reference to the submitted drainage statement.
Surface water drainage is planned to a watercourse on the southern boundary of the site and in turn will follow a culvert before reaching the River Derwent. Further to the drainage statement, a qualified report has been produced on the condition of the culvert and its capability of providing appropriate surface water drainage of the site. A degree of local objection and comment regarding this culvert has been received and the matter is concluded as follows.
The drainage report has identified substantial problems with the underground culvert in the area around and beneath Brigham school. A strategy for cleaning and repair has been proposed with additional silt traps to minimise further blockage.
However, of some significance is that the survey of the culvert was abandoned due to a substantial blockage part way along the culvert that could not be overcome. The survey of the culvert and its condition is therefore incomplete. The culvert as means of surface water drainage can therefore not be judged fit for purpose until a complete survey and scheme of repair and maintenance has been provided. With the deliverability of this upgrade and maintenance also in doubt involving third party ownership (C.C.C.), a planning condition is not considered adequate to achieve and safeguard the necessary surface water drainage.
Ecology
A qualified ecological report of the site has been undertaken at this outline stage to discount any issues regarding the site as a habitat. This has been revised and updated to consider the total hedgerow removal and setback.
Particular emphasis has been given to the site as a possible habitat for the Great Crested Newt with an additional report. A full survey at the request of Natural England has been undertaken during the appropriate summer season. The report identifies no presence of the species with no need for further survey.
The report concludes that the site has no statutory designation and is not unique or important as a wildlife habitat. The hedgerow has no special characteristics to resist its removal or replanting. Standard site awareness during construction and suggested mitigation is recommended which can be conditioned.
Page 16 Development is therefore acceptable with minimal impact generally. Natural England has responded to all the updated ecological reports with no objection and reference to their standing advice.
Contaminated Land
A Desk Top Study has been provided. Further investigations have been recommended within this Phase 1 study which can be conditioned accordingly as advised by Allerdale Environmental Protection.
Site Layout
With this a reserved matter, the applicant has provided an indicative layout of 16 dwellings and estate road. The illustrative layout shows an arrangement of different house types well related to each other and to existing development. Private gardens and driveways are proposed with the site enclosed by hedgerow on its frontage to the highway. A landscaping scheme is illustrated which is considered a requirement at this semi-rural location and can be conditioned to include the boundary hedgerow.
The layout accommodates the 16 houses and bungalows comfortably at an appropriate density. Officers are satisfied that a satisfactory standard of development can be achieved with flexibility within the site regarding precise siting.
Design and Appearance
With this a reserved matter, the precise details of design and materials are not subject of this application. The applicant has illustrated a variety of house types that can be designed accordingly with regard to this semi-rural location.
Residential Amenity
With existing dwellings directly adjacent to the site and opposite (School Brow 30 metres separation) impact upon residential amenity has been considered. With design and siting a reserved matter, any impact upon residential amenity can be minimised. The siting options on the site can minimise impact with bungalows where appropriate. The roadside plots would lend themselves to bungalow development reducing impact generally. This can be addressed with a reserved matters application.
A Construction Management Plan regarding construction and site traffic is to be conditioned in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety.
Page 17 Affordable Housing
The application proposes 16 dwellings which triggers the need for a 20% contribution to local affordable housing secured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Housing Services has confirmed that a need exists from the most recent housing survey. They have requested two 2 bedroom houses for social rent and one 3 bedroom house for discounted sale. The applicant has agreed to this with a Heads of Terms.
Education
Although Cumbria County Council has not classed this site as a Category 1 strategic site, it has identified an increase in pupil numbers of 3 children to the primary school as a product of the development. A financial contribution of £36,153 has been requested for school improvements and/or transportation to other schools where there is spare capacity. This decision has been reached considering the cumulative impact upon the school from the other residential approvals in the catchment area including Fitz Park, Cockermouth and Kirkcross, Brigham. The Lawson Garth development has not been considered in these calculations by C.C.C. as the approval is still pending the signing of the Section 106 Agreement. The applicant agrees to this contribution.
C.C.C. has confirmed that with regard to potential uplift of pupil numbers from the Kirkcross development and The Fitz, Cockermouth, there are no places available in any year group at Brigham school. (Additional pupils from the Fitz development may not be fully realised with schools equally accessible in Cockermouth itself).
There are options to direct the financial contribution to additional classrooms or transportation of children to other schools with capacity. Members will recall this debate with the Lawson Garth application.
The site of the school is constrained and while a full feasibility study has not been undertaken it is believed that the school cannot be expanded. However it is possible that agricultural land adjacent to the school could be purchased to provide a larger school site. The pooling of financial contributions from all of the developments in Brigham would make this option more viable. The County Council has confirmed that their Property Team is researching this possibility.
The County Council in summary confirm that attending school should always be in a sustainable manner where possible by walking or cycling. As such, transportation to school is always a last resort.
Page 18 Representations
Forty-eight letters of objection have been received summarised as follows
Cumulative impact from other developments. Reference is made to the recent approvals in Brigham for residential developments at Kirkcross and Lawson Garth. Concern is raised over a disproportionate supply of housing for the village compared to other settlements putting a strain on local infrastructure and highway safety. Comment is made that this is a result of the lack of a current Local Plan, unpredictable five year land supply and developer pressure.
Highways. Objection has been raised on the grounds of highway safety regarding the site entrance, proximity to local school, congestion from street parking at peak school times, and traffic flows and congestion through the village.
Drainage. Surface water drainage problems have been reported locally regarding the proposed culvert and the applicant’s drainage report has been criticised as being inconclusive. With concerns over implementation and maintenance. The report is also seen to be ‘developer led’ with no independent assessment.
School capacity. Concern has been raised that the school is at full capacity and the additional housing will add yet more pressure cumulative to the other recent residential developments approved in the village.
Landscape. Objection has been raised regarding the loss of open countryside with impact upon landscape character and the setting of the village.
Siting. Objection has been received that the site is not well related to the existing village form with inappropriate growth into the open countryside
Ecology. Reference has been made to the site as an important habitat with protected species. Its development is seen to have an adverse impact upon wildlife with the added impact of loss of hedgerow.
Residential amenity. Neighbouring residents have objected to the siting of new dwellings in close proximity and opposite existing residential development. Issues of overlooking and visual impact and conflict with traffic have raised concern.
In response to local representations. It is Officer opinion that the issues regarding the principle of development, with regard to pre-
Page 19 judging and pre-empting decisions that should be taken through the Local Plan site allocations process, are potentially reasons for refusal along with the inconclusive drainage report to achieve satisfactory surface water drainage. All other objections are not considered defensible reasons for refusal and accounted for fully within the report. Detailed plans and qualified reports on highway matters, ecology and hedgerow removal have been accepted and agreed by statutory consultees. The precise details of siting and house types with regard to visual and residential amenity would be in any case are matters to be addressed at the reserved matter stage. It is considered that the site layout has some flexibility to minimise impact.
Local Finance Considerations
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the following local finance considerations are relevant to the consideration of the application.
There will be benefits arising from the scheme through the New Homes Bonus scheme. It is considered the New Homes Bonus is of little weight in judging the overall planning merits of the current scheme.
Conclusion The Inspector at the recent examination stage of the emerging Allerdale Local Plan, in discussing the recently submitted applications in Brigham, considered that some weight could be allocated to it.
The modifications to be undertaken by the Council in response to the examination include ‘The level of current housing commitments and completions since 2011’.
Although Officers acknowledge that the status of the emerging Plan does not reflect the weight of an adopted document, its progression through its respective stages increases the level of weight as a material planning consideration under Para. 216 of the NPPF.
Therefore overall despite the Council not benefiting from a five year land supply, Officers consider that the prematurity aspects relating to the proportional distribution are of greater weight warranting the recommendation of refusal.
Despite the site being considered physically well related to the existing village and with the access acceptable to the Highway Authority, the LPA recommends refusal of the application with regard to the prematurity of the application ahead of the allocation of housing for local centres in the emerging Local Plan.
Page 20 Furthermore, the proposed surface water drainage solution for the site is unproven with an inadequate and incomplete culvert survey.
Recommendation: Refused
Reasons: 1. Having regard to the quantum of approved resid ential units committed for Brigham the local planning authority consider this proposal to be premature in advance of the proper consideration, through the local plan site allocations process, of the sustainable apportionment of the level of housing growth between the settlements identified for the Local Service Centre tier within the emerging Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1). The proposal would therefore undermine the plan-led objectives of the Core Principles, as set out in Paragraph 17, of the National Planning Policy Framework
2.With regard to the conclusions within the applicant’s submitted Culvert Report RO/11049.CR.2, it has not been demonstated that a satisfactory method of surface water drainage can be achieved and maintained thereafter contrary to Policy EN14 0f the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policies EN13 and HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved)
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 21 Page 22
Agenda Item 6
Allerdale Borough Council
Development Panel
2/2013/0845
Reference No: 2/2013/0845 Received: 31 October 2013 Proposed Proposed erection of a single wind turbine 50m to hub and 77m tip Development: height above existing ground level and other associated infrastructure Location: West End Farm Edderside Allonby Maryport Applicant: Mr & Mrs Chester
Drawing Numbers: A.0244_11-A - Proposed Layout
A.0244_05-A - Site Location Plan
A.0244_08-A - Turbine Foundation
A.0244_09-A - Access Track Cross-Section
A.0244_08-A - Proposed Control Building
A.0244_12-A- Turbine Elevations
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)
Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN20 - Protection of AONB Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN35 - Creation of new wildlife habitats Policy CO20- Surveys of archaeological sites
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre-submission Draft May 2013 Policy S32 – Safeguarding amenity
Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document. (July 2007)
Page 23 National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 (NPPF)
Achieving sustainable development – paragraph 14.
Chapter 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change – paragraph 98.
Chapter 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.
Ministerial statement
A ministerial statement by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP was issued on 6/6/2013. The statement regards the planning reforms to make the planning process more accessible to communities giving local people the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.
The statement makes specific and direct reference to on shore turbine development and the view that decisions are not always reflecting the locally-led planning system.
It is stated that action is required to deliver the balance expected within the NPPF and to ensure that protecting the local environment is properly considered alongside the broader issues of protecting the global environment.
In this respect new planning guidance sets out clearly that:
1. The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.
2. Decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect the increasing impact upon
a) the landscape
b) local amenity as the number of turbines in the area increases
3. Local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging impact upon the landscape (i.e. recognise that the impact on predominantly flat landscapes can be as great or greater than on hilly or mountainous ones).
4. Great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting.
Page 24 This statement and guidance is a material planning consideration and should be taken into account in assessing this application along with further detailed guidance published on 30 July 2013.
Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy 30 July 2013
Relevant Planning The Local Planning Authority issued a screening opinion History: (SCR/2013/0050) concluding that the proposed development constitutes EIA development with regard to visual and landscape impact.
A wind turbine was also proposed 2 fields further east (Applicant - Mr Scott at Carrick Dean, Edderside): 2/12/0622 – Wind Turbine (41.7m to blade tip) with associated meter house and access track. However, this application was withdrawn on 24th September 2012. The Local Planning Authority issued a screening opinion for this site (SCR/12/0012).
Representations: Allonby Parish Council – Recommend refusal and object on the grounds of visibility and cumulative effect in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Allhallows Parish Council - Strongly objects to the application on the following grounds: 1) Cumulative effect. 2) Visual amenity. The proposal is in open countryside which will be seen from the parish and will adversely affect visual amenity. 3) Survey. In 2010 the council surveyed every house in the parish and the vast majority are against the proliferation of land based wind turbines because of the adverse effect they have on their amenity. 4) Government Policy. There have been recent press reports that the Government has changed its policy on wind turbines and will only allow wind turbines to be installed with the consent of local communities.
Bromfield Parish Council – Object as they believe that the proposed turbine is higher than necessary for purely farm use. They would be supportive of something smaller.
Boltons Parish Council – Object on the following grounds: Cumulative impact; Unacceptable visual impact on the AONB; Unacceptable impact on residential amenity.
Holme St Cuthbert Parish Council - Recommend refusal and object for the following reasons: 1) Political climate changing – Removing support for inland turbines. 2) No suitable road access. 3) Over saturation of turbines in the area. 4) Adverse impact on AONB. 5) Adverse impact on the SSSI status of the Solway Coast and
Page 25 Mawbray Banks. Detrimental to wildlife. 6) The amount of energy required to build the access etc will negate any power gained. 7) One turbine will not make a vast difference to renewable energy in this area. 8) Studies and photos submitted as part of the application did not show local view points. The chosen points for the photos were not near the proposed site but miles away. 9) It is an un-neighbourly proposal.
Westnewton Parish Council – Recommend refusal for the following reasons: 1) The turbine is to be de-rated to just 500kw to provide increased income from the feed in Tariff System. This is not maximizing sustainable energy generation. 2) The application was originally by Brownrigg Hall, which already has consent for 2 turbines. The 3 turbines will be in too close proximity to each other (approximately 1km) and this proposed turbine is of a completely different type. The mismatched appearance of the three turbines would create a totally unacceptable visual discord in the landscape. 3) It is not a farm sized turbine and is clearly meant as a purely commercial project. 77 metres in height is taller than anything else in the near vicinity and would be completely out of place in this environment. It would completely dominate the local area, and adversely impinge on the Solway AONB and on the Heritage Coast. 4) The developer has produced a list of 20 other wind projects in the area. However, the list is far from comprehensive. 5) The district has over 62% of Cumbria's onshore wind turbines, many of which are very close by, Therefore there is a significant cumulative effect. 6) The impact on the nearby SSSI’s has not been adequately taken into account and there are many protected birds in the area that will be in danger.
Arqiva – No objections
Ministry of Defence – No objection. Standing advice.
Civil Aviation Authority – No objection. Standing advice.
Solway Rural Initiative – No reply to date
NATS – Although the proposed development is likely to impact on their electronic infrastructure they have no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Stobart Air – No Objection.
Page 26 Geospatial Air Info Team – No reply to date.
County Archaeologist – The site is 250 metres away from a designated heritage asset, the Scheduled Monument of the ‘Oval Enclosure 120m North of Brownrigg Hall’. It is also located 450 metres from another Scheduled Monument and the boundary of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site visual impact zone. Also the EIA acknowledges that there is a high concentration of prehistoric sites and there is a ‘high level of potential for previously unrecorded Iron Age / Romano-British remains to be located within the site’.
Given the above, the development has the potential to disturb nationally significant archaeology remains. And in line with section 12 of the NPPF information should be provided on the presence/absence of any heritage assets located at the site and how their significance will be affected by the development proposals, prior to the determination of the application. This information should be obtained by an archaeological evaluation.
English Heritage – The proposed turbine lies within 500m of the boundary of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site visual impact zone, as well as two scheduled ancient monuments, the nearer of which is some 250m away. Another scheduled monument and a number of listed buildings lie within 1km of the application site. All three ancient monuments are cropmark sites, consisting of buried archaeological deposits, with no traces visible on the surface. English Heritage does not consider that the impact on the settings of individual scheduled ancient monuments or on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Hadrian’s Wall WHS is sufficient to justify the withholding of planning permission.
However, the proposed development does have the potential to impact upon nationally important but undesignated archaeological remains. English Heritage recommends that this potential is tested prior to the determination of the application.
Natural England – The application site is approximately 2.7km from the Upper Solway Flats & Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is part of the Upper Solway Flats & Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA).
Due to the proximity of the SPA and also the proximity to the area mapped in the RSPB’s document ‘Wind Turbines and Sensitive Bird Populations: A Spatial Planning Guide for on-shore wind farm developments in Cumbria’, as an area used by pink footed geese. Further information on the potential use of the proposed site by these SPA birds is needed. Although a desk- based study has been undertaken further information is needed.
Page 27 Further information is also required to assess the impacts on the Solway Coast AONB. Also Natural England’s standing advice on protected species should be applied to the application.
RSPB – No reply to date
The Solway Coast AONB – Objects. The site is 1.2km outside the AONB and inside the World Heritage Area. This area is within the Solway Coast AONB Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment (2010) as ‘Lowland Landscape Character Type F : Drumlinised Lowland Farmland. It plays an important role as the setting of character areas within AONB. Any turbine situated in this landscape would impinge on the views into and from the AONB towards the Solway Firth and affect undeveloped horizons which form distant backdrops. It is larger than the medium size (30m) turbines and so again would make a large visual impact on the landscape. Also there will be a cumulative effect.
Cumbria Highways – No objections. However, the applicant should submit a Construction Method Statement and Traffic Management Plan once the details have been finalized. This can be conditioned.
Public Rights of Way – No reply to date.
Environmental Protection – No objection subject to standard conditions.
FORCE – Object to the application and advise that the Council should request additional work from the agent or refuse the application on the following grounds : - Inappropriate size and scale of the turbine - Unacceptable landscape impact - The cumulative impact the turbine would have alongside others in the area – This has not been adequately assessed by the agent. - Breach of local and national planning policy - Unacceptable impact on residential amenity - Insufficient information provided to ensure that cultural and heritage interests would be protected - Insufficient information provided to ensure that ecological interests would be protected - Outstanding objection from aviation authority.
Westnewton Action Group – Objects on the following grounds : - It is contrary to Local Planning Policy EN25 – Protecting the Open Countryside. - The landscape assessments and ecological survey are inadequate and therefore unacceptable. - It is an unacceptable and speculative profit making venture
Page 28 that would be an abuse of the local environment and landscapes. - It will impose an unwanted very large commercial structure on nearby residents. And will have an oppressive and dominating effect, adversely affecting the amenity of local residents. - It would have a considerable environmental, visual and cumulative impact on the area. The negative impacts of the project far outweigh any wider benefits claimed by the developer. - The visual intrusion is completely at odds with the scale and character of the surrounding landscape - The turbine is clearly not intended to provide power to the local farm. It is a profit making enterprise that requires a large commercial wind turbine to be deliberately de-rated in order to provide the best profit margin possible. Therefore it is in direct opposition to the principles and the philosophy behind Britain’s ‘sustainable and renewable energy development’. - Given the considerable adverse visual and cumulative effects , especially as it is effectively joining up with 2 other nearby turbines at Brownrigg Hall, creating a local wind farm at this site, the application should be refused.
Five letters of objection and five letters of support (2 from the same household) have been received as follows :
The letters of support comment on the following - West End Farm is in a more discreet situation than many other turbine sites in the area - A turbine will not detract from the surroundings. - The turbine will enhance the area and will harvest the strong winds that they endure in the locality. - It will provide a renewable source of energy and although most people support this in principle they are not prepared to have turbines in their area. - There will also be no significant impact in terms of noise.
The objections from local residents generally refers to : - The closest residential dwellings have been omitted from the map and plans that were submitted with the planning application, namely The Stables; The Coach House; and Edderside Hall. Also, these nearest occupants were not invited to the public meeting held by the developer, Free Wind, on 11 th September 2012. - These’s closest residential dwellings currently have uninterrupted views of the Northern and Western Lake District Fells. Furthermore, The Stables has been designed with its lounge upstairs, and therefore views from this property will be significantly affected. - Adverse impact of the turbine upon the landscape and
Page 29 surrounding countryside. It will be seen from the Lake District National Park, and the Solway AONB. - Adverse impact on wildlife and on the flight path for birds - Blight the environment of local communities especially nearby properties. - Safety issues – Turbines blowing over, catching fire, ice falling from blades and parts becoming detached. - Concerns regarding the flickering effect. - There will be no benefit to the local economy as the turbine is likely to be installed by specialists from outside the area, and it will reduce income from tourism - Cumulative effect of the turbine - Reduce property value. - Negative effect on tourism in the area - Noise concerns, mainly infra-sound, causing a number of health issues. - Concerns that the proposal will lead to the erection of further turbines on the site and a wind farm being created.
Report The Proposal
The turbine would be three bladed with a hub height of up to 50m and a 54m rotor diameter giving a total height to blade tip of up to 77m.
The proposed turbine location is at OS grid reference E310195 N545255. Supplementary elements include a permanent control unit (10m by 5m, with a height of 4.5m to the ridge and 3m to the eves), an access track, underground cabling, and the turbine base. The site area encompassing the whole of the development is 16.001 Ha. Access is gained via a farm track located to the south west of ‘West End Farm’.
Site and Surrounding Area The turbine is proposed to be located approximately 520m south- east of West End Farm on grassed agricultural land. The immediate surroundings are open fields, however, there are a number of residential properties in the immediate locality. The nearest properties, Edderside Hall, The Coach House, and The Stables are located closer to the site than the residential dwelling at West End Farm. These properties are located approximately 420m north east of the proposed turbine. Beyond this there are additional properties within the hamlet of Edderside.
In the wider surroundings, a caravan holiday park is located approximately 800m to the north west of the site, and Brownrigg Hall Farm is approximately 1km to the south west. There are 2 existing turbines at Brownrigg Hall Farm. These were approved under planning reference 2/2013/0336 – Two turbines 15m hub height and 21.5m to blade tip.
Page 30
Policy As core principles, the National Planning Policy Framework includes the requirement to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognizing the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and encourage the use of renewable resources.
The NPPF states that the delivery of low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is central to the economic social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In determining planning applications, LPA’s should:
• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognize that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and
• approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
This positive approach to renewables is underpinned by the Climate Change Act and binding legal targets to reduce carbon emissions.
As the site is in the locality of the AONB members should consider National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 109.
“ The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
Ġprotecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; Ġ recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
Ġ minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;
Ġpreventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and
Ġ remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. ”
Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan restricts development
Page 31 within the open countryside to that which is ‘essential’ to meet a local need. However, the weight to be given to this policy now depends on compatibility with the NPPF which specifies approval of such applications if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. In assessing the merits of the proposed development it is necessary to balance the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed renewable energy development with any adverse environmental impact of the proposed turbine, taking into account the additional advice provided in the recent Ministerial Statement and subsequent guidance (see earlier in the report). Of particular note are extracts from the Planning practice guidance and low carbon energy 30 July 2013 which state:
‘Para 2 advises “Government planning practice guidance can be a material consideration in planning decisions and should generally be followed unless there are clear reasons not to.”…
Para 3 states “…..Planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable. “
Para 8 includes “…..but in considering locations, local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology (see paragraphs 12-13) and, critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including from cumulative impacts (see paragraphs 43-44). The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to. “
Para 11 specifies “…..The expectation should always be that an application should only be approved if the impact is (or can be made) acceptable. “
Para 15 refers to “ In shaping local criteria for inclusion in Local Plans and considering planning applications in the meantime, it is important to be clear that: - the need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections -cumulative impacts require particular attention, especially the increasing impact that wind turbines and large scale solar farms can have on landscape and local amenity as the number of turbines and solar arrays in an area increases -local topography is an important factor in assessing whether wind turbines and large scale solar farms could have a damaging effect on landscape and recognise that the impact can be as great in predominately flat landscapes as in hilly or mountainous areas - great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including
Page 32 the impact of proposals on views important to their setting - proposals in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and in areas close to them where there could be an adverse impact on the protected area, will need careful consideration - protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions”
Para 40 states “….Cumulative visual impacts may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development will be visible from the same point, or will be visible shortly after each other along the same journey. Hence, it should not be assumed that, just because no other sites will be visible from the proposed development site, the proposal will not create any cumulative impacts. “
Para 41 advises “In assessing the impact on visual amenity, factors to consider include: establishing the area in which a proposed development may be visible, identifying key viewpoints, the people who experience the views and the nature of the views. “
Para 42 refers to “In identifying impacts on landscape, considerations include: direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts and temporary and permanent impacts. When assessing the significance of impacts a number of criteria should be considered including the sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource and the magnitude or size of the predicted change. Some landscapes may be more sensitive to certain types of change than others and it should not be assumed that a landscape character area deemed sensitive to one type of change cannot accommodate another type of change. “
Need for Environmental Impact Assessment The Council issued a screening opinion indicating that the proposal was considered to be EIA development.
Needs/Benefits The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF states that applicants are not required to demonstrate overall need as small scale projects contribute significantly to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to the Government’s overall strategy on sustainability and renewable
Page 33 energy development, as emphasized in the Energy White Paper (2007), The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) the UK Energy Road Map (2011) and a significant number of other policies and commitments. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.
Whilst this scheme would make only a small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of the economic benefits to this local farming business. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.
However, as outlined in the recent ministerial statement The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.
Assessment The merits of the proposed development relate to balancing the benefits of renewable energy development against any environmental harm, each application should be assessed on its individual planning merits. It is accepted that national planning policy supports the principle of renewable energy development and its contribution to the national energy targets. However these should subsequently be balanced against any environmental issues or constraints which can be summarised as follows;
Noise The nearest residential properties that are not associated with the proposal are Edderside Hall, The Stables, and The Coach House. These properties are located approximately 420m to the north east of the turbine.
The applicant has undertaken a predicted noise assessment for 7 receptors. The nearest receptor being Edderside Hall located at a distance of 420m from the proposed turbine. The assessment demonstrated that from all 7 receptors the noise level would be below 35Db (A) at wind speeds up to 10m/s. Environmental Protection has confirmed that they have no objection in principle to the proposal. However, to protect the amenity of the surrounding area they recommend that if
Page 34 permission is granted it should be subject to conditions regarding noise levels and noise nuisance.
Ecology The applicant has provided an ecological assessment which states that the site comprises an area of narrow, arable fields divided by species-poor hedgerows with an area of broad-leaved woodland on the site boundary. The surrounding area comprises a mixture of improved grassland and arable fields located on the low-lying areas in the coastal flood plain near the Solway Firth.
The proposal includes the clearance of some hedgerow. However, the ecological assessment identifies mitigations measures to avoid or minimize any potential ecological impacts. To offset the loss of hedgerow habitat, it is proposed that the planting of a new native hedgerow takes place within the proposed development site.
The ecological report states that significant adverse impacts on bats are unlikely to occur as the proposed turbine would be located in excess of 50m from the nearest habitat feature that could be of some importance to bats (i.e the hedgerows that surround the site and the woodland located adjacent to the southern boundary).
The assessment notes that the Ramsar / SPA site is within 20km of the proposed development, the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes, which is designated for its national and international importance for wintering wildfowl and wading birds. There is also the Solway Firth SAC, designated for its estuarine habitats, located approximately 2.1km to the west of the proposed site. And there is one SSSI within a 2km radius of the proposed site, and three SSSIs within 10km.
The applicants report comments that none of the statutory designated sites are hydrologically connected to the proposed development site and therefore there are unlikely to be any direct pollution pathways. In addition, the distances between the proposed development site and the designated sites are considered to be sufficient that the qualifying interests of the sites (including bats and birds) are unlikely to be affected by the proposed wind turbine.
Natural England have commented, however, that further information is required due to the distance from the Upper Solway Flats & Marshes Site (SSSI) which is part of the Upper Solway Flats & Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA); Plus the fact that the site it is within close proximity to the area mapped in the RSPB’s document ‘Wind Turbines and Sensitive Bird Populations: A Spatial Planning Guide for on-shore wind farm developments in
Page 35 Cumbria’, as an area used by pink footed geese.
Although a desk-based survey has been undertaken further information is required on the potential use of the proposed site by these SPA birds.
It is Officers opinion, however, that as the site does not lie within the area mapped out in the RSPB’s document the proposal would not have an adverse impact on sensitive bird populations. Natural England comment that further information is also required assessing the impacts on the Solway Coast AONB. Only two viewpoints (VPs) out of the 18 are from within the AONB boundary and both these are over 2.5km from the turbine. As the designated landscape is the most sensitive feature in the vicinity more VPs from within the boundary closer to the proposed turbine location would assist in assessing the significance of the landscape impacts. VPs from the network of footpaths & bridleways south of Mawbray and the sections of the Cumbria Coastal Way closest to the turbine should have been chosen. The Solway Coast is well used by walkers whose visual amenity is likely to be affected by this development. The Cumbria Coastal Way at its closest point is 2.4km from the proposed site and will eventually become part of the England Coastal Path National Trail as part of the next phase of Coastal Access.
Table 2 within the LVIA methodology acknowledges that any areas within a designated landscape such as the Solway Coast AONB should be afforded a ‘high’ level of sensitivity within the assessment. However, although VP3 is within the AONB it has been assigned a ‘medium’ sensitivity. This would therefore result in a major/moderate effect. VP6 although given a high sensitivity has also only resulted in a moderate affect, but this should be major/moderate based on Table 2.
English Heritage advises that further information is required to be submitted to address these details. However, it is officer’s opinion that there is sufficient information to justify the harmful affect the turbine will have on the AONB.
Historic Environment The site is 250 metres away from a designated heritage asset, the Scheduled Monument of the Oval Enclosure 120m North of Brownrigg Hall. It is also located 450m from another Scheduled Monument, and is within 500m of the boundary of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site visual impact zone. A number of listed buildings lie within 1km of the application site. The ancient monuments are cropmark sites, consisting of buried archaeological deposits, with no traces visible on the surface. English Heritage does not consider that the impact on the settings of individual scheduled ancient monuments or on the Outstanding
Page 36 Universal Value of the Hadrian’s Wall WHS is sufficient to justify the withholding of planning permission.
However, the proposed development does have the potential to impact upon nationally important but undesignated archaeological remains. The EIA submitted with the application acknowledges that there is a high concentration of prehistoric sites and a ‘high level of potential for previously unrecorded Iron Age / Romano- British remains to be located within the site.’ English Heritage and the County Archaeologist advise that In line with section 12 of the NPPF information should be provided on the presence/absence of any heritage assets located at the site and how their significance will be affected by the development proposals. This information should be obtained by an archaeological evaluation.
Planning officer’s have given weight to the views of English heritage and the County Archaeologist and do not consider that the turbine will result in any significant adverse visual impacts on the on the settings of individual scheduled ancient monuments or on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Hadrian’s Wall WHS. However, it is considered that insufficient information has been submitted regarding the potential for unrecorded Iron Age / Romano-British remains to be located within the site.
Transport and Access Access from the public highway is planned using the existing farm access. A 4m wide access track is required to the site. The Highway Authority has indicated they have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Construction Method Statement. Officers consider that an appropriate transport route can be achieved in order to minimise the impacts on the highway. The applicant has provided details of proposed site access and Officers consider that matters regarding traffic movements, vehicle types, traffic routing and delivery periods can be conditioned.
Shadow Flicker In terms of shadow flicker, the standard assessment would be that properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine could potentially be affected by shadow flicker. In this case the rotor diameter is a 54m therefore the zone of influence is 540m. The applicants evidence suggests that the impact of shadow flicker on these properties are below the 30 hours per year guidance threshold for this constraint. Clarification is awaited on three residential properties within the zone which are not included in the assessment (details to be reported at the panel meeting)
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR The CAA, NATS and the MOD have all been consulted on the proposal. The CAA and the MOD have raised no objections to the
Page 37 proposal. NATS did initially object to the proposal as in their preliminary technical findings they found that the development conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. However, after having sufficient time to thoroughly investigate the effects of the proposal on their operations they withdrew their objection. They advised that although the proposed development is likely to impact their electronic infrastructure they have no safeguarding to the proposal (Email dated 21 st January 2014).
Tourism The issue of potential effects on local tourism within the locality has been raised within several of the objection representations. However, the Inspector on the Parkland/Hellrigg appeal, in evaluating impact on tourism including the AONB, considered that if there was not a significant impact on the landscape then the degree of effect on attracting visitors would be limited. He considered the evidence of Scottish research submitted at the appeal indicated that the small number of people discouraged from visiting was insignificant. In the absence of any conclusive evidence on this issue, officers consider it would be difficult to sustain to a reason for refusal at appeal. Further to the Hellrigg appeal officers consider that there is no specific detailed local evidence to demonstrate any conclusive views backed up with evidence.
Landscape/Visual/Residential Impact This is a key issue relating to the merits of the application. The applicant has provided landscape and visual impact assessments and supporting information. The applicant has provided a collection of thematic maps to show the proposed site with regard to landscape character designations, residential properties, distribution of turbines in the area and maps illustrating zones of cumulative visibility. The mapping is supported with photomontage evidence illustrating that extent to which the turbine would be seen from certain vantage points and residential receptors within the locality. The size of the proposal makes the development difficult to screen and by the very nature of the development there is likely to be some significant harmful affects on the landscape and visual amenities of the area; however, the degree of harm needs to be weighed up against the benefits arising from the proposal.
An Environmental Report and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) have been undertaken by the applicant to examine the potential visual impact of the proposed turbine. The methodology of the applicant’s LVIA and its conclusions are as follows.
Landscape Character The application site is located within the 5b Low Farmland
Page 38 landscape classification. The county council’s SPD Wind Energy in Cumbria refers to this landscape designation.
“Overall the Lowland landscape type is judged to have moderate capacity to accommodate turbine development. This reflects moderate sensitivity overall and moderate value as a largely undesignated landscape. A significant exception is the small area of lowland that falls within the Solway Coast AONB designation. Here high value and sensitivity attributable to a sense of remoteness, lack of large scale development and contribution as a backdrop and contrast to wilder coastal edge landscapes indicate that any scale of wind energy development is likely to be inappropriate. Whilst this type has moderately strong historical interest this is attributable to the presence of conservation areas, Roman remains, medieval field patterns, historic parks etc. It is considered that wind energy development could be accommodated provided it does not impinge on the site or setting of these valued features and therefore this value should not reduce capacity in the landscape as a whole. Elsewhere some notable localised geographical variations in the sense of enclosure created by the undulating and rolling topography and regularity of land cover patterns affect appropriateness.
Greatest potential occurs in the open flatter areas and broad ridge tops where small or, in exceptional circumstances, large turbine groups could relate to the medium to large scale landform without dominating wide views and integrate with regular field patterns. The sense of exposure in these areas would also evoke a sense of purpose and rationality. In the more sheltered and enclosed valleys or undulating fringes turbine development would feel over dominant and conflict with more irregular land cover patterns.
Whilst significant interruption by relief and vegetation would assist absorption in the wider landscape these same features are likely to result in unpredictable relationships between turbines and a variable skyline with intensifying or disturbing effects such framing or blade flash over valley rims. A key characteristic limiting capacity is the dispersed pattern of numerous small rural settlements making it difficult to site developments sufficiently distant so as not to adversely affect their sense of scale and character. Settlement size and pattern suggest that up to a small group of turbines would generally be appropriate. Other more localised sensitivities include potential erosion of peaceful rural backwater qualities and impact on valued views from neighbouring high ground or coast, important valleys and towns such as Workington within them.
Page 39
Particular sensitivities in relation to the setting of international and national designations include:
• contribution of the quieter hinterlands to a sense of remoteness and the sequence of contrasting landscapes in the Solway Coast AONB
• open sequential views from recreation and tourist routes along the coastal edge of the AONB and along Frontiers of the Roman Empire: Hadrian’s Wall across the lowland ridges towards Lakeland fells most notably from Cumbria Coastal Way, the B5300, National Cycle Route 72, Hadrian’s Wall Trail and from viewpoints at forts and milecastles associated with the Wall
• distinctive vistas to and from the northern and western fells of the Lake District NP and open estuarine views from the Ravenglass and Eskdale ‘gateway’
• vistas of the north-western tip of the North Pennines AONB” The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by open fields, hedgerows, individual trees, small areas of woodland, isolated dwellings and nearby villages. Under its landscape classification, (Lowland, Sub Type 5b Low Farmland) it has a moderate landscape capacity including the landscape characteristics of; undulating and rolling topography, intensely farmed agricultural pasture dominates with is patchy areas of woodland, (but woodland is uncommon west towards the coast) large and rectangular fields, hedges, hedgerow trees and fences bound fields that criss cross up and over the rolling landscape by a series of ridges and valleys which rise gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells.
The guidance concludes that this landscape capacity has a moderate capacity that has the potential to accommodate a small group (3-5 turbines) or exceptionally a large group (6-9 turbines). This number is not a rigid criteria and must be assessed against the details of the LVIA.
The applicant’s LVIA has identified that there would be the potential for moderate or major localised impact on the character of the lowland landscape from non-specific general viewpoints in the immediate environment. This will however decline and diminish with distance. With moderate impact, reducing to minor/moderate impact further away.
Page 40 It is stated that due to the rolling nature of the landform, and location on elevated ground, the turbine would be visible from a number of elevated vantage points, both within close proximity and from the surrounding area. However, it is stated that beyond approximately 5km the turbine becomes a small scale feature assimilated into the wider composite landscape and therefore would not form a notable feature.
The applicants’ evidence advises that the most notable visual effects would occur within close proximity to the proposed turbine, and include views from residential properties, the B5300 and some minor country lanes (through gaps in the hedgerows) and public rights of way. From the latter two, views would typically be transitory ones. The assessment considers that where close range views to the turbine are afforded, due to the size of the proposed turbine it is not anticipated to be a dominant feature. And it is stated although there would be visual change at close proximity it would not necessarily be a harmful one, merely different to one that exists at present. The assessment also notes that the proposed turbine would generally be viewed associated with other built elements including farmsteads, settlements, roads and overhead lines. It is also acknowledged that any scheme involving renewable energy and wind turbines will form visible elements in the view.
Viewpoints/Receptors A viewpoint assessment has been carried out by the applicant using eighteen viewpoints within a 30km radius of the proposed development. Photomontages and wireframe visualizations have been produced in the standard format to illustrate any potential impact.
The selected viewpoints are not intended to cover every single possible view, but are intended to be representative of a range of receptor types such as residents, walkers on public footpaths and road users, from different directions and distances from the site. In particular, viewpoints on the higher vantage points surrounding the site have been considered.
On the basis of fieldwork observations and a number of measured parameters, including distance and angle of view, the sensitivity of each receptor and magnitude has been assessed by the applicant as follows: (This has determined the applicants’ views of the significance of any impact from the proposed turbine).
Viewpoint 1: View from minor road east of Edderside hamlet (73om north-east) This viewpoint is taken from the unclassified road to the east of Edderside which joins with the B5301 to the south of Tarns Dub. The view looks over gently undulating arable fields with intervening
Page 41 hedgerows. Receptors would include users of the road and residents of the hamlet of Edderside and are assessed to be of High sensitivity.
The turbine would be seen in the middle distance rising above field hedgerows appearing as a dominant feature in this view with 80% of the turbine visible above the skyline. The effects are considered to be of high magnitude. And the visual effect would be of major significance at this viewpoint.
Officers agree that this viewpoint is of high sensitivity and there is a large magnitude of change due to the close proximity of the turbine. This is addressed in the visual amenity section of this report.
The scale of the proposed turbine and its limited separation distance demonstrates the turbine having a prominent extensive and dominant impact on the landscape character.
Viewpoint 2: View from public footpath adjacent to Manor House Caravan Park (750m west) This viewpoint is taken from the public footpath leading to Allonby on the coast. This view looks across 6 rectangular fields defined by overgrown hedgerows and occasional wind-pruned trees. A low ridge forms the near horizon upon which the proposed development is sited. Receptors would include users of the footpath, holiday makers staying at the caravan park, and nearby road users and are assessed to be of high sensitivity.
The turbine would be seen in the middle distance rising above field hedgerows from a near horizon. The turbine would appear as a dominant feature in this view with 80% of the turbine visible above the skyline. The effects are considered to be of high magnitude. Taking into account the high visual sensitivity of the receptors and high magnitude of change the visual effect would be of major significance at this viewpoint as a result of this development.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is large due to the close proximity to the turbine. This is addressed in the visual amenity section of the report.
Viewpoint 3: View from Mawbray adjacent to the Cumbria Coastal Way footpath. This viewpoint is taken near to the public car park adjacent to the Cumbria Coastal Way Long Distance Footpath. This view looks across the coastal plain over the village of Mawbray. A variety of roofscape profiles are in evidence ranging from industrial sheds to residential intermixed with vertical elements in the form of telegraph poles. The Cumbria High Fells are seen in the far distance. Receptors would include users of the long distance
Page 42 footpath, road users and residents of Mawbray. This view is assessed to be of medium sensitivity.
The turbine would be seen in the middle distance rising above the built form of Mawbray. Lower parts of the turbine would be screened by built form with the turbine not visible above the skyline formed by the Cumbria High Fells. The effects are considered to be of medium magnitude.
Taking into account the medium visual sensitivity of the receptors and medium magnitude of change, the visual effect would be of moderate significance at this viewpoint.
Officers disagree that the general magnitude for change is medium. The viewpoint is within the AONB and as such should be afforded a high level of sensitivity within the assessment, and would result in a major/moderate effect. More protection should be given to the impact on valued landscapes (including setting) according to paragraph 109 National Planning Policy Framework
Viewpoint 4 : View from minor road east of Tarns (3.5km north-east) This viewpoint is taken from the unclassified road to the east of Tarns. This view looks across fields used for pasture. Receptors would include road users and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of medium sensitivity.
The turbine would be seen in the middle distance rising above the nearby hedgerow horizon. The hub and blades of the turbine would appear above the hedgerow horizon and skyline. Lower parts of the turbine would be screened by topography and vegetation. The effects are considered to be of low magnitude. And the visual effect would be of minor/moderate significance.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is low due to the distance to the turbine and the topography and vegetation. This is addressed in the visual amenity section of the report.
Viewpoint 5 : View from public footpath/bridleway north of Westnewton (2.6km south east) This viewpoint is taken from the public footpath/bridleway looking across a valley with large fields and hedgerows. The Solway Firth and the Dumfries and Galloway Fells form the far distant horizon. Receptors would include footpath/bridleway users and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of high sensitivity. The turbine would be seen in the middle distance rising above the flat valley landform. The turbine would appear above the skyline. The effects are considered to be of medium magnitude. And the
Page 43 visual effect would be of moderate significance.
Officers from a landscape perspective consider that given the flat topography of the landscape the turbine would act as a prominent and dominating feature in the landscape. (Similarly punctuating the skyline). The Dumfries and Galloway fells given their separation distance and low level backdrop offer little benefit in reducing its visual landscape impact. Therefore Officers consider that the magnitude for change is large rather than medium as suggested by the applicants report.
Viewpoint 6: View from Allonby alongside the B5300 (2.6km south-west) This viewpoint is taken from the B5300 looking across the coastal plains consisting of large fields and hedgerows. The low mid distance horizon is formed by the Goodyhill to Roundhill ridge. The immediate foreground has a timber pylon alignment of electricity cables crossing the view. Receptors would include road users, long distance footpath users along the Cumbria Coastal Way and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of high sensitivity.
The turbine would be seen in the middle distance rising above the flat valley landform. The turbine would appear above the far horizon and skyline. The effects are considered to be of medium magnitude, and the visual effect would be of moderate significance.
Officers consider that given the flat topography of the landscape the turbine would act as a prominent and dominating feature in the landscape. (Similarly punctuating the skyline). Therefore Officers consider that the magnitude for change is large rather than medium as suggested by the applicant. The applicant’s assessment has given this viewpoint a high sensitivity rating, however, it has only resulted in a moderate effect. Given the high sensitivity rating the effect should be major/moderate based on Table 2 within the applicant’s assessment.
Viewpoint 7 : View from B5300 south of Silloth (6.3km north) This viewpoint is taken from the B5300 looking across flat pastureland. The intermediate and far distance horizons are formed by the Upland Fringes and Cumbria High Fells respectively. The immediate foreground includes agricultural sheds and scattered residential properties. Receptors would include road users, footpath users and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of medium sensitivity.
Page 44 The turbine would be seen in the middle distance rising above the flat valley landform. The turbine blade tips would appear above the horizon with lower turbine elements filtered by vegetation. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of minor significance.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the existing landscape.
Viewpoint 8 : View from B5032 west of Abbey Town (8.4km north east) This viewpoint is taken from the B5032 looking across the Holme Dub and Crummock Beck watercourses flowing north into the River Waver. This viewpoint is also on the southern boundary of the Solway Coast AONB. The view south is principally of fields interspersed with farmsteads. The far distance horizon is that of the Upland Fringes of the Lake District High Peaks. Receptors would include road users and nearby residents. Due to distance this view is assessed to be of low sensitivity.
Upper elements of the turbine could be possible on the distant horizon above the valley landform although it is unlikely that elements would be visible above the skyline and would be filtered by vegetation. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude.
Taking into account the low visual sensitivity of the receptors and negligible magnitude of change the visual effect would be of negligible significance at this viewpoint .
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the existing landscape.
Viewpoint 9 : View from minor road east of High Scales (9.5km east) This viewpoint is taken from the public highway looking across gently undulating landscape. The Solway Firth and the Dumfries and Galloway Fells form the far distant horizon to the right, and to the left, the medium distance horizon is formed by woodland and hedgerows. Receptors would include road users and nearby residents. Due to distance this view is assessed to be of low sensitivity.
Upper parts of the turbine may be seen in the middle distance but are unlikely to rise above the horizon. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance.
Page 45 Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the existing landscape. Officers do point out, however, that the photograph has been taken at an obscured view with hedgerow in the immediate foreground.
Viewpoint 10 : View from the A596 WEST OF Aspatria (4.3km south west) This viewpoint is taken from the public highway looking across gently undulating landscape. In the immediate foreground are two overhead electricity transmission alignments running south west to north east. Due to distance and heavy filtering this view is assessed to be of low sensitivity.
Upper parts of the turbine may be seen in the middle distance but are unlikely to rise above the horizon. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the existing landscape.
Viewpoint 11 : View from public footpath north west of Bothel (9km south east) This viewpoint is taken from the public footpath/bridleway looking across a pastoral valley landform and the River Ellen. Aspatria town marks the middle distance. The Solway Firth and the Dumfries and Galloway Fells form the far distant horizon beyond. Receptors would include footpath/bridleway users and nearby residents. Due to distance, this view is assessed to be of low sensitivity.
Upper parts of the turbine may be seen in the middle distance but are unlikely to rise above the far horizon. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance at this viewpoint.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the existing landscape.
Viewpoint 12 : View from public footpath leading to St Cuthberts Church Plumbland (7km south east) This viewpoint is taken from the public footpath looking across a pastoral valley. The routing of the electricity pylon alignment defines the visible horizon approximately 2 miles away. Receptors would include footpath users and nearby residents. Due to distance this view is assessed to be of low sensitivity.
Page 46 It is unlikely that the turbine would appear above the skyline and it is likely to be heavily filtered by intervening vegetation. The effects are therefore considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the existing landscape.
Viewpoint 13 : View from public footpath west of Hayton (3.5km south) This viewpoint is taken from the public footpath looking across a mixed pastoral and arable valley towards a distant horizon defined by the Solway Coast. Receptors would include footpath users and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of high sensitivity. The turbine would be seen in the middle distance and rise above the horizon. The effects are considered to be of medium magnitude, and the visual effect would be of moderate significance.
Officers from a landscape perspective consider that given the flat topography of the landscape the turbine would act as a prominent and dominating feature in the landscape. (Similarly punctuating the skyline). Therefore Officers consider that the magnitude for change is large rather than medium as suggested by the applicant.
Viewpoint 14 : View from Maryport Golf Course (8.2km south west) This viewpoint is taken from the edge of the golf course, north of Maryport, looking along the coastline. Receptors would include recreational users, road users and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of high sensitivity.
The turbine would be seen in the middle distance and rise above the horizon. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance.
Officers consider that given the extremely flat topography of both the golf course and the landscape in the distance the turbine would represent a prominent and dominating feature despite the separation distance of 8.2km. Therefore Officers consider that the magnitude for change is medium rather than negligible as suggested by the applicant.
Page 47 Viewpoint 15 : View from minor road east of Dearham (8.8km south west) This viewpoint is taken from the unclassified road east of Dearham on the route of the Allerdale Ramble Long Distance Footpath. This view looks out across a mixed arable and pastoral landscape. Receptors would include recreational users, road users and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of medium sensitivity.
It is unlikely that the turbine would be seen from this viewpoint due to intervening landform and vegetation. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the existing landscape.
Viewpoint 16 : View from Green How summit (17.2km south east) This view is taken from the summit of Green How, Aughertree Fell within the Lake District National Park Boundary. This elevated view looks out across the coastal plain with the Solway Firth and high fells of Dumfries and Galloway beyond. It is unlikely that the turbine would be seen from this viewpoint due to intervening landform and vegetation and complexity of landscape elements within the view. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the complexity of the landscape elements.
Viewpoint 17 : View from Cumbria Coastal Way west of Burgh by Sands (23.5km north east) This viewpoint is taken from the Cumbria Coastal Way and Hadrian’s Wall Path within the boundary of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site. The topography is gently rolling with the far distance horizon defined in part by the Cumbria High Fells. The Anthorn telecommunications masts form a strong vertical near distance feature in the landscape to the west. Receptors would include recreational users, road users and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of high sensitivity.
It is unlikely that the turbine would, from this distance, be seen due to intervening landform and vegetation. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance.
Page 48 Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the nature of the landscape.
Viewpoint 18 : View from Southerness Point (15.4km north west) This view is taken from Southerness Point near to the lighthouse. The view looks out across the Solway Firth towards the Cumbrian coastal plain with the Cumbria High Fells beyond. Receptors would include recreational users and nearby residents. This view is assessed to be of high sensitivity.
The proposed turbine is situated to the edge of the coastal plain, and it is unlikely to be seen from this viewpoint due to distance and vegetation. The effects are considered to be of negligible magnitude, and the visual effect would be of negligible significance.
Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is negligible due to the distance to the turbine and the nature of the landscape .
Officers in assessing the individual policy merits of the scheme are aware that the site is within 1.2km of the valued landscape designation of the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Therefore given the potential for impact on the setting of the sensitive landscape designation of the AONB, paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework should be considered as it outlines;
“ The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by;
• protect and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation area interests and soils; “
From an officer’s perspective, albeit not within the national designation itself, it is considered the limited separation distance results in potential to adversely affect its setting.
Although the visual impact and prominence of the turbine will diminish with distance it is considered it will have a substantial and harmful impact in the locality of the landscape of the site itself especially given the flat topography of the surrounding landscape Part 2 Section 1 1.37 within the Wind energy in Cumbria SPD considers the prominence of turbines in the landscape may be classed as being a dominant feature up to 2.4km from the site. Given the size of the turbine, its limited separation distance from
Page 49 the national landscape designation and the open flat characteristics of the surrounding landscape, Officers consider the proposal would constitute a prominent dominant feature in the locality adversely affecting the setting of the AONB affecting the views both into and out of this important landscape designation. The proposal is therefore both contrary to the policy landscape guidance within the NPPF and the local plan.
Officers conclude that the greater landscape impact will be within 1-2Km from the turbine . This is due to the close proximity of the proposed turbine to a valued landscape, and the open flat landscape with little vegetation or man made vertical structures within the (ANOB).
Visual/Residential Impact Residents within 1 km of the site will clearly see the turbine when travelling to and from their properties with varied impact. The nearest residential properties are identified as Edderside Hall, The Coach House, and The Stables approximately 420m to the north east of the site. In addition, the residential dwelling at West End Farm is located 520m to the north of the proposed turbine, and beyond this are additional properties within the hamlet of Edderside.
The dwellings that the turbine will have the most impact on are Edderside Hall, The Coach House, The Stables, and West End Farm. These dwellings have a rear elevation facing almost directly towards the site. The lounge and gardens of these properties have sweeping views of the open countryside into the Lake District National Park, particularly The Stables as this property is upside down in design with its lounge at first floor level. The proposed turbine would dominate the views across the open countryside. It is officer’s opinion that the size and scale of the turbine would be adversely overwhelming, overbearing and oppressive from these properties and would cause the dwellings to become an unattractive place to live.
It is officer’s opinion that the orientation of other residential dwellings at Edderside is one that the kitchen and living room windows on the ground floor will not be in direct line of sight of the turbine, and the residential amenity of these dwellings will be reduced to a level that is acceptable.
Page 50 Other scattered properties within the area will not be in direct line of sight of the development and considering the distance from the proposal to other dwellings in the locality the turbine is not considered to cause any significant affects on residential amenity. There are other properties within the surrounding area that have a line of sight that the turbine will be seen from. However, because of the separation distance from the turbine and the intervening built form of the Hamlet of Edderside, it is officer’s opinion that the residential amenity of all other properties will be retained to an acceptable level.
Overall, the turbine by virtue of its size, scale and separation distance from the properties Edderside Hall, The Coach House, The stables and West End Farm will have an overwhelming, overbearing and oppressive impact on the visual amenity of its occupiers resulting it them becoming unacceptable places to live.
Cumulative Impacts In assessing cumulative impact, the applicant’s LVIA considers the impact of turbines seen together in combination, turbines seen one after another in succession and turbines seen sequentially when travelling through an area.
The applicant’s submitted evidence should have included pending, approved and operational wind turbines as part of any landscape assessment in accordance with any current landscape guidance. However, any refusal on cumulative impact by the council must solely be refused on approved or operational turbines.
The cumulative assessment relates to existing and proposed schemes within 30km of the proposal as recommended in the Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Officers have also added below a number of sites that the applicant has omitted on their survey. The applicant has provided a list of turbines and the distance from the site.
Wind Energy Scheme Status (Feb Tip No Distance from 2014) height proposed (m) turbine.
Broom Hill Consented 34.5 1 4.9 km, SE Hellrigg Operational 121 3 7.2km, NE Tallentire Hill Operational 100 6 8.8 km, S Prospect House Allowed at 67 1 9.1 km, E Appeal West House Farm 24.5 2 10.1 km, SW (2/2013/0745) Withdrawn
West House Farm Refused 77 1 10.1km, SW (2/2012/09/0914)
Page 51 Fox House Farm Refused 77 1 11.2 km, SW (2/2012/0810) In planning 47 1 12.8 km, SE Linskeldfield Farm Flimby Wind Farm operational 102 3 13.8km, SW Siddick operational 61 7 16km, SW Winscales Moor Operational 81 7 18.2km, SW Oldside Farm Operational 61 9 18.4km, SW Snowhill Farm Refused 34.6 2 18.5km, SE (2/2013/0037) East Town End Approved 74 1 19.4km, SW (2/2013/0494) Thornby Villa Approved 46 2 19.6km, NE (2/2012/0040) Lillyhall Wind Farm Refused 99 4 21.3km, SW (2/2012/9011) Approved 47.5 1 21.6km, SW Moor House Farm (20/2011/0444) Approved 100 3 22.2km, SW Potato Pot Wind Operational 62 1 21.5km, NW Turbines Wiggonby House Withdrawn 74 1 22km, E (scr/2011/0722 How End Farm (2/2011/0722)
In addition to these turbines identified by the applicant there are also the following operational wind turbines within the surrounding area :
Warwick hall Farm Westnewton -3x 107m turbines 3.1km distance from the application site. -2/2008/0997
Brownrigg Hall Farm – (Located approximately 1km to the south of this currently proposed Edderside site). 2 turbines 15m hub height, 21.5m to blade tip. (2/2013/0336).
Tarns Farm – Single wind turbine 36.4m to hub. (2/2012/0345).
High Aketon – Single wind turbine 20.6m to hub. (2/2011/0293).
Dundraw Farm – Two wind turbines on 15m towers. (2/2012/0624)
Langrigg Hall – Four turbines on 20m masts. (2/2011/0589).
Crossrigg Farm – Single wind turbine 15m to hub (2/2010/0988).
Low Tarns – Single wind turbine on 18m tower (2/2011/0574).
There have also been recent planning appeal decisions that have allowed the following wind turbine developments :
Land to the west of Goose Green Farm (2/2012/0315). 67m single wind turbine – Allowed at appeal 15 th January 2014.
Page 52 Firs Farm (2/2012/0753). Single wind turbine 45m to tip – Allowed at appeal17th January 2014.
The applicant’s cumulative impact assessment considers the sensitivity and value of the landscape, visual amenity and the magnitude of cumulative impact and landscape change as a result of the proposed turbine. The LVIA discusses cumulative change upon landscape character, visibility, views, designated landscapes and sequential visual impact through transport corridors. It is generally concluded by the applicant that cumulative and sequential impact will be generally be a negligible or minor/moderate impact from some viewpoints.
The SPD includes advice at paragraph 1.42 of Part 2 that: ‘… a consistent and coherent approach to the siting, design, spacing and scale of schemes in relation to the receiving landscape type will be required to ensure that they make a positive contribution to the overall image. A succession of schemes with different designs and relationships to the landscape can appear confusing as well as raise questions about the visual rationale and suitability of each development.’
The LVIA discusses the cumulative impact at each of the 1-18 viewpoints. In summary, there is the potential for twenty further wind farm developments to be visible within these viewpoints. The significance of effect ranges from minor / moderate to negligible overall.
There is one key long distance route near the site. This is the B5300, which is the route most likely to be visually affected by the development of further wind farms within the study area. It runs across a significant part of the study area from south-west to north-east connecting Maryport to Silloth, a distance of approximately 20km. It is used by a large number of receptors travelling along this scenic coast road.
Starting at the south–west extent of the route at Maryport, travelling north, the route will have visibility of West House Farm, Tallentire Hill and Broom Hill developments, the majority of these will mostly be distant views more than 5km away. Travelling further north the West End proposed development would come into view situated 2.3km from this route at its nearest point. Views along the coastal plain are generally open and travelling further north to the outskirts of Silloth the Hellrigg development would appear as a dominant element in this flat coastal zone which widens out at this point.
Page 53 It may be possible to view additional cumulative wind farms from other locations around the study area. However, the LVIA comments that any views are likely to be largely screened by intervening landform, built form, and/or vegetation.
Officers consider it is vital to add that the proposed turbine will also be seen in conjunction with the two turbines at Brownrigg Hall Farm. These turbines are located approximately 1km south of the application site, and they have been omitted from the applicant’s cumulative assessment. The 2 turbines at Brownrigg have a 15m hub height and are 21.5m to blade tip. Planning permission was granted (2/2013/0336) to change the design and height of previously approved turbines at the site (2/2012/0479). The original turbines were erected on a solid tower with a 3 bladed design incorporating a tailfin. However, these were replaced by 2 bladed turbines on lattice towers with a rotor diameter of 13m. It is officer’s opinion that the size, scale and design of the proposed turbine will be visually confusing when viewed in association with the Brownrigg Hall Farm turbines. Due to the differing size and design, and the differing rotor movement and speed, the turbine will appear disjointed with unsightly movement. This will create a visually confusing feature on the landscape. The exclusion of the Warwick Hall windfarm is a substantial omission from the proposal. In officers opinion given the large size of the turbines and the open flat landscape character of the coastal plan with little manmade structure or vegetation there would be a significant increase in the visual cumulative impact of turbines on the landscape.
It is Officers opinion that the proposal would have a significant cumulative impact in the area. The turbine would combine with a number of others in the locality and tip the balance from a landscape with wind farms to a landscape with turbines as a defining and dominant feature. This would be compounded by the height and prominence of the proposed turbine which is further exacerbated by the flat landscape character of the surrounding countryside (including the setting of the AONB.) This aspect of the harmful cumulative impact has been highlighted in former appeal decisions
Land to the South of The Flatt Farm, Great Orton, Carlisle Ref 2/2012/0524 (APP/G0908/A/12/2187146)
The site for this turbine was proposed in a similar rural landscape with regard to topography and settlement pattern distribution.
The Planning Inspector’s conclusion is as follows.
‘Whilst the decision is finely balanced, I do not consider that these conclusions are sufficient to outweigh the significant adverse
Page 54 cumulative impact on the landscape of introducing a further wind turbine as a piecemeal development in a location which is neither integrated with the layout and design of the existing wind-farm or with another permitted turbine, nor sufficiently isolated from those developments to avoid adverse cumulative visual and landscape impacts.’
Broughton Lodge(appeal decision)
With regard to the significance of cumulative landscape impact in the vicinity reference is made to the dismissal of a recent appeal for three turbines at a nearby site of Broughton Lodge In this regard Broughton Lodge occupies a location where the proposed wind turbines would combine with others in the locality and tip the balance from a landscape with wind farms to “a landscape with wind turbines as a defining and dominant element.” This would be compounded by the height and prominence of the proposed turbines and the manner in which they would become a prominent local focus making the cumulative effects of wind farm development the more pronounced.
The Inspector’s comments are triggered by the number and height of the Broughton Lodge turbines and their proximity to other clusters of existing turbine development contributing to cumulative and sequential development.
Although the proposal relates to a single turbine it would in association generate cumulative issues.
Officers consider the harmful effects of the cumulative impact are not outweighed by the renewable energy benefits of the scheme.
Other Representations FORCE make the following additional comments : - The agent has limited the cumulative impact assessment to wind turbines that are over 30m in height. Therefore, the 2 recently consented turbines at Brownrigg are excluded from the assessment. They have a tip height of 18m, and if the application turbine is constructed it would be visible to the same receptor in an incongruous manner as it would have a different tower structure and rotational speed. The Brownrigg turbines should have been included in the cumulative impact assessment. Many other turbines should also have been included that are under 30m in height. - The cumulative impact assessment has also omitted several large scale wind energy developments within a 30km radius of the site. The three 107m turbines at Westnewton, where work has already commenced, have not been taken into consideration. The 8 operational turbines at Wharrels Hill and the 3 at High Pow, all visible
Page 55 from the application site itself or from nearby, are all missing from the assessment. - In a second letter FORCE query whether the correct planning application fee has been paid. They also expand on concerns regarding aviation. They state that it is a defined low flying area and military aircraft can fly at heights as low as 250ft or 76.2m. In response to these comments it is important to add that turbines in the surrounding area that were omitted from the applicants LVIA have been discussed in the Officers report. Furthermore, it has been confirmed that the correct fee was paid for the application prior to it being validated, and with regards to aviation The MOD, NATS and The CAA have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal.
West Newton Action Group also raises comments regarding the Brownrigg Hall turbines, and questions the Screening Application. They state that in the screening application and at public consultation the turbine was described to be higher at 87m to the tip, and was incorrectly listed as being located within the grounds of Brownrigg Hall. It is now correctly described as being located at West End Farm which was purchased by the residents of Brownrigg Farm in December 2012.
They comment that West End Farm and Brownrigg Hall Farm are co-terminus and appear to be in the same ownership. Brownrigg Hall Farm has a history of wind turbine applications. In February 2013 approval was granted for two 18m farm size turbines, and in July 2013 approval was granted to change these from monopole mounted turbines to lattice towers, whilst also increasing the height to 21.5m. The turbine in this new application will just be about 1100 metres north of these, and would be a very different machine which would create a visually jarring effect.
These issues have been covered in the Officers report. However to further clarify, the following planning application for wind turbines have been submitted for Brownrigg Hall Farm : 2/2006/0790 – 5 turbines – Refused 2/2011/0962 – Two 15m high turbines (19.25 to blade tip). Withdrawn. Scr/2011/0041 – Screening opinion for this turbine. 2/2012/0479 – Two 15m turbines (19.02m to blade tip). Approved 2/2013/0336 – Two 15m turbines (21.5m to blade tip) – To change size and design of the turbines approved under 2/2012/0479. Approved. Scr/2013/0027 – Screening opinion for this turbine.
Page 56 Balancing Assessment Officers do not dispute the needs or benefits of renewable energy development and the contribution they can provide to the national energy targets. Similarly the policy context background to renewable energy schemes is also not challenged.
However any such benefits need to be balanced against any environmental harm. Furthermore, the recent Ministerial guidance highlighted that such need neither does nor automatically override environmental concerns, especially when taking into account the representation of the local community.
In assessing this application on its individual planning merits officers consider that by virtue of the open flat topography of the surrounding landscape the prominence of the applicants turbine will be visible from a considerable distance (as verified by the applicant’s zone of visibility plan)
Although such impact would diminish with distance it is considered that the scale of this turbine in this landscape environment would be particularly adversely prominent and dominant at the local level which includes the sensitive designation of the AONB to the north of the site. Officers accept that there is no generic designation of any buffer to this AONB but considers that the turbine would affect its setting with outlooks both into and out of this national designation.
The degree of visual harm to the landscape is considered significant and is not outweighed by the benefits of the turbine. In addition the direct outlook and main habitable rooms of the properties on the southern edge of Edderside would also be adversely affected as to no longer be attractive places to live. These properties would also experience possible adverse impacts on residential amenity by way of shadow flicker disturbance. There would also be the added combined and sequential cumulative effects of the turbine with other wind turbine developments in the area.
In addition, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate whether the development has the potential to disturb nationally significant archaeology remains.
From a ministerial guidance perspective there has been a level of support for the scheme, with contrasting objections from parishes and residents.
On balance taking all details into consideration, especially given the national landscape designation of the AONB within close proximity, it is considered that the environmental harm is not outweighed by the renewable benefits and therefore the officers
Page 57 recommend refusal.
Local Finance Considerations Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.
Conclusions Officers consider that the landscape and visual impact of the turbine will lead to a significant negative impact on the residential amenities of local residents and the major adverse effect on the surrounding landscape.
In balancing the degree of harmful environmental effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the cumulative visual and landscape impact against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy, it is considered that in this instance, the environmental harm is not outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal. The decision follows the guidance in the ministerial statement given the strong negative response from the local parish councils.
The recommendation therefore is for refusal.
Recommendation: Refused
Conditions/ 1) The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed Reasons: turbine, by virtue of its detached and isolated location (and having regard to the weight of objection from the local parish council representations), would form a visually prominent dominant and incoherent feature which would have an adverse individual and cumulative landscape and visual amenity impact on the surrounding open countryside including the setting of the Solway Coast AONB contary to paragraphs 7, 17, 96, 97 109 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN20 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), the ''Local planning and onshore wind'' Ministerial statement 2013, and the Department for Communities and Local Governments ''Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy'' document 2013.
2) The Local Planning Authority consider the proposal, by virtue of its size, scale and separation distance from the properties Edderside Hall, The Stables, and The Coach House in Edderside would have an overwhelming, overbearing and oppressive impact on the visual amenity of its occupiers, resulting in an unacceptable place to live contrary to Paragraph 14,17 and 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Page 58 3) The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed turbine by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with existing turbines in the surrounding area would have a detrimental combined and sequential cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape including the setting of the Solway Coast AONB contrary to paragraphs 7, 17, 96, 97 109 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN20 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved), and Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), the ''Local planning and onshore wind'' Ministerial statement 2013, and the Department for Communities and local governments ''Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy'' document 2013
4) The Local Planning Authority consider that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate whether the proposal would impact upon nationally significant archaeological remains in this location where there is a high concentration of prehistoric sites and a high level of potential for previously unrecorded Iron Age / Romano-British remains, contrary to policy CO20 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved ) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 59 Page 60
Agenda Item 7
Allerdale Borough Council
Development Panel
2/2013/0827
Reference No: 2/2013/0827 Received: 20 November 2013 Proposed Proposed demolition of existing squash courts and erection of Development: detached dwelling (resubmission of withdrawn application 2/2013/0401) Location: Squash Club 16 Senhouse Street Maryport Applicant: Mr George Hodgson
Drawing Numbers: WO-14A-04-13 Site Location Plan, Block Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
Policies: National Planning Policy Framework Building a strong, competitive economy Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design
Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area Policy CO15 - Alterations to Listed Buildings Policy CO3 - New buildings in Conservation Areas Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements
Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Pre-Draft Submission Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles (excluding highways) Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S4 - Design principles
Relevant Planning 2/2014/0037 Listed Building Consent for the demolition of existing History: squash club – pending
Page 61
2/2013/0401 Erection of a detached dwelling and demolition of existing squash club building – withdrawn.
2/2013/0402 Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing squash club building – withdrawn.
2/2013/0312 Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling – cancelled.
Representations: Maryport Town Council – No objections.
Cumbria Highways – No objections.
Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions.
Fire Officer – No reply to date.
English Heritage – Do not consider that it is necessary for this application to be notified to English Heritage.
United Utilities – No objections.
The application has been advertised on site and in the local paper. Adjoining owners have been notified.
6 letters of objection have been received. There concerns are:
• The proposed dwelling will look directly down into the backyard of properties along Senhouse Street. These properties currently have a high level of security from the current privacy they benefit from. • The design of the dwelling has been amended under this application to include two balconies of the front elevation. These will provide a greater panoramic view with the intrusion on even more privacy of the surrounding neighbours. • The design of the building would affect the visual impact of the surrounding properties due to its extensive mass and modern features and is not in keeping with the period features of the Conservation Area. • The scale of the proposed dwelling, which is roughly the same width as the existing Squash Club but 1 storey higher, will block out light and enjoyment of privacy to all properties behind, beside and in front of the proposed building. • It is believed that there has been movement on the wall which is intended to support the property, which would pose an extreme danger if the wall were to collapse and subside either prior, during or after the erection of the dwelling.
Page 62 • Concern has been raised that the wall in the yard below is not strong enough to withstand a house being built on it. • The erection of the dwelling would affect the market prices of existing properties. • Due to its elevated position and non-traditional design it would be the first dwelling viewed from the dock areas. • If it is accepted that the former squash building can be demolished, then it should be replaced with something of use to the town for example a small car park, which would generate income for Allerdale as well as providing tourists with a welcoming initial vista of the Solway as they park their cars. • The development would increase the residential density in an area already of “Dickensian” density by way of its very history. • It is evident from the picture of the original cottages, that they were not nearly as tall as the proposed development nor did they occupy the current footprint of the squash courts.
Report Proposal
The applicant seeks consent to demolish the existing Squash Club and erect a detached dwelling.
The squash club measures 17m in length 11m in depth at the widest and point x 7.8m in height to height point.
The proposed dwelling will measure 9.9m in length x 6.1m in width x 6.35m to eaves with a total height of 8.85m. The dwelling comprises of garage, hallway and bedroom with associated dressing room and en-suite at ground floor, an open lounge/dining room and kitchen at first floor with a utility room, bathroom and two bedrooms, one with associated dressing room and en-suite at second floor.
Site and surrounding area
The application site comprises of a steel framed, concrete block and brown steel profiled sheeted building that was erected in 1982 to house Squash Courts. The building is attached to a single storey extension to the rear of the public house. This building is a Grade II Listed Building. As such Listed Building Consent is required for the demolition of this part of the building which is being considered under application 2/2014/0037.
The site itself is accessed from Senhouse Street along an existing access between 16 Senhouse Street and The Golden Lion Hotel. The applicant does not own the access, this is owned by Allerdale Borough Council and the correct notice has been served on the
Page 63 owners by the applicants. The site lies within Maryport’s Conservation Area.
The site comprises an elevated position overlooking the harbour and properties below. This area of Maryport lies close to the town centre and therefore the site is surrounded by both commercial and residential properties.
The applicant has submitted a photograph of the application site and surrounding area taken prior to 1982 before the existing building was erected. The photograph shows that previously there was a two storey terrace located on the site. These properties had windows in the elevation overlooking the properties, although the design and style were sympathetic to the area.
Policy Context
Under paragraph 14 of The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and outline the following in relation to decision making
“approving development proposals that accord with development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole: or
• specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.
Under chapter 6 of the NPPF relating to delivering a wide choice of high quality homes, paragraph 56 states that “good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”. Para 58, stresses the importance of establishing a strong sense of place, responding to local character and reflecting identity and visual attractiveness as a result of good architecture.
Chapter 12 of the NPPF seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Under paragraph 131 it states local authorities should take account of the following whether determining planning applications:
• the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting then to viable uses consistent
Page 64 with their conservation;
• the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
• the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
Having regard to the advice set out in the NPPF it is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to the policies within the Allerdale Local plan if they accord with the policies set out in the NPPF. The emerging Allerdale Local Plan is currently going through the examination process. There are several policies within this document that have not been challenged and it is considered appropriate to give weight to these.
Assessment
Demolition of the building
The applicant seeks to demolish the existing tin building that due to its siting within the Conservation Area and relationship to the listed building is classed as a heritage asset. Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It states “In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.”
Officers consider the materials and design of the building do not add significantly to the wider character of the local area and it currently offers no benefits to the wider community. The loss of this building would not be detrimental on the character of its surroundings and is acceptable.
Replacement dwelling
Although officers may accept the loss of the existing building the redevelopment of the site needs to be carefully considered. In assessing the proposal paragraph 126 of the NPPF requires officers to assess “the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place”.
The proposed dwelling will be two and half storeys in height and will be constructed in painted wet dash under a re-claimed local slate roof. The property will be fitted with hardwood windows and doors, with deep stone cills and cast surrounds for the windows.
Page 65
The proposed dwelling will be sited within the existing footprint, although the house has a smaller footprint and is proposed to be constructed so as to enable the existing concrete slab foundation to be, in the main re-used.
The dwelling has been sited and designed so the front elevation overlooks the harbour side. This front elevation incorporates 7 openings that have no uniformity with a mixture of horizontal and vertical openings varying in size and design. The first floor openings include a Juliet balcony and a balcony that protrudes 1m from the facade.
The windows in the side elevation and rear are predominately sliding sash and are considered to be acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding area. These elevations are not as visible from public vantage points.
The west (front) facing elevation of the proposed building will be very visible from the North and South Quays of Maryport against the backdrop of many historic buildings. The view from the Quays to the new Town is a very important view of Maryport and one that is extremely important to the character, appearance and setting of the Conservation Area and the Town.
The removal of the existing building and the principle of the siting of a dwelling in this location are not opposed. However, the existing building, whilst not in keeping with Maryport's character, is less prominent by virtue of its lack of openings and its simple shape and uniform materials and colour.
Planning Officer’s and the Conservation Officer consider the proposed building appears to take no architectural references from the historic character of its surroundings and is out of keeping with the character and quality of the historic buildings around the site. It will be far more prominent and eye catching than the existing building due to its size and shape and its large an inappropriately shaped openings and as such will cause significant, and probably substantial, harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF advises” where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent”.
Paragraph 64 of the NPPF clearly states “Permissions should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”. Policy S4 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Pre-Draft Submission supports the principles of the NPPF. It highlights that “good design relates not only to the
Page 66 appearance of a development but how it functions within its location”.
The non-traditional design of the proposed dwelling in this elevated visible position within the Conservation Area does not seek to enhance the area in which it lies or provide any public benefits which could outweigh the harm to the heritage assets this proposal would result in. The dwelling has not incorporated the character, history and distinctiveness of its location and the proposal will therefore stand out when viewed from the harbourside and not integrate well with the existing development.
Amenity/Over-looking
The property will be sited 1.1 m back from the edge of the site. A 0.6 metres wall will be erected along the west (front) boundary with 0.9m high railings on top.
To the south west of the site is a terrace of properties known as 6 - 16 Senhouse Street. The first property 16 Senhouse Street is the Listed Public House that lies directly to the side of the proposed dwelling and is on the same level. The terraced properties then gradually step down in level and are all on a lower level than the application site. These properties have curtilage areas to the rear that currently benefit from a high level of privacy. The distance from the proposed dwelling to No. 14 is 5m, this will gradually increase per property.
The proposed dwelling has 7 openings, three at second floor, two at first floor (balconies) and two at ground floor with many of these being to habitable rooms. The elevated position of the proposed dwelling will result in direct overlooking to the external garden areas of 14–10 Senhouse Street.
Although the dwelling will be sited above the properties along King Street and may look down on these properties, officers consider the distance to be sufficient along with 6 and 8 Senhouse Street and would not be significant to warrant a refusal on this ground.
There is a storage yard directly below the site, however due to the nature of the use of this area officers consider the proposal will not result in the loss of any private amenity space.
High Street is on a higher level than the application and site and therefore the properties along this road have the potential to over look the application site from the rear elevations. The rear elevation of the proposed property has only two openings in which are not to habitable rooms. Officers consider the proposed dwelling would not be significantly overlooked from these properties and would achieve a reasonable level of privacy.
Page 67
Policy S32 of the emerging Allerdale Local Plan, Pre- Submission Draft aims to ensure the new developments do not harm the safety or amenity of existing and future residents or the natural environment. The proposal is considered contrary to this policy as it will result in an unacceptable effect on residential amenity in the surrounding area in terms of loss of privacy as a result of overlooking from the large inappropriate openings in the front elevation of the proposed dwelling.
Highway/Parking Issues
The dwelling will incorporate a single garage with a parking and turning area to the front of the garage access. The distance between the garage door and adjacent property is 7.2m, with the width of the parking and turning area 12m. Officers are satisfied that this distance provides adequate room to access the garage and turn the car allowing the vehicles to leave in a forward gear.
Access to the site is via the existing access. Cumbria Highways consider bearing in mind the previous use of the premises, the existing access is acceptable in connection with the proposed use and raise no objections.
Drainage
The foul sewerage and surface water is to be disposed via the mains sewer. United Utilities have no objections to the proposed means of drainage.
Response to neighbour comments not covered within report
Concern has been raised that the yard wall of the area below is not strong enough to withhold a dwelling been built above. No evidence has been submitted to the Council to demonstrate this is the case. The proposed building is to be built upon the existing concrete slab foundation that the existing building sites upon. If approval was granted the structural stability of the dwelling would be assessed as part of Building Regulations.
The impact a proposal may have on market house prices in the area is not a material consideration and would not be a reason for refusal.
The site is not owned by Allerdale and therefore the council has no legal control of what the site can be used for and therefore could not insist it was made into a car park. Officers can only assess the proposal that is put before them as part of the application and can not refuse an application just because people would wish to see a different alternative use for the site.
Page 68
Local Financial Implications
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the following local finance considerations are relevant to the consideration of the application.
There will be benefits arising from the scheme through the New Homes Bonus scheme. It is considered the New Homes Bonus is of little weight in judging the overall planning merits of the current scheme.
Conclusion
The site lies within a sustainable location within Maryport and therefore national and local policies support the erection of a dwelling in this location. Officers support the erection of a dwelling at this location in Maryport and consider the loss of the existing building will not lead to substantial harm to the character of the area. The National Planning Policy Framework, however attaches great importance to the design of the built environment.
The design of the proposed dwelling, due to its scale, massing and inappropriately shaped openings does not seek to enhance the character of the sensitive area in which it lies and would be contrary to national and local polices. Furthermore the numbers and design of the openings on the front elevation overlooking the harbour will significantly impact the privacy the properties along Senhouse Street. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
Recommendation: Refused
Conditions/ 1. The proposed development by virtue of its size and Reasons: design would have an unacceptable impact on Maryport Conservation Area of which the site forms part. The proposal would neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal is contrary to chapter 7 paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64 and 66 and Chapter 12 paragraphs 126, 131 and 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CO3 and C013 of the Allerdale Local Plan, 1999 (Saved), Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) and Policy S4 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Pre-Draft Submission, May 2013.
2. The scale, massing and number of openings in the front elevation, would result in an unacceptable reduction of the level of privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of 10-14 Senhouse Street. The proposal is contrary to
Page 69 chapter 7 paragraph 66 of the National Planning Policy Framework, HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) and policies S4 and S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Pre-Submission Draft, May 2013.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve all those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority has clearly set out within its report, the outstanding matters needing to be remedied to address the harm identified within the reasons for refusal which may potentially lead to the submission of a more acceptable proposal in the future. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 70 Page 71
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 72 Agenda Item 8
Allerdale Borough Council
Development Panel
2/2013/0858
Reference No: 2/2013/0858 Received: 26 September 2013 Proposed Installation of 1 x 5KW wind turbine (Evance R9000) 15m to hub Development: 17.4m to tip Location: Croft House Bromfield Wigton Applicant: Mr T Harrison
Drawing Numbers: 0140-AD-00281 DEV 02 - Proposed Elevations 027 SL - Site Location Figure 1 – Block Plan Figure 2 – Additional Information – Block Plan
Constraints: British Coal Area
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan 1999 (saved) Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN35 - Creation of new wildlife habitats Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre-submission Draft May 2013 Policy S32 Safeguarding amenity
National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 (NPPF)
Achieving sustainable development – paragraph 14 Chapter 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change – paragraph 98 Chapter 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Ministerial statement and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy 30 July 2013
Page 73 A ministerial statement by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP was issued on 6/6/2013. The statement regards the planning reforms to make the planning process more accessible to communities giving local people the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.
The statement makes specific and direct reference to on-shore turbine development and the view that decisions are not always reflecting the locally-led planning system.
It is stated that action is required to deliver the balance expected within the NPPF and to ensure that protecting the local environment is properly considered alongside the broader issues of protecting the global environment.
In this respect new planning guidance sets out clearly that…..
1. The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. 2. Decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect the increasing impact upon a) the landscape b) local amenity as the number of turbines in the area increases 3. Local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging impact upon the landscape (i.e. recognise that the impact on predominantly flat landscapes can be as great or greater than on hilly or mountainous ones) 4. Great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting
This statement and guidance is a material planning consideration and should be taken into account in assessing this application along with further detailed guidance published on 30 July 2013.
Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007 -This supplementary planning guidance in association with the Cumbria County Councils landscape toolkit provides details on the range of landscape sensitivities, characteristics and capacities of the differing landscape sub types within the County. It also outlines the background to wind turbine development and the criteria to evaluate their impact on the landscape
Relevant Planning The Local Planning Authority issued a screening opinion History: (SCR/2013/0019) concluding that the proposed development does not constitute EIA development with regard to visual and landscape impact.
Page 74 2/2013/0372 – Erection of proposed wind turbine – Withdrawn 27 th June 2013.
Representations: Bromfield Parish Council – No objections
Highway Authority – No objection. However, the applicant should ensure that there is no obstruction of the public right of way that runs along the access lane during the construction works.
Environmental Protection – No objection subject to standard conditions.
Natural England – No objections
NATS – No objection.
Geospatial Air Info Team – No objection
Carlisle Airport (Stobart Air) – No objection
Ministry of Defence – No objection
CAA – No objection
Arqiva – No objection
FORCE – No comments received
Environment Agency – No objection
County Council Strategic Planning – Recommends 3 documents to be used in the decision making. The Cumbria wind energy supplementary planning document; The Cumbria landscape character guidance and toolkit; and The Cumbria renewable energy capacity and deployment study.
Public Rights of Way – Comment that public footpath 217011 follows the alignment of the access road to farm and must not be obstructed during or after the development has been completed. Also the turbine will be very close or within the fall zone of 17.4 metres.
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining landowners have been notified. One letter of objection and one letter of support have been received.
The letter of objection comments that turbines are a blight on the landscape whatever their size, and they kill numerous birds and bats. The letter also states that Allerdale already hosts 70% of Cumbria’s wind energy developments, and the cumulative effect
Page 75 must now be an issue with every wind turbine application.
The letter of support is non-specific
Report The Proposal
The proposed site is on land within the curtilage of Croft House, Bromfield.
The application seeks planning consent for the construction of a single 5Kw three bladed wind turbine (Evance R9000) mounted on a 15 metre galvanised steel tower (light grey), with white rotary blades. It is 17.4 metres in height to blade tip.
Planning permission is sought to enable the applicant to reduce the carbon emissions and energy bills at the property, and increase their self sufficiency in terms of electricity production.
The property currently uses approximately 13,000Wh of electricity per year. Details submitted as part of the application estimate that the turbine would generate an output of approximately 7,325kWh. This would enable the applicant to make a 50% cut to his energy consumption, and represents an annual CO2 saving of approximately 3.84 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum.
The applicant has opted for a small scale turbine to meet half of his requirements rather than a larger turbine to reduce the impact and visibility. The Evance R900 small wind turbine is slim line in design, with a tapering mast top and small turbine head.
Site and Surroundings
The proposed site comprises a grassed paddock approximately 85 metres to the west of Croft House. It is within the curtilage of the dwelling. The immediate surroundings are open fields. However, there are a variety of scattered residential properties in the locality.
The nearest dwelling is Eriskay Cottage located approximately 328 metres to the east of the proposal.
Other nearby properties are: The Meadows which is 441 metres to the south east; Mereside cottage which is 446 metres to the north east; Bank House which is 520 metres to the south east; Mereside which is 640 metres to the north: Bromfield Hall which is 506 metres to the east: And Bromfield Farm which is 700m to the east of the site. The village of Bromfield is located further east, just beyond Bromfield Farm, approximately 750 metres from the site, and the settlement of Langrigg is some 900 metres to the south.
Page 76 Policy Considerations
As core principles, the National Planning Policy Framework includes the requirement to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and encourage the use of renewable resources.
The NPPF states that the delivery of low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is central to the economic social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In determining planning applications, LPA’s should:
• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
This positive approach to renewables is underpinned by the Climate Change Act and binding legal targets to reduce carbon emissions.
Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan restricts development within the open countryside to that which is ‘essential’ to meet a local need. However, the weight to be given to this policy now depends on compatibility with the NPPF which specifies approval of such applications if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
Emerging Policy S32 Safeguarding amenity, of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre-submission Draft May 2013 is considered to carry some weight being unchallenged during the consultation exercise undertaken
In assessing the merits of the proposed development it is necessary to balance the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed renewable energy development with any adverse environmental impact of the proposed turbines, taking into account the advice provided in the recent Ministerial Statement and subsequent guidance (see earlier in the report). Of particular note are extracts from the planning practice guidance and low carbon energy 30 July 2013 which state:
‘Para 2 advises “Government planning practice guidance can be a material consideration in planning decisions and should generally be followed unless there are clear reasons not to.”…
Para 3 states
Page 77 “…..Planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable. “
Para 8 includes “…..but in considering locations, local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology (see paragraphs 12-13) and, critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including from cumulative impacts (see paragraphs 43-44). The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to. “
Par 11 specifies “…..The expectation should always be that an application should only be approved if the impact is (or can be made) acceptable. “
Para 15 refers to “ In shaping local criteria for inclusion in Local Plans and considering planning applications in the meantime, it is important to be clear that: - the need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections -cumulative impacts require particular attention, especially the increasing impact that wind turbines and large scale solar farms can have on landscape and local amenity as the number of turbines and solar arrays in an area increases -local topography is an important factor in assessing whether wind turbines and large scale solar farms could have a damaging effect on landscape and recognise that the impact can be as great in predominately flat landscapes as in hilly or mountainous areas - great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting - proposals in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and in areas close to them where there could be an adverse impact on the protected area, will need careful consideration - protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions”
Para 40 states “….Cumulative visual impacts may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development will be visible from the same point, or will be visible shortly after each other along the same journey. Hence, it should not be assumed that, just because no other sites will be visible from the proposed development site, the proposal will not create any cumulative impacts. “
Para 41 advises “In assessing the impact on visual amenity, factors to consider
Page 78 include: establishing the area in which a proposed development may be visible, identifying key viewpoints, the people who experience the views and the nature of the views. “
Para 42 refers to “In identifying impacts on landscape, considerations include: direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts and temporary and permanent impacts. When assessing the significance of impacts a number of criteria should be considered including the sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource and the magnitude or size of the predicted change. Some landscapes may be more sensitive to certain types of change than others and it should not be assumed that a landscape character area deemed sensitive to one type of change cannot accommodate another type of change. “
Need for an Environmental Impact Assessment
The Council issued a screening opinion indicating the proposal was considered to be non EIA development SCR/2013/0019.
Assessment
Landscape and Visual Impact
A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) have been undertaken by the applicant to examine the potential visual impact of the proposed turbine. The applicant has also undertaken assessment of existing turbines within a 10km radius of the site.
The methodology of the applicant’s LVIA and its conclusions are as follows.
Landscape Character Assessment
The application site lies to the North East of Langrigg. The immediate surroundings comprise open fields in all directions. The wider surrounding area is rural in nature and is characterised by extensive open fields. The closest public road runs approximately 390m from the site.
Viewpoints/Receptors
A viewpoint assessment has been carried out using seven viewpoints. Photomontages have been produced in the standard format to illustrate any potential impact. The viewpoints contain the receptors of residential properties, highway users and users of the open countryside.
Contextual images of two Evance R9000 wind turbines have also been submitted. These demonstrate that the smaller scale of the
Page 79 R9000 turbine adopts a slender design, which tapers at the top and gives reduced visibility over 300m. The applicant comments that the turbine has been specifically designed for minimal visual intrusion.
Officers’ assessment of the viewpoint photomontages is summarised as follows.
Viewpoint 1. View West From the front driveway of Croft House. (80m from turbine). This shows the view of the turbine against the eastern boundary of the paddock, with open countryside beyond. Existing larger turbines at Langrigg (4 turbines with a height of 20m to hub) can be seen in the distance, approximately 900 metres to the south West.
From this viewpoint the whole of the proposed turbine will be visible with the existing turbines at Langrigg in the background. However, given the distance of Langrigg the existing turbines can only just be made out in the horizon.
Viewpoint 2. South West From the edge of the paddock at Croft House. (70m from turbine). This is a closer viewpoint of the site. The existing view of the 4 turbines at Langrigg is shown with the proposed turbine in the paddock. As with viewpoint 1 the existing turbines at Langrigg can only just be seen in the background on the horizon.
Viewpoint 3. View North East From within the paddock at Croft House. (50m from the turbine). The viewpoint shows the hedgerows surrounding the paddock with the open countryside beyond. A Public Footpath runs adjacent to the north boundary of the paddock. This is screened by the hedgerow.
Viewpoint 4. View East From the road between Eriskay Cottage and Croft House. (200m from the turbine). The viewpoint from the east is from the public highway towards the site. The proposed turbine is shown in the distance, in line with existing telegraph poles.
Viewpoint 5. View East From Eriskay Cottage (328m from the turbine). The viewpoint from the east is from the nearest property to Croft House, Eriskay Cottage. Croft House can be seen to the east with open countryside to the south. The majority of the proposed turbine will be seen set adjacent to 2 mature trees, however at this distance (over 300m) visibility of the turbine is significantly reduced.
Viewpoint 6. View North East from the junction to the access road for Eriskay Cottage and Croft House. (450m from the turbine).
Page 80 The viewpoint from the north east shows the proposed wind turbine which can just be viewed in the distance, plus the four larger turbines at Langrigg can be seen in the background.
Viewpoint 7. View North West from the public highway near Gill Farm, approximately 1km from the proposed turbine. The viewpoint from the north west shows the wider surrounding area which is open countryside. No existing turbines are visible, and given the distance from the application site the proposed turbine would not be seen.
Based upon the assessment of these viewpoints it is Officer opinion that the proposed turbine will be not be visible at a wider distance of 1km. At a closer distance of 450m from the nearby road network, and 330m from the nearest un-related residential dwelling, there will be minimal visibility. Furthermore, at this closer distance the turbine would be viewed amongst the existing dwelling and outbuildings at Croft House plus associated infrastructure of telegraph poles and overhead cables.
At a much nearer distance, within the curtilage of Croft House and along the adjacent Public Right Of Way, the turbine will be viewed against the backdrop of the 4 larger wind turbines at Langrigg. Although the Langrigg turbines are visible in the background due to their proximity they only appear as distant features in the horizon. In addition, the separation distance (approximately 900m) is such that the effect of those turbines and this proposal on the landscape would remain distinct. It is therefore considered that the proposed turbine would not have an adverse cumulative effect.
Officers consider that given the size, scale, siting and design of the proposed turbine there is the capacity to accommodate the wind development without harming visual amenity or landscape character. The turbine is slimline in design with a tapering mast top and small turbine head. Furthermore, the tower is proposed to be coloured in light grey with white rotary blades.
The boundaries to the site are mature hedgerows and open countryside. There are no landscape designations affecting the site. Visually the turbine would only be seen at limited vantage points directly surrounding the site and from a small number of residential dwellings. The proposal will have minimal visual impact upon settlements, individual residential properties, public highways and recreational land including public rights of way. In addition, the proposed turbine would not be visible in longer more distant views.
Cumulative Impacts
The applicant has provided an assessment of existing turbines
Page 81 within a 10km radius of the site.
The following list provides a summary of the size and number of other turbine sites within 10km.
Tarns Farm – Planning reference 2/2012/0345. Single wind turbine 36.4m to hub, and associated infrastructure. 4.53km from the application site.
High Aketon – Planning reference number 2/2011/0293. 20kw wind turbine with hub height of 20.6m. 4.88km from the application site.
Dundraw Farm – Planning reference 2/2012/0624. 2 no. wind turbines mounted on 15m towers with 5.6m rotors. 5.62km from the application site.
Langrigg Hall – Planning reference 2/2011/0589. Erection of 4 wind turbines on 20 metre masts. 807m from the application site.
Crossrigg Farm – Planning reference – 2/2010/0988. Wind turbine 15m high to hub. 2.70km from the application site.
Low Tarns – Planning reference – 2/2011/0574. 11kw wind turbine on an 18m tower. 5.53km from the application site.
In addition to these existing turbines there have been recent planning appeal decisions which have also permitted the following wind turbine developments :
Brayton Park, Brayton, Wigton (Planning application ref: 2/2011/0973) – Single 500kw wind turbine and associated control equipment. 3.1km distance from the application site Allowed at Appeal on 10 th January 2014.
Land to the west of Goose Green Farm, Crookdale, Aspatria (Planning application ref: 2/2012/0315) – Erection of a 67m single wind turbine). 2.2km distance from the application site Allowed at appeal on 15 th January 2014.
Land to the east of prospect house, High Scales, Aspatria (planning application ref: 2/2012/0603) – Erection of a 67m single wind turbine. 2km distance from the application site Allowed at appeal on 15 th January 2014.
Firs Farm, Crookdake, Wigton (Planning application ref: 2/2012/0753) – Single 225kw, 30m to hub, 45m to tip wind turbine plus associated works. 3.9 km from the application site Allowed at appeal on 17 th January 2014.
Page 82 The proposed turbine would be seen as an isolated independent structure and not part of an extension to a wider group. Officers acknowledge there is a cluster of turbines in the locality but each application should be assessed on its individual planning merits.
The 4 turbines at Langrigg Hall are the nearest wind turbines to the application site. They are situated approximately 900m to the south west of the site. As discussed in the report above at a closer distance the proposed turbine would be viewed in context with the 4 Langrigg turbines. However, these views would be limited, and given the distance between the site and Langrigg the existing turbines appear as distant features in the horizon.
With regards to the other proposed and existing turbines within the surrounding area, there are some locations where these turbines may be seen in a sequence of view. However, given the scale of the proposal and separation distances between other turbines it is not considered that there would be a significant harmful effect on the overall appearance of the landscape. As such it is Officers opinion that there would be no significant cumulative visual effect either with the Langrigg Hall group of 4 turbines, or with any other development within the study area.
In this regard the proposal would not conflict with saved policies EN19 and EN25 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan.
Access and Highways
The Highways Authority has indicated they have no objections to the proposal. They do note, however, that the applicant should ensure that there is no obstruction of the public right of way that runs along the access lane during the construction works.
The proposal is considered not to affect users of the highway. As a receptor the users of the highway are considered to experience only a minor magnitude of change.
Furthermore, given the location of the proposed turbine within the applicants paddock, there are no topple distance issues regarding the public highway.
Public Rights of Way
The nearest public right of way runs adjacent to the access lane to the north of the site. It is 19m north of where the turbine is proposed to be located and is separated from the paddock by an established hedgerow. There is sufficient topple distance between the proposed turbine and the public right of way.
The opportunity for open countryside access is limited with the site
Page 83 surrounded by private agricultural land.
Noise
Noise details were submitted with the application and Environmental Protection has confirmed that they are satisfied with the details subject to appropriate standard conditions.
Shadow Flicker
In terms of shadow flicker, the standard assessment would be that properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine could potentially be affected by shadow flicker; this is also influenced by the position of the sun within the sky. In this case the rotor diameter is 5.5m and the nearest residential property is 85m away therefore no shadow flicker effects are predicted.
Historic Environment
There are no listed buildings, conservation areas or schedule ancient monuments in the vicinity of the site and the historic environment is considered unaffected.
Ecology
A Bat Survey Report has been provided to support the application. The survey looks at the risk of collision by bats with the wind turbine with particular reference to the mature hedges close to the intended site. The need for a bat survey is due to the close proximity of the proposed site to a mature hedgerow (within 50m).
The survey area encompasses the immediate and surrounding area of the proposed wind turbine site. The activity surveys concentrated on a radius of approximately 100m of the identified site in the paddock adjacent to The Croft. The desk survey of habitat and records extended to a 5km buffer. It was judged to be reasonably foreseeable that no offence would be committed based on the evidence gathered by the siting of a micro turbine adjacent to Croft House. The report concluded that the planning permission should not be held back at the site due to bats, as the proposed work is unlikely to cause a net loss of habitat or disturbance to bat species in the local or wider area if the recommendations of the report are followed. Natural England does not object.
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR
The CAA, Carlisle Airport, NATS and the MOD have been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections.
Page 84 Flood Risk
No flood risk.
Representations
One letter of objection has been received and one letter of support. No comments have been made by FORCE.
A summary is as follows with the case officer’s comments.
The letter of objection comments that turbines are a blight on the landscape whatever their size, and they kill numerous birds and bats. The letter also states that Allerdale already hosts 70% of Cumbria’s wind energy developments, and the cumulative effect must now be an issue with every turbine application.
In response to the objections raised, it is Officers opinion that given the size, scale, siting and design of the proposed turbine the development would not harm visual amenity or landscape character. Due to the slimline design with tapering mast top (height 17.4m to tip), and the small turbine head (5.5m rotor diameter), the turbine would only be seen at limited vantage points directly surrounding the site and from a small number of residential dwellings. From a distance of 300m visibility is significantly reduced, and this is further achieved by the colouring of the tower in light grey with white rotary blades.
It is Officers opinion that the proposal is unlikely to cause a net loss of habitat or disturbance to bat species in the local or wider area provided that the recommendations of the bat report are followed. Furthermore, the bat survey judged that it is reasonably foreseeable that no offence would be committed based on the evidence gathered by the siting of the turbine adjacent to Croft House.
With regard to cumulative impacts, it is Officers opinion that given the scale of the proposal and the separation distances between other turbines there would be no significant cumulative visual effect. Although the objector comments that Allerdale already hosts 70% of Cumbria’s wind energy developments, the proposal should be considered on its individual merits and a judgement is required to be made whether any harm, in the light of the development plan, would be outweighed by the national objective of promoting renewable energy generation.
The letter of support is non-specific.
Local Finance Considerations
Page 85 Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.
Conclusions/Recommendation
Officers consider that the proposal should be considered on its individual merits including the guidance in the “Wind energy in Cumbria” SPD. In this SDP there are no special landscape designations applicable to the site. The landscape character classification for this area (5a) is identified as being of moderate landscape capacity, suggesting that small scale wind turbines may be acceptable.
The development plan provides in principle support for renewable energy, and the NPPF at Para 98 recognises that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal would contribute to the generation of renewable energy which would assist in meeting national and regional targets that seek to reduce carbon emissions in order to tackle climate change.
In balancing the degree of any harmful effects of the proposal, which are considered very minimal with regard to visual and landscape, against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development; it is considered that on balance, the development will have negligible impact and can be supported.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before Reasons: the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 0140-AD-00281 DEV 02 - Proposed Elevations 027 SL - Site Location Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.
3. This permission shall remain valid for a period of 25 years from the date that electricity from the development is first produced ('First Export Date'). The date of the first production of electricity shall be notified in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the event occurring. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with the
Page 86 National Planning Policy Framework and Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
4. Not later than 12 months before the end of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of the wind turbines and the associated above ground equipment and foundations to a depth of at least one metre below ground. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within 6 months of the expiry of this permission. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
5. If any turbine hereby approved ceases to be operational for a continuous period of at least 6 months or any timescale agreed in writing with the local planning authority, the turbine shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a decommissioning and site restoration scheme approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the continuous six month cessation period coming to an end. The land shall be restored in accordance with the approved scheme within 6 months of the scheme's approval by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
6. Within 6 months of the completion of the construction works, any temporary working areas around the turbine shall be removed. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
7. Prior to the erection of the turbine, details of the colour and finish shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details. No part of the structure shall carry any logo or lettering. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with the
Page 87 National Planning Policy Framework and Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
8. Noise from the turbine shall not exceed an LA90, 10min of 35dB(A) up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m in height when measured and assessed 3.5m from the facade of the nearest noise sensitive use, namely Croft House, Bromfield (in existence at the date of this permission). Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).
9. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging noise nuisance at a residential property or properties due to the wind turbine, the wind turbine operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine at the location of the complainants property. The results of the independent consultant’s assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of notification of the complaint. If a breach of Condition 18 was confirmed in the assessment the operation of the turbine will cease until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied the turbine can operate within the noise limits specified in Condition 1. The operator of the development shall be under no obligation to follow the procedure set out in this condition where the complaint relates to a residential property more than three kilometres from the wind turbine generator. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).
10 .In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging electromagnetic interference at a residential property or properties due to the wind turbine, No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol and methodology for dealing with the assessment of electomagnetic interference in the event of any complaint. The protocol and methodology shall include remedial measures to be taken to alleviate any identified occurrence of electromagnetic interference. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol and methodology. Reason: To minimise the risk of electromagnetic interference from the development affecting the occupiers of any
Page 88 residential dwellinghouses in the locality of the site.
11. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation within the Bat Survey dated 28 th August 2013. Reason: In the interests of the protection of wildlife in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan
Proactive Statement
Application Approved Without Amendment
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 89 Page 90