SCHEDULE SL/2014/1220 (a)

KIRKBY IRELETH: Land at Kirkby Moor Wind Farm, KIRKBY in FURNESS

PROPOSAL: Decommissioning of 12 existing wind turbines and ancillary infrastructure; erection of a wind farm comprising 6 Website Link to Application turbines (Maximum blade tip height of up to 115m), a E325762 N482676 26/11/2015 meteorological mast, new and upgraded access RWE Innogy UK Ltd tracks, substation and other ancillary development

SUMMARY The application seeks permission for the decommissioning and removal of twelve existing 42 metre high wind turbines and replacement with six new wind turbines, along with a meteorological mast, new and upgraded access tracks, a substation and other ancillary infrastructure. The maximum height to blade tip of each new turbine would be 115 metres (377ft). The main issues arising from the proposal include: • Visual and landscape Impact, including cumulative impacts and impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park. • Residential amenity impacts. • Impacts upon ecology and in particular the Kirkby Moor SSSI. • Impacts upon tourism, recreation and the local economy. • Impacts upon the setting of designated Heritage Assets and archaeological interests. • Impacts upon communication networks, in particular the Ministry of Defence air traffic control radar. Although the proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation, it is considered that this does not outweigh the harmful landscape, visual and cumulative impacts of the proposed development including the adverse impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park; harmful impacts upon the setting of designated heritage assets and unresolved impacts upon the Ministry of Defence communications network. DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The site comprises an upland area of moor directly to the east of Kirkby Slate Quarry, known as Kirkby Moor and Lowick High Common. It is positioned at the southern edge of the Cumbrian Mountains just beyond the southern boundary of the Lake District National Park, with the northern most proposed turbine lying just over 1km to the south of the National Park boundary. The application site is located approximately 5 km to the northwest of Ulverston. The village of Grizebeck lies approximately 2 km to the northwest, Kirkby in Furness lies approximately 2 km to the southwest, and Broughton Beck lies approximately 2 km to the east of the site. The nearest hamlets and villages are located in the low lying land on either side of the moor. To the east of the moor these include Gawthwaite, Broughton Beck and Netherhouses whilst to the west of the moor these include Grizebeck, Chapels, Beck Side and Kirkby in Furness. The nearest residential properties to the site are located at Moor House Farm, Groffa Cragg to the east, Croglin Farm and Cop Cross to the west and Friars Ground and High Ghyll Farm to the south west, which are within 1km of the proposed turbines. The primary highway routes immediately surrounding the Kirkby Moor site are the A5092 which crosses Gawthwaite Moss approximately 1km north of the site, and the A595 which runs along the eastern side of the Duddon Estuary through Kirkby in Furness. Kirkby Slate Quarry extends for approximately 1.5 km along the north western slopes of Kirkby Moor. Access to the existing Kirkby Moor wind farm for operational and maintenance purposes, is via the quarry, whose main access is from the A5902. A minor road / track, known as the Kirkby Slate Road is located to the south of the site and provides access to an existing substation building located to the south of the current turbine group. Much of the application site is designated as part of the Kirkby Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for its upland heath habitat, in particular its heather moorland. An area of Access Land designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act covers the majority of Kirkby Moor and much of the Kirkby Moor site, including the area in which the existing wind farm is sited. There are also a number of Public Rights of Way (PROW) which cross the site. The site boundary extends across two units of Common Land, Kirkby Moor Common and Lowick High Common. A number of designated heritage assets are located within the vicinity of the application site including Kirkby Hall, a Grade I listed building; Ashlack Hall, St Cuthbert’s Church Beckside, and the Sir John Barrow monument which are Grade II * listed buildings, and St John’s Church Netherhouses and St Luke’s Church Lowick Grade II listed buildings. The nearest conservation areas to the proposed development is at Broughton in Furness, 5.5 km to the north-west and Ulverston Conservation area 5.2 km to the south east. Long Moor Cairn, a Scheduled Monument, is located within the application site. The Cairn is formed of two parts; the monument consists of a Bronze Age tumulus, a mound placed over a cist burial. There is also a ring cairn, a circular enclosure formed by a bank. The current wind farm comprises 12 no. 400 kW turbines, with a blade tip height of 42.4 metres. The wind farm, which was one of the first operational windfarms in the UK, was granted consent in March 1992 by the Secretary of State. The existing windfarm has a capacity of 4.8MW, and since becoming operational in 1993 has generated approximately 228GWh of renewable electricity. The site also contains two temporary 80 metre high met masts, the permission for which expires 28th February 2016.

Proposal The application comprises the following elements: 1) The decommissioning and removal of the current turbines; 2) The construction of six new turbines and associated infrastructure and access routes; 3) The installation of a transformer at the base of each turbine; 4) The creation of crane hard standing areas beside each turbine; 5) The construction of new and upgraded on-site access tracks, including vehicle turning heads; 6) The construction of a permanent meteorological mast, including Mountain Rescue radio equipment; 7) The construction of a new substation and associated compound and parking area; and 8) The provision of a temporary construction compound, storage area and setting down area. 1) The existing turbines and unit transformers including all above ground equipment would be removed from the site. A Draft Decommissioning and Construction Method Statement forms part of the submitted documents which set out how this will be achieved together with details of the proposed restoration works. The top 1 metre of the existing turbine foundations would be reduced / removed and overlain with topsoil to enable long term reinstatement. The turbine foundations would remain in situ unless their removal is required to facilitate the construction of the new turbines. The transformer bases would be removed from site and the exposed ground would be topsoiled to enable vegetation establishment. The existing cabling for each turbine will be cut and capped. The existing track network would remain. 2) The six proposed turbines would have three blades with a maximum height to blade tip of 115 metres, a maximum hub height of 74 metres and a base diameter of approximately 5.5 metres. Each of the proposed turbines would have an installed generating capacity of between 2MW and 3MW, giving a combined installed generating capacity of between 12MW and 18MW for the wind farm in total. Each turbine would be constructed on a reinforced concrete base measuring 20 metres in diameter and built to a depth of approximately 3 metres. The turbines would be positioned within the existing general envelope of the current windfarm, with two of the turbine positions on or very close to existing turbines. Five of the turbines with their associated works would be located within the SSSI. The sixth would be positioned just outwith the SSSI to the south of the current turbine group. The base of the turbines would be set at between 251 metres and 319 metres above ordinance datum. In order to enable adjustments to the precise siting of the turbines in response to any additional ecological or engineering constraints, the application allows for an area of 10 metres for potential micro-siting of the turbines. 3) An electrical transformer would be located at the base of each turbine with separate transformer housing measuring 6 metres by 3.5 metres by 3 metres high and positioned on an elevated concrete base. 4) A crane hardstanding measuring 45 metres by 25 metres would be constructed alongside each of the turbines. These would be constructed of compacted unbound granular material using local stone and remain in position for the lifetime of the development. 5) New and upgraded access tracks would be constructed to connect the turbine bases, incorporating turning heads to accommodate abnormal load turbine delivery vehicles. The tracks would be 4.5 metres wide with passing places and include turning areas adjacent to where they terminate. They would be constructed of unbound granular material using local stone and reinforced with geogrid material. 6) A permanent meteorological mast would be sited on the western side of the turbine group close to the position of one of the existing turbines. This would replace the current two temporary masts. The mast would be of a lattice tower design, 80 metres in height and incorporate the Duddon and Furness Mountain Rescue radio equipment which is currently sited on one of the temporary masts. 7) A new substation and associated compound, including a temporary construction compound would be constructed adjacent to the existing substation at the head of the Kirkby Slate Road. The building would comprise a single storey 10 metre by 20 metre stone faced building with a pitched tiled roof. It would house switchgear and metering, protection and control equipment as well as welfare facilities. The associated compound would house a generator and parking area. This part of the proposed development is outside the designated SSSI. 8) A temporary construction compound, storage and set down area would be created within the current Kirkby Slate Quarry site. These elements would be located outside the designated SSSI.

The connection to the grid would be made by upgrading the cables on timber poles similar to those already servicing the substation. The turbine components would be delivered to the application site from junction 36 of the M6, then westwards along the A590, then north-westwards along the A5092 to reach the access point to the proposed development. To gain access to the upland area on which the turbines will be sited, the applicant proposes to follow the same access route through Kirkby Slate Quarry which was used for the construction of the existing Kirkby Moor wind farm. A separate application to the Secretary of State will be required to be made under Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006, as the development would take place on registered common land. The application includes the provision of an area of Common exchange land to offset the area of land that would be taken up by the development. This area of land is located to the south east of the turbine group, adjacent to the substation. Permission is sought for a period of 25 years as is standard with this type of development.

Pre application consultation The applicants have undertaken a pre application consultation with the local community and key stakeholders which is set out in the submitted Consultation Report. The consultation was undertaken in two phases during 2013 and 2014 and took the form of a series of briefings at Kirkby Ireleth, Lowick and Blawith and Subberthwaite Parish Councils and manned public exhibitions held at Grizebeck village hall. Members of the public were also kept informed of the evolving development proposals through newsletters, press articles and the project website. The main issues arising from the public consultation related to cumulative impacts of the proposal, concerns about increase height of proposed turbines and visual impacts, concerns about noise and shadow flicker impacts, impacts on wildlife, habitats and the SSSI, and identifying community and economic benefits of the proposal.

Environmental Impact Assessment Due to the size and nature and location of the proposed development, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been formally scoped and undertaken in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. This process examines and assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development on the environment, under the following topic areas: Socio-Economics, Tourism, Recreation and Land Use, Landscape and Visual, Non-Aviation Ecology, Ornithology, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Noise and Vibration, Access, Traffic and Transport, Ground and Water Conditions, Shadow Flicker and Telecommunications and Infrastructure.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The current Kirkby Moor windfarm was granted permission by the Secretary of State in March 1992, following a call-in of the application. The consent was the subject of a number of conditions including a requirement to remove the turbines on the expiration of 25 years from the date of the turbines being first brought into use. The current turbines will need to be removed by August 2018.

CONSULTATIONS Askam and Ireleth Parish Council: Object to the application. The parish council feels that the proposed height of the turbines is unacceptable and would cause not only a negative visual impact but also an environmental one. The current turbines which are nearing the end of their life, have impacted on water flows in the area, and the site should be returned to its natural state at the end of life, so the assumption is that the larger turbines would have a bigger impact. Further the increased traffic for development of a new site would have a negative impact on the Moor. This is an unwelcome development and should be rejected and not just reduced in scale.

Blawith and Subberthwaite Parish Council: Strongly oppose this development and recommend refusal on the following points:- • Access to local roads during construction. The council is aware of proposals to alter the A5092 as well as disruption caused by the transportation of the turbines. • Access for servicing once it is completed. The servicing of the turbines requires new access roads which will create further damage to the SSSI. • The council does not feel that this is an appropriate industrial development for a SSSI. • Visual Impact. The scale of the development will affect significantly the amenity and enjoyment of the surrounding area. • Unknown effect of environmental impact. The pressure waves caused by the turbines may have a detrimental effect on both the ecology of the site and on the personal wellbeing of the local population as will the impact of noise and flicker. • Impact on landscape. Loss of habitat caused by the creation of additional concrete plinths will create unacceptable damage to the environment and set an unacceptable precedent for future redevelopment. • Not a replacement but a new development. Provision was made for the restoration of the site in the granting of the previous permission. The council believes that the scale and location of the proposal represents a completely new development and one which would not be considered to be acceptable on an SSSI if it had been put forward on a previously unaffected location. • Impact within the National Park (heritage, tourism etc.) The setting of National Parks is formally recognised as capable of being a significant material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Development outside the National Park boundary, such as a wind farm proposal may be refused consent because of the impact it would have upon areas within the National Park. The council believes that the proposed development meets this criteria for rejection.

Colton Parish Council: Originally stated that they had no objections to the proposal. The parish council have subsequently reviewed the application in the light of government policy changes and changes to the way it responds to applications. They have therefore revised their response to ‘neutral’ and have decided to defer the decision to the Planning Authority.

Above Derwent Parish Council: The existing turbines were strictly time limited to a 25 year period. To allow this application will simply encourage future applicants to have no regard to planning conditions. There is already more power generated in the North West than most other areas in England and Wales – there is an issue of fairness here. We occupy one of the most beautiful wild landscapes in the UK it is our duty to preserve that for future generations. It is almost beyond belief that we are considering sacrificing part of an endangered Common, a SSSI, which is next door to a potential World Heritage Site.

Duddon Parish Council: Duddon Parish Council have resolved unanimously to object to the above named planning application for the following reasons:- 1. The Turbines are out of scale and will have a detrimental effect on the landscape. 2. Tourists may be put off coming to the area. 3. The effect they will have on the local businesses. 4. They will be on SSSI land. 5. The level of noise created by the turbines and the intrusion this will have on people every day. 6. The possibility of more power pylons being required. A recent survey in our Parish suggests that 95% of those surveyed felt that the local landscape is very important. Duddon Parish Council are not against green power, however, these turbines need to be sited elsewhere. We urge SLDC to reject this planning application.

Egton with Newland, Mansriggs and Osmotherley Parish Council: Strongly oppose the application for the following reasons:- 1) The 115 m height of the turbines, three of which will be located on a ridge over 1000 feet above sea level, will dominate the local landscape especially when viewed from Broughton beck, Netherhouses and Mansriggs areas of the parish. 2) The wind farm will damage the appearance of our area, not just within the parish but over vast areas of South Lakeland as well as into the National Park. 3) The local area becomes a less attractive place to live, work and visit because of the presence of huge turbines. 4) The impact on parishioners health which could be affected by the drone of the turbines and the so-called ‘flicker effect’ of sunlight catching the blades. 5) The damage done to Kirkby Moor, especially the heather and peat bog, from building new access tracks, concrete bases, hard standings and a new electricity sub-station. 6) The damage done to Sites of Special Scientific Interest, wildlife habitats and archaeologically important sites on the moor. 7) Loss of opportunity to return Kirkby Moor to its pre wind farm state of a place of wild, open, heather moorland with unrivalled views in all directions.

Kirkby Ireleth Parish Council: The Parish Council believes the application to be obtrusive and detrimental to the landscape. It is better suited to an off shore development. The Parish Council therefore cannot support this application.

Lowick Parish Council: At meetings held on the 17 th and 19 th March, the overwhelming view of the community was to object to the proposal on several grounds and the Parish Council also unanimously object to the proposals. The previous permission granted in 1992 was made on the basis that the national interest outweighed the environmental and visual impact of the turbines. The approval stated that the turbines must be removed from the site on the expiration of 25 years. The present application is therefore for a new windfarm and not a repowering of the former. It also states that upon decommissioning the site should be restored to its former condition by both restoration and regeneration. This has not been restated by the applicants. The proposals contravene local authority Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Large tracts of the site are designated as a SSSI a national site of moorland ecosystem and disturbance of which by a wind farm is irrefutable; access roads and aprons requiring larger and deeper foundations; drainage and water percolation systems interrupted; disruption of nesting habitats; alterations to the food chain related to insects, small mammals, seed eating birds and raptors. The scale of the development will have a massive impact upon the visual amenity of both the site area e.g. for walkers, as well as for local residents in the immediate vicinity and the wider area down to Lowick Bridge. The size of the structures nearly as tall as Blackpool Tower, four times higher than the Hoad Monument and three times higher than the existing turbines is completely out of scale with the surrounding area. The scale of the structures over 100 metres tall will be a moving construction of awe to the human brain and could have adverse consequences for drivers on the nearby roads. Although the site is outside the National Park boundary, it has the same landscape character and acts as a buffer and should be equally protected, particularly given the application for World Heritage status. There has been increasing levels of research showing the links between noise and flicker effect of turbines on the wellbeing of residents in proximity to those turbines. As a parish council we have a duty to represent those residents, often isolated, to emphasise the need to protect them from potential dangers associated with the side effects of the wind turbine industry. In order to transport the blades to the site, the A5092 road would need to be straightened at Thurstonville, and Saunders and outside the former Lowick School. The application for the development should be rejected until a separate permission is obtained for the highway changes have been approved. We are not against renewable energy per se but would point out that the applicants would be better advised to site two new turbines on the off shore site rather than the proposed six turbines on Kirkby Moor which would achieve the same level of efficiency and output.

Millom Without Parish Council: Oppose the application on the grounds that the turbines would dominate the landscape and view for residents within the Parish and damage the appearance of the area and it may impact on the number of visitors to the area and subsequent loss of income to local business.

Ulverston Town Council: Unanimously object to the proposal because of the visual impact on the landscape and damage to the environment.

Urswick, Bardsea and Stainton Parish Council: Strongly object to this application. It is considered that the size of the proposed turbines in this location will dominate the landscape for miles around the Furness peninsula and damage the appearance of the area for residents and visitors.

Wicham Parish Council: Object. Concerns about the size of the turbines and the visual impact they would have on the surrounding area. The Wicham valley and surrounding areas rely heavily on tourism and the visual impact of the turbines may deter visitors from returning.

Winscales Parish Council: Wholehearted support for the concerns raised by Lowick and Blawith & Subberthwaite Parish Councils. Cumbria is becoming inundated with turbines and there has to be a point where our views “enough is enough” are taken into account.

Lake District National Park Authority: Object to this application. In making the assessment the visual effects on views both from the National Park, and also views of the National Park from outside the boundary have been considered. The accumulative impact of the development and existing wind turbines in the area has also been considered. The assessment takes into account a number of criteria including distance from viewpoint, landscape character including character flow across boundaries and intervisibility with adjacent landscape character types and numbers and sensitivity of receptors as well as iconic public views within the National Park. Landscape Character Although the site is outwith the National Park our Landscape Character Assessment identifies the site as being within Landscape Character Type (LCT) K – Low Fell which includes a substantial area of land of similar character and appearance running south of the boundary and strong character flow across the boundary. This is a transitional landscape with rolling hills and occasionally rugged fells. Far reaching views from elevated land are common within this and the adjacent LCT. The higher ground is open, and where a rough textured appearance dominates. On this higher ground there is a relative scarcity of built features apart from the existing turbines which have a blade tip height of 42.4 m and is a significant detractor. In terms of capacity for change, visual sensitivity is considered high as a result of the strong sense of openness throughout and strong intervisibility with adjacent Landscape Character Types. Overall, the Low Fell Landscape Character Type is considered to have limited capacity to accommodate new development without compromising key characteristics. In terms of managing landscape change there is a need to protect uncluttered skylines and key views to and from the area from tall, vertical and large scale developments that may erode the undeveloped character of the area. Therefore the erection of 115 m high (blade tip height) structures would have a significant impact on the character of the area and setting of the National Park as the introduction of these tall turbines would clutter skylines and key views which would erode the undeveloped character of the area. One of the special qualities of the National Park is the tranquillity of the fells, valleys and lakes which gives a sense of space and freedom. The relatively open character of the uplands, and the lack of modern development, is especially important. To walk freely across the fells, or climb their crags, is liberating and gives a sense of discovery. There is a feeling of wildness, offering personal challenges for some and impressive open views for everyone. This proposed development would affect that special quality. Visual Receptors Important public views within the National Park would be affected by the development. The dynamics of the views are relevant such as physical nature, duration and frequency such as prolonged views. Persons using Coniston Water both in private boats and public passage vessels such as Coniston Launch and Gondola would be aware of the proposed turbines which would be prominent in views down the length of the lake. The views down this lake are iconic and the prominence of the wind turbines puncturing the skyline would affect the special qualities of the area and enjoyment of users of the lake appearing over dominant and visually intrusive. Also visitors travelling along the A593 in the Hawthwaite area would have a long exposure to views of the turbines. There would be significant visual impact on the enjoyment of users of the high fells such as Coniston Old Man, Blackcombe and Thwaites Fell to name a few which would affect the special qualities of the National Park. Whilst the reduction in number of wind turbines from 12 to 6 is welcomed this is however offset by the significant increase in size which makes the turbines more prominent from a greater area both within and outside the National Park than the existing wind turbines, adversely affecting both the setting of the National Park and the character by the development. The existing turbines are more in scale and better related to the landform being largely below the ridge line from many viewpoints. What is proposed now is out of scale and protrudes above the ridge making the turbines stand out in the skyline. The combined impact of this proposal and the existing and consented turbines in this area would add to the cumulative impact particularly in views from the south which will affect the setting of the National Park. Conclusion The scale of the development, the cumulative impact of this proposal with the existing and consented turbines, and its proximity to the boundary of the National Park and importantly, landscape character flow across the boundary into the area including the site, in our opinion results in non-compliance with South Lakeland Local Plan saved Policy C26. The viewpoints produced do not adequately demonstrate that there will be no harmful effects on the landscape and setting of the Lake District National Park but clearly show the impact on the special character of the National Park and setting of the National Park. The development of significant vertical structures of the scale proposed on the edge of the National Park which is seeking World Heritage Status and which would affect the special qualities of the National Park should be refused. The proposed development also conflicts with the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Park and should be refused. The benefits of this renewable energy proposal do not outweigh the harm in this instance. For the above reasons we urge you to refuse the application.

Cumbria County Council (CCC): Cumbria County Council’s Development Control and Regulation Committee considered its consultation response to the above planning application on 12 th May 2015. The Committee resolved that a strong objection be raised to this proposed development for the following reasons:- Landscape Effects The most significant effects upon the landscape will arise when the turbines are seen in views towards the Lake District National Park from the Open Access land on the higher points on Bank House Moor. From other points, only the upper parts of the blades will be visible. This can cause an unpredictable and awkward relationship with the landscape, and can appear intrusive - particularly at close range. In close proximity in the site, and in some wider views from the north and west, the scarring caused by the slate quarry is apparent. This is the ‘working character’ alluded to be the Wind Energy SPD, to which turbines could potentially relate. Whilst the quarry lends an industrial character to the landscape, this is focused upon a localised area around the site however. From the higher undeveloped parts to the south in particular, the sense of wildness derived from a general lack of development, will be adversely affected by the proposed turbines. Of particular relevance is the inherent linkage to the ‘Low Fells’ landscape character type, as defined by the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment. Kirkby Moor forms part of a range of low fells, stretching from Torver Common in the north, to Bank House Moor in the south. Although mitigated by the overall scale of the landscape, the turbines will nonetheless form a prominent skyline feature on this ridge, and as such will impact upon the setting of the Lake District National Park. To the east, the landscape is generally lower level, farmed, and settled - with numerous small scale hamlets and villages. Large scale development is generally absent. These characteristics result in an overall landscape character which is more complex. Concern is raised as to the effect of turbines of the scale proposed in such close proximity. Kirkby Moor is prominent from many areas within landscape type 11a (upland fringes). There is concern that the turbines would form a dominant, industrial feature on the skyline, which would detract from the inherent character of this landscape type. It is considered that the turbines will have an adverse effect upon the landscape character in which the turbines are sited, and the adjacent landscape types, which are considerably more sensitive to turbine development. Visual Effects The site is located within an area where there is extensive Open Access land, an extensive public right of way, trunk and local road network, as well as numerous residential properties, including isolated farms, and hamlets, as well as larger villages and towns. The applicant’s assessment highlights significant visual effects on visual receptors up to 5km from the site. This is noted. It is considered that these significant effects would extend beyond 5 km in a number of cases. Cumulative Effects The landscape types and settlements in this area currently experience ‘significant’ cumulative effects arising from vertical infrastructure. The wind farms of particular relevance to the cumulative assessment of this scheme are Harlock Hill, 3.5 km to the south, Far Old Park Farm, 6 km to the southwest, and Haverigg II and III, 12 km to the southwest. The Harlock Hill development has consent to be repowered (now known as the ‘Furness’ wind farm). It is also relevant to note that the preferred route of the upgrade of the National Grid would follow the existing line of pylons which run parallel to the A595 north of Askam.

The above assessment in regard to landscape and visual effects indicates that the turbines would result in an adverse effect upon landscape character and visual amenity in their own right. There is a concern, given the recognised cumulative effects experienced in this location that the turbines would also contribute to the increasing influence of vertical infrastructure, upon both visual amenity and landscape character. This would be counter to Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT). Conclusion That an objection is raised due to adverse landscape, visual and cumulative effects which are not outweighed by the environmental benefits associated with the renewable energy generation and carbon savings which would arise from this scheme.

Highways Officer: I would like to see clarification on the abnormal loads expected as part of the development; i.e. size of vehicles, access routes, potential pinch points and ease of manoeuvres, etc. It is appreciated that the applicant intends to use the same access arrangement as previous used but given the size increase in the wind turbines, we have to ensure that the access route is still sufficient. Swept Path Analysis should be carried out on any pinch points to ensure that abnormal loads can navigate them successfully and without incident.

CCC - Lead Local Flood Authority: Would look to objecting to the application on the grounds of insufficient detail regarding the drainage of the access tracks and impermeable areas. Detail of the methods of drainage and the possible impact surface water discharge from the development proposal would have on the watercourse within the area would be needed, namely Gill House Beck which runs in a south westerly direction through Beck Side village and feeds into Soutergate Beck. Both Beckside and Soutergate suffered from surface water and fluvial flooding in November 2012.

Countryside Officer: There should be no interference with public footpaths.

CCC Historic Environment Officer: The EIA acknowledges the close proximity of the proposed development to two designated heritage assets comprising Bronze Age cairns, which are legally protected as Scheduled Monuments. It states that the application site has ‘a high potential for ritual activity relating to the Bronze Age’ and that ‘it cannot be assumed that any such remains will be of less than national significance’. Given that the EIA determines there to be a high potential for possibly nationally important remains to be completely removed within the areas of the construction ground works of the development, the impact of the development would be defined as having a Significant Effect. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that further information should be supplied by the applicant on how the significance of any archaeological assets that may survive within the site would be impacted upon by the development, prior to the determination of the application. I agree with the recommendation in the EIA that this information should be obtained by an archaeological geophysical survey. An informed judgement can be made as to whether, in the event planning consent is granted, provisions will need to be included for the preservation of significant archaeological assets in situ and for the recording of assets of lower importance.

Historic England: We suggest that in making its decision your authority establishes to its satisfaction the impacts of the proposed wind turbines upon all listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered landscapes and conservation areas within the zone of visual influence. While the height of the turbines is far greater than the existing we accept the conclusions of the Environmental Statement regarding the change of impact on the setting of highly graded heritage assets within 5 km of the wind farm. We recommend that you consult with the archaeological staff at Cumbria Historic Environment Services to consider the potential impacts which the proposal might have upon those heritage assets within the site boundary which are no designated. The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

SLDC Conservation Officer: The Environmental Statement identifies 22 listed building heritage assets that fall within 5 km of the proposal site, with 14 of these falling within South Lakeland outside the National Park. I consider that ten of these would not be significantly affected by the proposal. An assessment has therefore been made on the likely impact of the proposal on the remaining four listed buildings: Kirkby Hall; St Cuthberts Church, Beckside; St John’s Church, Netherhouses; and Angerton Farmhouse. Ulverston Conservation area and Sir John Barrow Monument on Hoad Hill in Ulverston is located 5.2 km from the application site and this has also formed part of the formal assessment. The application would have a moderately harmful impact on the combined significance of the heritage assets identified above. In all cases that impact would be less than substantial. In applying the statutory tests of the 1990 Act my advice is that the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the five listed buildings and a neutral impact upon the conservation area.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer: I can confirm that I have reviewed the above application and have the following comments:- Construction Noise Predicted construction noise is within acceptable limits and the predictions suggest that these levels would not give rise to any significant effect on nearby residents. I would however request a condition is applied to any consent restricting hours of construction and demolition activity on the site. Construction dust The applicant has made reference to the control of dust but in order to ensure that sufficient measures are in place to control dust whilst large earth works are undertaken I request a condition requiring provisions to be made to control dust emanating from the site. Operational Noise I can confirm that the applicant has considered the operational noise which would be produced should this application receive approval. In doing so they have followed recognised guidance and assessment methodologies associated with this type of development. In preparing their assessment of operational noise, the applicant has considered noise emissions from both a Senvion MM92 2MW wind turbine and also a ENercon E82 E2 2.3MW wind turbine. These are referred to as the candidate turbines and the applicant has noted that the final decision on type and model of turbine will be confirmed following a competitive tendering process should consent be given for the development. Final choice of turbine must be confirmed by the applicant prior to installation and must comply with noise limits contained in the conditions below. In order to ensure that operational noise remains within excepted levels I would recommend that the following condition is attached to any subsequent consent:- 1. The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines, (including the application of any tonal penalty) when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes, shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed set out in the tables attached to these conditions and: a) Prior to the first export date the wind farm operator shall submit to the local planning authority for written approval a list of proposed independent consultants who may undertake compliance measurements in accordance with this condition. Amendments to the list of approved consultants shall only be made with the prior written approval of the local planning authority. b) Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the local planning authority and following the receipt of a complaint alleging noise disturbance at a dwelling, the wind farm operator shall, at its own expense, employ a consultant approved in writing by the local planning authority, to assess the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written request from the local planning authority shall set out at least a date, time and location that the complaint relates to and identify meteorological conditions they consider relevant to the cause of complaint. Within fourteen days of receipt of the written request of the local planning authority made under this paragraph (b), the wind farm operator shall provide the information logged in accordance with paragraph (h) to the local planning authority in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e). c) Where a dwelling to which a complaint is related is not listed in the tables attached to these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit in writing to the local planning authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from those listed in the tables to be adopted at the complainant’s dwelling for compliance checking purposes. The proposed noise limits are to be those limits selected from the tables specified for a listed location which the independent consultant considers as being likely to experience the most similar background noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s dwelling. The submission of the proposed noise limits to the local planning authority shall include a written justification of the choice of the representative background noise environment provided by the independent consultant. The representative background noise environment and proposed noise limits shall be submitted in writing within 35 days of the initial notification to the wind farm operator of the complaint. These are to be submitted to the local planning authority for their written approval. The rating level of noise emissions resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the local planning authority for the complainant’s dwelling. d) Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the independent consultant to be undertaken in accordance with these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit in writing to the local planning authority for written approval the proposed measurement location identified in accordance with the Guidance Notes where measurements for compliance checking purposes shall be undertaken. Measurements to assess compliance with the noise limits set out in the tables attached to these conditions or approved by the local planning authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this condition shall be undertaken at the measurement location approved in writing by the local planning authority. e) Prior to the written submission of the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions in accordance with paragraph (f), the wind farm operator shall submit in writing to the local planning authority for written approval a proposed assessment protocol setting out the following:- • The range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind shear, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise emissions. • A reasoned assessment as to whether the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component. The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, having regard to the written request of the local planning authority and any conditions the authority identify under paragraph (b), and such others as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits. The assessment of the rating level of noise emissions shall be undertaken in accordance with the assessment protocol approved in writing by the local planning authority. f) The wind farm operator shall provide to the local planning authority the independent consultant’s written assessment of the rating level of noise emissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within two months of the date of the written request of the local planning authority made under paragraph (b) unless the time limit is extended in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in 1(e) of the Guidance Notes. The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the local planning authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions. g) Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise emissions from the wind farm is required pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the attached Guidance Notes, the wind farm operator shall submit in writing a copy of the further assessment within twenty one days of submission of the independent consultant’s assessment pursuant to paragraph (f) above unless the time limit has been extended in writing by the local planning authority. h) The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, nacelle wind speed, nacelle wind direction and nacelle orientation at each wind turbine all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d) as well as the site ten metre wind speed, at a location approved by the local planning authority prior to the first export date. Rainfall shall be measured during any noise measurement regime at a location within 30 metres of the noise measurement location. These data shall be retained for the life of the planning permission. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in writing in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the local planning authority on its request, within fourteen days of receipt in writing of such a request. Once the local planning authority has received the independent consultant’s noise assessment required by this condition, including all noise measurements and audio recordings; where the local planning authority is satisfied of an established breach of the noise limits set out in the attached tables 1 and 2, upon notification by the local planning authority in writing to the wind farm operator of the said breach, the wind farm operator shall within fourteen days propose a scheme for the approval of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be designed to mitigate the breach and to prevent its future recurrence. The scheme shall specify the timescales for implementation. The scheme shall be implemented as approved by the local planning authority and according to the timescales within it. The scheme as implemented shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Excessive Amplitude Modulation 2. The wind farm shall not emit greater than expected amplitude modulation noise. At the request of the local planning authority following the receipt of a complaint the wind farm operator shall, at its own expense, employ a consultant approved by the local planning authority to assess whether noise emissions at the complainant’s dwelling are characterised by greater than expected amplitude modulation. Amplitude modulation is the modulation (fluctuation) of the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency. These will be deemed greater than expected if the following characteristics apply: a) A change in the measured LAeq 125 milliseconds turbine noise level of more than 3dB (represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3dB) occurring within a two second period. b) The change identified in (a) above shall not occur less than five times in any one minute period provided that the LAeq, one minute turbine sound energy level for that minute is not below 28dB. c) The changes identified in (a) and (b) above shall not occur for fewer than six minutes in any hour.

Location Wind speed (ms) as standardised to 10m height 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Friar’s 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46.3 46.3 46.3 Ground Croglin Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Beanthwaite 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45.2 45.2 45.2 Parkgate 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Groffa Crag 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Moor House 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Rathvale 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45.8 52.4 52.4 52.4 Heather 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.7 43.7 43.7 Cottage High Ghyll 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46.3 46.3 46.3 Table 1 - Between 23:00 and 07:00: Maximum Noise level (dB LA90, 10-minute).

Location Wind speed (ms) as standardised to 10m height 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Friar’s 35 35 35 35 35 35 36.4 38.7 41.7 45.5 45.5 45.5 Ground Croglin Farm 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.9 37.7 40.1 43.2 43.2 43.2 Beanthwaite 35 35 35 35 35.4 36.6 38.1 40 42.2 45 45 45 Parkgate 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.6 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 Groffa Crag 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.8 38.7 42.8 42.8 42.8 Moor House 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.1 36.8 38.9 41.4 41.4 41.4 Rathvale 35 35 35 36.3 38 40.2 42.6 45.4 48.3 51.4 51.4 51.4 Heather 35 35 35 35 35 36.2 37.8 39. 40.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 Cottage High Ghyll 35 35 35 35 35 35 36.4 38.7 41.7 45.5 45.5 45.5 Table 2 - Between 07:00 and 23:00: Maximum Noise level (dB LA90, 10-minute)

Private Water supplies The applicant has recognised that the proposed construction activity may have an adverse effect on local water supplies and has identified supplies which may be susceptible to both pollution and contamination. I would however request that the following condition is applied to any consent given:- 3. Prior to the start of any construction activity the applicant must submit a plan to the local planning authority detailing which private water supplies will be monitored, how they will be monitored, and what contingency measures will take place in the event of pollution or contamination. This plan must be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Environment Agency: No comments to make as considered to be a low risk development.

Natural England: Summary This application site is approximately 1 km from the Lake District National Park at its nearest point. Natural England has identified a likely significant impact on the purposes of designation of the Lake District National Park, we are therefore objecting to this development on landscape grounds. The application site is within Kirkby Moor SSSI. The current Habitat Management Plan (HMP) broadly covers our concerns but does not provide us with confidence that the management can be delivered as the plan relies on third parties. We also have concerns regarding the wording relating to grazing stipulations in Unit 5 of the SSSI. Providing that the HMP is amended to include the additional requirements we have requested in regards of the above concerns Natural England has no objection on biodiversity on the basis that a requirement to deliver the amended HMP is secured via a Section106 agreement. The application site is in close proximity to several internationally designated sites. Based on the information provided the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any internationally designated site. Landscape - objection Natural England believes that this development would have a significant adverse impact on the statutory purposes of the National Park and conflicts with national planning policy. We therefore object to this proposal on landscape grounds. Natural England considers that the size and scale of this development within the setting of the designated landscape would have an adverse impact on those special qualities. History of tourism and outdoor activities Many visitors come to the Lake District to enjoy the scenic beauty of the landscape and the very many recreational opportunities. The proposed development will have an adverse impact on both the landscape and the visitor experience with in the National Park in the vicinity of Kirkby Moor. Open nature of the fells For many people the Lake District National Park is synonymous with mountains and upland fells. These peaks act as focal points of attention in the landscape and are key potential visual receptor viewpoints. The proposed development will be visible from many of these fells, with significant visual effects from Great Burney peak, 2 km from the site. Views to turbines introduce man-made features to the skyline and attract the eye’s attention when admiring panoramic views and consequently would have an impact on the open nature of the fells. Celebrated social and cultural heritage Alfred Wainwright, in his “Wainwright Guides” identified key Lakeland fell peaks and outlier fell peaks, many of which are located in proximity to the Kirkby Moor Site, including Coniston Old Man, Black Combe, Great Burney, Hampsfell Gummer’s Howe, Whitfell and the Dunnerdale Fells. The proposed turbines would be clearly visible from these peaks, impacting on the long, open, panoramic views expected from these peaks.

Landscape character effects Natural England agrees with the LVIA’s Conclusion of significant effects on landscape character of the site itself, in the host landscape character types, and on neighbouring character types within the National Park. The site is elevated, open and features a heather moorland ridge and plateau with long views towards the Lakeland fells and to the coast. The turbines would be clearly visible as prominent man-made structures in this open moorland landscape. This is a sensitive landscape in the setting of a National Park and the proposals bring a very high magnitude of change resulting in a major direct significance and adverse effect on landscape character. Visual effects The repowering proposals would be visible over a wide area which includes high peaks and visitor hot spots within the core of the Lake District National Park including Scafell Pike, Helvellyn, Bow Fell, Coniston Old Man and the shores of Coniston Water. Whilst the LVIA does not consider the visual effects at these viewpoints significant, the fact they are visible, combined with the very high sensitivity of these receptors gives cause for concern. The LVIA identifies significant visual effects from viewpoints both within the National Park, and in its setting. These include receptor points around the settlements of Grizebeck, Broughton Beck and Lowick Bridge, and minor roads in the vicinity of the site, both looking out towards the site from within the national park and looking back towards the fells of the Lake District from south of the National Park. From all these viewpoints the proposed development would be prominent, bringing a high magnitude of change and a major or major / moderate level of effect to receptors. There are significant visual effects from Great Burney, an outlier fell in the Lake District National Park - the closest of numerous outlier fells mentioned in his book which will have views to the proposed turbines. Great Burney is approximately 2 km from the proposed site and has long, open panoramic 360 degree views. The turbines would form highly prominent features in the view from Great Burney and consequently the high sensitivity or the report with the high magnitude of change would lead to major and significant visual effects. There are also significant visual effects from John Barrow Monument on the edge of Ulverston a well-used local viewpoint with panoramic views including long open views back to the Lake District Fells. There would also be a significant effect on some other important recreational receptors. The LVIA identifies a significant effect on a section of the Cumbria Way between High Lath Farm (north of Ulverston) and Gawthwaite and also intermittently a significant effect on a short length of the route between Gawthwaite and Blawith Knott. There would also be a significant effect on the section of the Cumbria Coastal Way between Duddon Mosses and Dunnerholme, intermittently along parts of the Furness Way between Lowick Green and Lowick Bridge; and intermittently along parts of Regional Cycle Route 37 between Spark Bridge and Lowick Bridge. There are areas of open access and numerous PROW in the immediate vicinity of the site, some of which cross the site itself. Users of these recreational assets would have unobscured, close proximity views of the turbines in the foreground, with the Lake District Fells in the background.

Nationally Designated Sites Section 28i advice Kirkby Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The application site is within Kirkby Moor SSSI. Kirkby Moor SSSI is one of only three upland SSSIs in south Cumbria. The main interest of the site is the heather moorland, a habitat restricted on an international basis to northern Europe and a scarce habitat in south Cumbria. The site also supports a wide range of mire communities. Other upland habitats add to the diversity of the site as a whole. Kirkby Moor provides a habitat for a number of protected bird species. Natural England welcomes the detail presented in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Pegasus Group, December 2014) in relation to biodiversity impacts on the SSSI, and we generally concur with the overall assessment of impacts. The EIA accepts that the application will damage the SSSI and while minimising these impacts will still result in circa 6 ha of immediate designated habitat loss. To mitigate for this the draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) on which we have been consulted prior to application, proposes 26 ha of restoration / creation works. The current HMP broadly covers our concerns but does not provide us with sufficient confidence that the management can be delivered as the plan relies on third parties, including the Holker Estate, the Commons graziers and the adjacent landowner accepting the plan and allowing its implementation in full. If it is not delivered in full then Natural England takes the view that the scheme would result in unmitigated damage to a nationally important site. On Blades Moss (Unit 5 of Kirkby Moor SSSI) we support the production of a hydrological plan and restoration works including removing residual drainage to restore the mires to favourable condition. We are concerned though about the grazing stipulations for this SSSI Unit. The current wording is unnecessarily imprecise and could lead to future objections by the owner / grazier which could prevent the appropriate grazing occurring. Within the EIA it states that the Ecological Clerk of Works will be involved in selecting stockpile areas for areas of turf / soil that are removed for use elsewhere. Natural England would also need to be consulted and be in agreement about appropriate turf / soil stockpile areas to avoid unnecessary impacts. We advise that the HMP should include the following additional requirements: • Written confirmation that the Estate and graziers will support the fencing of restoration areas on the moor. Given that the Winnow upper and mid-levels are proposed this specific area can be agreed in advance and the remaining 4.5 ha agreed later as long as in principle acceptance that a further area is to be fenced is confirmed in advance. • Acquisition of legal control over the SSSI unit by RWE for a period of 30 years, as stated in the HMP. • Grazing management on Unit 5 (Blades Moss) should include the following stipulations. The SSSI area should be stock free for at least 5 years and then reviewed and if grazing is introduced at any time there should be no winter grazing (December-March). Providing that the HMP is amended to include the above requirements Natural England has no objection on biodiversity on the basis that a requirement to deliver the HMP is secured via a S106 agreement. Internationally Designated Sites The application site is in close proximity to:- • Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Duddon Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) which are European sites. The sites are also listed as Duddon Estuary Ramsar site and also notified at a national level as Duddon Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) • Morecambe Bay SPA which is a European site. This site is also listed as Morecambe Bay Ramsar site and also notified at a national level as Morecambe Bay SSSI. • Subberthwaite, Blawith & Torver Low Commons SAC. This site is notified at a national level as Subberthwaite, Blawith & Torver Low Commons SSSI. In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, Natural England advises that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment. Protected Species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species.

National Trust: The Trust has major land interests in the general area of the application site and those likely to be affected by the proposal include Sandscale Haws, land in the Thwaite Fell area to the west of the River Duddon and significant areas on the east and west sides of Coniston Water. a) Sandscale Haws Sandscale Haws has been described by Natural England as the jewel in the crown of the areas world class natural heritage. It is not only a National Nature Reserve, but also part of the Duddon Estuary Ramsar Site, Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation. In addition it is a Site of Special Scientific Interest. A key aspect of the importance of Sandscale Haws is its cumulative value as an eco- system, some parts of which are very fragile. The reserve, which is crossed by the Cumbrian way footpath, is a popular place for recreation, both on the beach and in the quieter areas of the dunes. The vistas over the Duddon estuary and towards the central Fells of the Lake District are a key and much valued characteristic of the property. The quality of the fine views has in recent years been eroded by features of 21 st century living such as turbines and aerials including the Askham, Harlock Hill and Haverigg wind farms, the existing Kirkby Moor wind farm and off-shore facilities. The text of the applicant’s Environmental Statement recognises that the turbines will be visible from considerable parts of the reserve at a distance of around 9 km but suggests that the impact will not be significant. For the purposes of the Landscape Institute Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment the Trust considers that the sensitivity of Sandscale Haws as a receptor should be regarded as very high rather than high and even if the magnitude of change was regarded as medium this would result in a major / moderate landscape effect which would be considered significant. b) Coniston Area On the west side of Coniston Water the Trust has landholdings between Torver and Coniston village, either side of the A593, extending to the lake side as well as extensive areas to the north of Coniston village, including the iconic site of Tarn Hows. On the east side there are landholdings at the southern end of the lake with an overall lake frontage of around 4 km, including Peel Island, together with steeply rising woodland to the east of the road and an open upland area around “The Park” and “Low” and “High Parkamoor”. There is unrestricted public access to these areas. In addition to its land interests the Trust also operates the restored C19 steam yacht “Gondola” which cruises from the pier at Coniston village to the southern end of the lake, calling among other places at Parkamoor jetty. Like Coniston jetty, Parkamoor jetty is the subject of one of the applicant’s photo montages illustrating the potential impact of the proposal. Whilst the application recognises the Gondola jetty as a very highly sensitive receptor for some reason Parkamoor jetty is only considered high. Bearing in mind its location and its use by those wishing to enjoy the sublime and unspoilt beauties of the lake, both locations should be similarly categorised. In the opinion of the Trust the proposed turbines would result in moderate change to both views and would consequently have a major / moderate impact which having regard to the Landscape Institute matrix should be regarded as significant. In the opinion of the Trust, whilst the proposed turbines are themselves just outside the boundary of the National Park, they would appear as intrusive and damaging features in views from a highly valued landscape around Coniston that forms part of a relatively unspoilt section of the Lake District National Park. c) Thwaites Fell The Trust has land interests at Thwaites Fell, an open upland area within the National Park boundary to the west of Broughton in Furness that is crossed by narrow country roads affording wide panoramic views over the surrounding area. Again having regard to the sensitivity of the location and the likely effect on the views the Trust would question the conclusion of the applicants that the impact of the turbines would not be significant in terms of their landscape and visual effects. In the Trust’s opinion turbines of a height of 115 m, more than twice the height of the existing structures would have a further detrimental impact on the outlook from a section of the Lake District National Park where existing turbines already have harmful consequences for the view. Whilst no images are available the applicant’s ZTV maps also show that the turbines would be visible from Trust land at Hawes Ground / Pickthall that is crossed by public rights of way and from Pike Side where there is unrestricted public access. The former is around 8 km from the proposed turbines and the latter around 12 km. Again it is considered that the proposed turbines would have a detrimental effect on the vista from these locations within the National Park. Conclusion It is considered that the proposed development would result in detrimental impacts per se on various properties owned or controlled by the Trust; it would seriously and adversely affect their significances and the enjoyment of the many visitors to those properties. In reaching their decision on this application the Council are requested to have regard to the concerns of the Trust referred to above. These and any other adverse impacts will have to be balanced against the benefit in terms of the contribution to renewable energy generation of the proposed turbines.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust: Objects to the planning application on the following grounds:- 1. Permanent net loss of 2.93 ha of nationally important wildlife habitat. 2. The proposal does not comply with the tests and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to development on SSSI’s. 3. The proposal does not comply with the tests of the south Lakeland Local Development Framework, Core Strategy CS8.4 Biodiversity and geodiversity. 4. The proposed measures in the applicants Habitat Management Plan cannot be considered mitigation as they will happen regardless of whether the development occurs.

RSPB: We would like to register an objection for the following reasons:- The proposal does not comply with the tests and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in relation to development on SSSI’s (paragraph 118). Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss (NPPF Para 118). It is our opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated that the benefits of this proposal will outweigh either the harm to the special interest features of Kirkby Moor SSSI or the broader national network of SSSIs. The RSPB does not consider the proposed measures can be considered as appropriate mitigation, and therefore there will be permanent damage to the SSSI. We consider that the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused and that there will be less damaging locations capable of providing those benefits. Therefore, permission should be refused.

Permanent Loss of SSSI habitat The development would result in the permanent loss of 2.93 ha of SSSI habitat. For reasons set out below, the proposed mitigation measures cannot be considered as mitigation as they are not over and above those measures required by Natural England to bring the SSSI in to favourable condition. Nor can they overcome the permanent loss of SSSI habitat. All of these management options are within the boundary of the SSSI and notwithstanding their description as mitigation measures; it is clear in this case that:- • The proposed wind farm will involve the construction of infrastructure within semi-natural habitats, resulting in direct loss of habitats of conservation value or that support species of conservation value. • There will be permanent loss of 2.93 ha of SSSI habitat that cannot be mitigated by measures taken elsewhere within the SSSI; this represents a permanent loss of habitat from a site designated as one of a series (within the UK) of the best examples of this upland habitat. Kirkby Moor is the largest area of this habitat in South Cumbria and there are no other notified examples. • The restoration / enhancement measures outlined in the draft Habitat Management Plan and discussed with Natural England relating to control of grazing and active management to restore heathland and mire vegetation are those already identified by Natural England as necessary to meet the conservation objectives of the site for the affected features. Therefore, the proposed habitat management works cannot be considered as over and above those measures necessary for SSSI management and as such cannot be considered to be mitigation for the predicted damaging impacts. Natural England already has the necessary powers under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to work with the landowner to secure the necessary measures to deliver favourable condition. In relation to this point, the RSPB notes that SSSI units 2, 3 and 4 were classified as ‘unfavourable recovering’ by Natural England in 2012. These units have been subject to overgrazing and occasional burning (to promote grazing) which has led to damage to the heathland habitat. The reason these units qualified as recovering is that these SSSI units and adjoining land outside of the application red-line boundary are receiving public funding under an entry level stewardship scheme 4 aimed at restoring the wildlife value. For these reasons, it is the RSPBs view that the proposed package of measures cannot be considered as appropriate mitigation for the predicted damage to the SSSI. Therefore, the application should trigger a requirement for compensatory measures. There are no proposals for any such compensatory measures, assuming it is practicable to compensate for the loss of the affected habitats. In this case therefore where no off-site compensation is proposed, the development cannot satisfy the requirements of the mitigation hierarchy, and planning permission should be refused as per paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Inadequate proposals for moorland restoration Notwithstanding the significant concerns and objection set out in our comments above we would like to draw the Council’s attention to the inadequacy of the proposed restoration through the use of fencing to prevent grazing. The restoration of (grazed) degraded moorland habitat requires a reduction in or the removal (exclusion) of grazing to improve the site’s condition. Presently, there are no agreements in place for this to happen, Natural England has failed to secure these agreements to date and there is no guarantee that the developer will be able to secure them as they rely entirely on the compliance of third parties. Without stock reduction any attempt at habitat restoration will fail. It should be noted that to allow for satisfactory restoration of areas identified around the turbine bases temporary fencing will also be required to allow vegetation to develop satisfactorily, in addition to the fencing that will be required to allow for 2.84 ha associated with temporary habitat loss to be adequately restored.

Friends of the Lake District (CPRE): Friends of the Lake District considers that this application would cause demonstrable harm and conflict with established local and national policies which seek to protect landscapes including the designated landscape of the Lake District National Park. The application should therefore be refused, in summary, for the following reasons:- • The proposal would result in unacceptable visual harm to the landscape due to the magnitude of change of the turbine size compared to the existing turbines on Kirkby Moor. • The development would have a significant adverse impact upon local landscape character including on the setting of the Lake District National Park not least by reason of the cumulative impact from nearby built / under construction / consented wind turbines, along with the proposed route of the National Grid North West Coast Connections pylons. • The visual impact arising from this development in such close proximity would result in significant harm to the landscape of the National Park. • The intrusive nature of the proposal would impact on the nature conservation interests of the SSSI and on recreational activities on Kirkby Moor and into the Lake District National Park including quiet contemplative opportunities on nearby fells and Coniston Water and locally cherished viewpoints including The Hoad and Birkrigg Common.

Ministry of Defence: The MOD objects to the proposal. The proposed turbines will cause unacceptable interference to the Air Traffic Control radar at Warton. Wind Turbines have been shown to have detrimental effects on the performance of MOD radars. These effects include desensitisation of radar in the vicinity of the turbines and the creation of false aircraft returns which could result in aircrafts not being detected by the radar and not presented to air traffic controllers. If the developer is able to overcome the issues stated above, the MOD will request that all turbines are fitted with appropriate safety lighting.

NATS: Following a review of our operation in the vicinity of the proposed development NATS (En Route) plc has determined that although this is likely to impact our electronic infrastructure, this impact can be managed such that it does not affect the provision of a safe and efficient en-route ATC service. Accordingly NATS (En Route) plc has no safeguarding objection to the proposal and as such, we are withdrawing our objection of the 6th February 2015.

Joint Radio Company LTD (JRC): Unfortunately part or all of the development is located within 1 km / 0.5 km of a protected link site or path managed by JRC. As a consequence JRC objects to the proposed wind farm on behalf of Electricity North West and itself.

Arqiva (Television Transmission): No objections.

Vodaphone: No Objections.

Cumbria Tourism: Cumbria Tourism has concerns about the potential harm that the proposed windfarm could have on the visitor economy and the reputation of Cumbria and The Lake District as a visitor destination. The environmental statement accompanying the application accepts that there are significant landscape and visual impacts associated with the development and that the turbines will be visible from some considerable distance including high peaks within the core of the National Park. The section of the Environmental Statement dealing with potential tourism impacts is dismissive and limited in the extent of its research. There are currently some 471 wind turbines located in Cumbria (with 17 clusters of windfarms) and around 300 more turbines at proposal stage. This makes Cumbria the most extensively wind-farmed county in England. Given the scale and accepted visual impacts associated with this scheme we would suggest that it poses further risk to the visitor economy of the county which is worth 2.2bn per annum and sustains 32,805 FTE jobs. In our view this is a risk too far.

Ramblers Association: We object on the following grounds:- • Scale and impact on locality. They will dominate the local landscape, alter the skyline of a wild area and be clearly visible for miles. They will add to the effect of the other turbines in the area including huge offshore facility off Walney Island. People visit the area because of its wild landscape which would be irrevocably changed by these massive, alien installations. • Noise and flicker. The sound of the blades is extremely loud and very intrusive, audible from a long distance away from these structures and overpowering close to. • Damage to the moor and wildlife. Parts of the moor are Sites of Special Scientific importance and are Common Land. There will be new tracks, huge concrete bases, hard standings and a large new substation. Wildlife and habitats are bound to be affected and the wildness and sense of open space will be severely damaged. • Limited contribution to sustainable energy and carbon savings (?) taking into account the materials required, the energy for construction off, and the fact that the turbines are likely to be manufactured abroad. There is also the question of the need for backup conventional power sources when the wind doesn’t blow / blows too much, or the grid is full (wind energy cannot be stored). • Consumers pay (through their energy bills) the subsidies paid to the wind farm companies and the landowners and for the damage to their local environment. Therefore, monies offered to community funds is the consumers own money! We sincerely hope that you will take these important considerations into account when decisions are made about this planning application. Our members, walk and have walked in this area for many, many years, know it intimately and are sure of the negative effect that these turbines will have. We love this area for the very qualities that this windfarm will ruin.

Lake District Area Ramblers: Object. The erection of new turbines and access tracks will destroy heather moorland, a SSSI and adversely affect the walking environment from public rights of way crossing the moor. The Turbines will dominate the ridge, be on the skyline and highly visible from adjacent fells of the Lake District National Park.

Open Spaces Society: Objects most strongly to this application. The existing turbines are a severe intrusion in this wild landscape, highly visible from many directions and in particular from the Lake District National Park. The replacement development will be a terrible eyesore in this splendid and grand landscape. The turbines also occupy a significant area of registered Common Land. This is a unique land type for the public benefits it provides not only for those who exercise rights of grazing there but also for people who have rights to walk over the area, enjoying its peace, tranquillity and extensive views, its history, archaeology, culture and wildlife. We note that the applicants propose to offer land on the edge of the common in exchange for the land to be taken. This is not a fair exchange. The turbines and associated development will ravage the heart of the common. The moor is also criss-crossed with public rights of way, and users will be severely inconvenienced and their experience ruined by the presence of this noisy and banausic urban development.

Federation of Small Businesses: A large proportion of businesses in the area rely on tourism in terms of visitors and their spending, and there is no doubt that these plans would result in significant negative change to our famed and cherished landscape and therefore have a significant negative impact on these businesses.

Neighbours / Others FELLS (Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery): Object to the application. The principal grounds are:- • risk of future extension - and the long-term vulnerability of the site; • breach of the original condition which permitted operation for 25 years; • changes in government policy which bring into question the need for this scheme; • landscape and visual impacts which are understated by the applicant and fail to give sufficient weight to the fact that over 300 turbines are now operational or in construction /planning in the study area; and • cumulative impact which is now a serious threat to South Cumbria and NW Lancashire, and especially to the National Park and its bid for World Heritage Status. Noise risk In addition, FELLS requests that should the Council deem to grant consent, provision is made for the inclusion of a condition relating to Amplitude Modulation (or Excess AM) which has proved such a problem at Armistead.

FORCE (Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment): Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment have carefully considered this proposal to repower, we now wish to formally OBJECT to the application for the following reasons:- • Unacceptable change to landscape character, impacting on views towards and from the Lake District National Park and surrounding countryside; • The scheme, if it were to go ahead, would have an unacceptable cumulative impact with other wind energy developments in the area; • Loss of visual amenity for walkers and road users; • Loss of visual and residential amenity for neighbouring properties; and • The application does not specify the make and model of turbine proposed therefore any predicted noise levels are unreliable.

Westnewton Action Group: Object to this proposal for the following reasons:- • The existence of a windfarm on a moor such as this with SSSI designation and adjacent to Britain’s premier National Park is anomalous. The Secretary of State granted consent originally as an experimental research project aimed at examining wind power as a possible source of future energy security. Having achieved its goal this wind form has reached the end of its allotted time span. • The proposed turbines will completely dominate the area for miles in every direction. Due to the proximity to the National Park, they would clearly intrude visually on views from within as well as towards the National Park. • Exaggerated performance figures - the annual estimate of installed capacity would mean the wind farm functioning at up to 40.9% respectively and questions the amount of Carbon Dioxide that the wind farm could displace. • The proposal is not ‘repowering’ an existing site, it is a completely new development. • Further damage to the SSSI. • Cumulative impacts with adjacent windfarms. • Noise impacts. • Shadow flicker impacts. • Concerns regarding canvassing by the applicant to gain pro forma letters of support which focus on an inappropriate slant on the benefits of wind energy in general. The full 13 page report and supplement is available to view on the Council’s website.

High Furness and Kirkby Moor Commoners Association: Support the Kirkby Moor Wind farm development.

South Lakes Action on Climate Change: This is a development which is well conceived and important in terms of producing renewable energy. Fully support the application.

Radiation Free Lakeland: Fully support genuine renewable energy and in this case there is already a precedent for wind energy here on Kirkby Moor. The reduction of turbines will mean less visual intrusion but repowering will mean that the area continues to make an important contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. The local community and the local economy will benefit from inward investment.

Duddon and Furness Mountain Rescue Team: Support the application. We have used the existing met mast at Gunson Height since 2013 to host our radio equipment allowing communication between our base and search parties out on the hill. We have come to rely heavily on its use and it is now our primary means of communication. It would severely impact on the team’s ability to operate if we lost this valuable resource.

Broughton Community Plan Steering Group: In Spring 2015, as part of a community-wide consultation to inform the development of the Broughton Community Plan, questionnaires were distributed and made available online to those living or working within Duddon Parish. 329 questionnaires were completed – more than a third of the parish’s adult population, as measured by the last census. Containing over 40 questions, opinions were sought on a range of topics such as transport, housing, local services and the local area. The response to the question “ How important are the following aspects of your local area to you?” is relevant to the above planning application. 96.35% of respondents rated the landscape as either very important (80.85%) or fairly important (15.5%). In addition, 91.18% also said that wildlife was either very important (69.3%) or fairly important (21.88%). It is clear from these statistics that residents of Duddon Parish cherish the outstanding beauty and unique ecology of their environment. As such, with the visual impact the proposed much taller wind turbines would have on the local area and the likely negative effect the construction, maintenance and operation of the wind-farm is likely to have on wildlife, it is unlikely that our parishioners would wish this re- development to go ahead. As RWE did not undertake a consultation with our adjoining parish despite the effect the proposed wind-farm would have on our residents, it is important that South Lakeland District Councillors give due weight to these results from Broughton’s Community Plan questionnaire.

The Wainwright Society: When Alfred Wainwright was exploring the Coniston Fells and, later, the Southern Outlying Fells of Lakeland he extolled the virtues of the views from the summits of the greater and lesser heights and, in particular, he noted the exquisite beauty of the seascapes and estuaries that could be enjoyed from these tops. In his chapter on Coniston Old Man he wrote: ’A vast seascape makes a glorious sweep across the southern horizon, ranging from the Pennines to Black Combe, and further west, to the Isle of Man. A rare beauty is added to the scene by the silver waters of the Kent, Leven and Duddon estuaries.’ Of lowly Burney, he wrote: ‘Considering the modest altitude and ease of access, a most rewarding panorama is revealed from Burney. The Duddon estuary is a special feature.’ So it is with dismay that the Society has read the proposal to erect six huge wind turbines on the ridge of Kirkby Moor. This ridge, a designated SSSI and a noted area of heather moorland extends NNE to the Blawith Fells and leading the eye into the heart of Lakeland. There is little doubt that these turbines would have a damaging visual impact both of views from the high Coniston fells but also of views from outside the Park into Lakeland where the turbines would be an unwelcome man-made intrusion into the landscape set against the backdrop of the magnificent vista of fells lying to the north. The Society considers that when the current permission for the present wind farm expires in 2018 the land should revert to its former state, not only having positive environmental benefits, but also going a long way to restoring the views of the Duddon estuary so loved by Wainwright from the southern fells of Lakeland.

Neighbour and individual responses: Objections A total of 532 individual letters of objection to the proposal have been received at the time of writing, of which 288 have been received from the local community in the immediate parishes adjacent to the site, 130 from the wider Furness area, 27 from elsewhere in the District and 87 from elsewhere or at unknown addresses. Their main concerns are:- • Adverse visual impact. The turbines will be disproportionally large and dominate the area, be visible for miles around, greatly detract from the high amenity value of the surrounding landscape and enjoyment of this area by locals and visitors. The new turbines will be two and a half times larger than the current turbines with a vastly greater visual intrusion. The height of the six turbines will be a massive visual intrusion on some of the UK’s best loved landscapes. • The existing turbines were only meant to be in place for 25 years. They should be removed in accordance with the condition attached to the original consent and the land restored to its natural state. The decommissioning does not require further consent. It is essential that the concrete bases should be completely removed. • The construction of new tracks, concrete bases, hardstandings, and a large new substation would cause significant damage to an area which are designated SSSI and common land. • The turbines would impact on views from many popular locations from within the National Park which is currently seeking World Heritage status and would have a serious detrimental effect on views experienced by visitors in an area heavily dependent on the local tourism economy. The proposal represents a further industrialisation of what was once beautiful heather moorland. • The Lake District National Park, is already surrounded by a dominating ring of existing and planned onshore turbine sites the proposal would create an adverse cumulative impact. • Wind turbines are an inefficient form of energy generation at around 20 - 25%, they have a costly carbon footprint during manufacturing. They would make a limited contribution to sustainable energy. The amount of electricity generated by the turbines does not justify the harmful impacts on the landscape, the disruption during construction and the loss of flora and fauna. • National targets for onshore wind energy have already been exceeded there is no justification for imposing the proposed structures on the environment other than for financial gain. The turbines would be built with substantial subsidies paid for by the consumers and tax payers. • The few people who would benefit from this development are far outweighed by the many who would be affected by the proposal. • The proposal would have unacceptable impacts on local residents in terms of noise impacts, the ‘whoosh’ sound of the blades, and shadow flicker. The quality of life would be harmed. The existing turbines already cause noise nuisance issues. Research suggests that increasing numbers of residents living within 10 km of wind turbines have suffered adverse health impacts. • The proposed turbines would be unpleasantly overwhelming and have an unavoidable presence which would have a significant impact on residential amenity. • The noise predictions are based on criteria which is dated and has been the subject of much debate – it is not suited to characterising noise subject to a significant degree of amplitude modulation. The measured noise level results are likely to be unreliable and understated. They have failed to consider the cumulative impacts of noise from other turbines. • There have been many advances in the production of wind energy and offshore turbines have proved more efficient and have less adverse impacts on local communities and sensitive landscapes. There are better alternatives such as tidal power or solar energy. The money would be better spent on developing improvements to the efficiency of electrical devices and thermal insulation. • The proposals would result in greater encroachment onto the Kirkby Moor SSSI resulting in the damage / loss of habitat and wildlife especially moorland birds and bats. It will adversely affect the mires and heather moorland, where a rare variety of mountain bumble bee is present. The concrete needed for each of these turbines and ground work entailed on such a large scale will cause long term devastation and it would take years for the carbon footprint incurred to be offset by the limited amount of power produced. • The SSSI and its integrity will be damaged not only by the intrusion of traffic during construction and maintenance but also by air turbulence and continuous vibrations transmitted from the towers into the surrounding ecological infrastructure. There is no consideration of the potential long term changes in the micro-climate within the SSSI that are likely to result from the construction of large turbines on the moor and which may disrupt the ecological balance. • It will affect the archaeology of the area which contains rare and important ancient Bronze Age sites. The construction work will destroy the history of the land. • The application is not compliant with the NPPF or saved Policy C26 because not only would the development have a significantly adverse impact on the nationally important landscape of the Lake District but it would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area because of the cumulative impacts. The benefits of this renewable energy proposal do not outweigh the harmful impacts. • The development could impact on local private water supplies and surface water drainage. There have been instances of flooding during torrential rain events and where watercourses on the fellside have been blocked / disturbed. • The proposal development is on Common Land and would affect the rights of commoners. • Distortion of television reception. • Danger from ice and blade throw, particularly in view of the proximity of public footpaths which cross the site. • The motion of the blades may distract drivers on the 5092 and B5281 causing danger to road users. • The local roads into and out of the area are not suitable for heavy construction traffic. • The warning lights will be intrusive at night and during the day - distracting and industrial in nature. • The turbines would have a detrimental impact on the setting of St John’s church, Osmotherley, a Grade II listed building. Support A total of 141 individual letters of support for the proposal have been received including pre-printed letters of which, 11 have been received from the local community in the immediate parishes adjacent to the site, eight from the wider Furness area, 80 from elsewhere in the district and 42 outside the District. Their representations are:- • The wind farm would have an acceptable visual effect on the landscape. • Ecological mitigation provided as part of the wind farm proposal will provide a net ecological benefit for the site there is no evidence that they disturb wildlife. • The windfarm will make an important contribution to reducing CO2 emissions it will provide nearly four times as much electricity with fewer machines. Alternative energy generation should be available for the good of the country. • The wind farm would generate inward economic investment in the Cumbria area, creating real contract opportunities for local businesses. • Kirkby Moor repowering Community investment Fund would be an excellent source of long term funding that could help deliver key community projects and help fund local causes. • Wind turbines are far more attractive than electricity pylons. • Fossil free, nuclear free energy. • The economy of Cumbria cannot rely on tourism alone. • In the event of an earthquake, any damage of the turbines would not result in serious impacts on the environment, unlike nuclear sites. The site can be cleared and returned to agriculture without having to spend billions of pounds on the decommissioning process. • Independent sources of electricity are vital to the strategic safety of the community. Additionally a petition in support of the proposal in the form of pre-printed cards which set out the issues as stated above, obtained by the applicant and forwarded to the Council has been received. A total of 755 cards have been received, of which 55 have been signed by local residents, 216 signed by residents of the wider Furness area, 443 signed by residents from elsewhere in the district and further afield and 41 have no address details.

POLICY ISSUES The Development Plan: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the provisions of the statutory development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the South Lakeland Local Plan Core Strategy and the saved policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

South Lakeland Core Strategy: Policy CS7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS8.2 relates to the protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character. The policy states that development proposals should be informed by and sympathetic to the distinctive character of landscape types set out in identified guidance documents. It states that proposals should demonstrate that “their location, scale, design and material will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance” the special qualities of nationally designated areas including the National Parks, the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area, distinctive settlement character, the function of ecological features, and “the setting of, and views into and from” (of relevance) “...the National Parks, conservation areas and individual built / manmade features that contribute to landscape and settlement character.” Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. Policy CS8.6 Historic Environment supports the safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing of historic environment assets, including their characteristic settings and any attributes that contribute to a sense of local distinctiveness. Such assets include listed buildings and features, conservation areas, scheduled ancient monuments and registered parks and gardens. Policy CS8.8 Flood Risk relates to development and flood risk and states that most new development should be located within flood risk zone 1 and that all new development will only be permitted where is can be demonstrated that it would not have a significant impact on the capacity of the area to store floodwater, measures required to manage any flood risk can be implemented and surface water is managed in a sustainable way. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development States that the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan: Saved Policy C26 relates to Wind Energy and states that “The acceptability of wind energy developments will be judged according to whether the number, size and design of proposals can be shown to satisfy the following criteria:- a) The proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on: 1. The character and appearance of the landscape, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests; 2. The amenity of residential properties by reason of visual impact, noise, shadow flicker or reflected light. b) The proposal would not have any significant adverse impact on nationally important landscape designation, including their visual amenity and setting. c) The proposal would not cause significant damage to a site of international or national nature conservation importance. d) Effective measures are available to overcome any significant electromagnetic interference to transmitting or receiving equipment. e) The power lines are placed underground or do not appear prominent in the landscape. f) Adequate access for construction traffic is available or could be provided without harm to highway safety, visual amenity or nature conservation interests. g) The cumulative effect of the proposal with existing, permitted or other proposed wind energy schemes, should not have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. h) Realistic proposals are in place for the removal of redundant wind turbines and the restoration of the site. In assessing the proposals against the requirements of this policy, full account will be taken of the proposed mitigating measures. Saved Policy C31 relates to cumulative impacts of renewable energy projects and states that assessments shall take account of these impacts where similar developments have been permitted in the same area.

Saved Policy C7 states that development proposals within SSSI will be the subject of special scrutiny. Developments which have a significant adverse impact either directly or indirectly on interests of nature conservation importance will not be permitted unless the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the value of those interests. Saved Policy L10 states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would affect their character. Development which results in the loss of, or disruption to, existing rights of way will only be permitted where a satisfactory diversion can be provided and secured in advance of planning consent.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Within the framework there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and support for the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy if their impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (paragraphs 14, 17, 93, and 98). Consequently, Local Planning Authorities are expected to recognise the responsibility imposed on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources (paragraph 97). Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity: Para 115; Refers to ‘the need to give ‘great weight’ to the conservation of the landscape and the scenic beauty in National Parks which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’. Para. 118 States that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts. Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment. Policy 132 states that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”. Policy 134 of the NPPF guides that “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1): Whilst primarily intended as the Policy Document for the National Infrastructure Division, Paragraph 1.2.1 states; “….In England and Wales this NPS is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).” The energy NPSs should speed up the transition to a low carbon economy and thus help to realise UK climate change commitments sooner than continuation under the current planning system. Part 5 of this document sets out generic impacts such as ecology.

National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3): This document is also a material planning consideration for all Renewable Energy planning applications determined under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Again this document provides policy guidance for the National Infrastructure Division and lists impacts that may need to be considered.

Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy: This government guidance document sets out the planning considerations relating to specific renewable energy technologies. In respect of wind turbine proposals the guidance states that the following issues should be considered:- • Whether the proposal has local community backing. • Noise impacts. • Safety issues including proximity to buildings and power lines, air traffic and MOD requirements, radar and strategic road networks. • Interference with electromagnetic transmissions. • Ecological impacts. • Impacts on designated heritage assets. • Shadow flicker and reflected light. • Energy outputs. • Cumulative landscape and visual impacts. • Decommissioning works.

OTHER MATERIAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (WESPD): This was adopted in 2007 and provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location is intermediate moorland and is judged to have an overall sensitivity of low / moderate with a moderate / high capacity to accommodate turbine development. The capacity statement sets out that small to large groups of turbines responding to the shape and scale of individual hills would be appropriate in Furness. The most notable limiting factor is the potential for turbines to erode a sense of remoteness and wildness and cause visual clutter and confusion with existing turbines and masts. It also states that there is potential for turbines on the open edges of the high plateaus or ridge to be overbearing or intrusive in relation to settlements, visitor routes and prospects from neighbouring landscapes of high sensitivity.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit: This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within character sub-type 9d, Ridges (Furness), within the broader landscape character type of Intermediate Moorland and Plateau. The key characteristics of this landscape sub-type are distinct ridges; extensive areas of true heathland moorland; improved pasture with distinctive stone walls; and woodland and small belts of trees forming prominent features. The guidance sets out that the open and distinct ridges, heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells and Duddon Estuary and Morecambe Bay provide drama and reinforce the sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. It recommends that the impact of development is minimised by careful siting and design and environmental gains sought such as heather and moorland restoration. It also states that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided where it could degrade the open and expansive character. The County Council have recently published work, produced in partnership with a number of other planning authorities, which considers the Cumulative Impact of Vertical Infrastructure (CIVI) upon the landscape character and visual amenity of the county. This is designed to be used as evidence base to support the implementation of local planning policy, including the WESPD.

Ministerial Statement 18 th June 2015: When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:- • the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and • following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority. The Statement includes a transitional provision where a planning application for wind energy development had already been submitted at the date on which the Statement was made, as is the case with this application. In such instances, as is the case with this application, and where the development plan does not identify suitable sites, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990: Under section 66 of the Act, the Local Planning Authority has to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting. Under section 72 of the Act, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended by the Environment Act 1949 requires ‘all relevant authorities to take the National Park statutory purposes into account when they make their decisions. If there is a conflict between those purposes; greater weight shall be attached to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage’.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS These are summarised as follows:- The need for increasing sources of renewable energy is urgent and this proposal will make a substantial contribution towards meeting that need, attracting the support of national planning and energy legislation and policy as material considerations which, taken as a whole, weigh heavily in favour of this scheme. Regarding the principle of development, it is found that the scheme either positively accords with, or does not conflict with, all relevant development plan policies. The support of Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 is conditional on ensuring the protection of the environment and designated areas, which is demonstrated later in the assessment. The scheme responds to the key issues set out at paragraph 1.35 of the Core Strategy and delivers against the aims of Policy CS1.1. The Cumbria Joint Wind Energy SPD is a material consideration on matters of principle which indicates that the application site falls within a landscape with medium / high capacity for wind farm development. Regarding the landscape and visual effects of the development, it is found with reference to the accompanying Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that the scheme will result in significant localised landscape and visual effects, decreasing to less than significant effects at greater distances. It is concluded that no residential properties or public rights of way will experience unacceptable harm, nor will the scheme unacceptably harm the special qualities of the Lake District National Park. Relevant development plan policies require that development proposals protect the environment (including landscape character) and the special qualities of the National Park. Saved Policy C26 of the 2006 Local Plan is specific to the type of development proposed and therefore dominant - it requires that the benefits of wind energy proposals are shown to outweigh their impacts on the landscape and that any significant adverse impacts on national designations and through cumulative effects are avoided. The scheme is shown to meet the requirements of this key policy. Nonetheless, a degree of tension with development plan landscape policies is considered to remain as a result of the landscape impacts of the development, but not such that the proposal is unacceptable when read against the development plan as a whole. Material considerations relating to landscape and visual impacts include National Policy Statement EN-3 which acknowledges the necessity of significant landscape and visual effects when securing wind energy developments essential to meeting identified need. In relation to ecological effects including effects on ornithology, it is concluded with reference to the accompanying Environmental Statement that with the implementation of the proposed Habitat Management Plan the scheme will result in a net beneficial effect upon the Kirkby Moor SSSI. No unacceptable effects on other habitats or species are anticipated. The scheme is therefore concluded to accord with relevant development plan policies. Material considerations, including the NPPF which encourages positive impacts on biodiversity, indicate in favour of the proposals. Regarding cultural heritage effects it is concluded with reference to the Environmental Statement that the development will result overall in less than substantial harm to affected heritage assets in the terms of the NPPF. Having regard to the identified significance of those assets, the degree of effect anticipated, and the duty set out at Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990, it is concluded that cultural heritage impacts are, on the application of the planning balance, acceptable. The scheme accords with the development in this respect, specifically in relation to saved Policy C26 of the 2006 Local Plan which requires a balance of benefits and harm to be struck. Regarding other material effects of the proposed development including those relating to transport, flood risk and drainage, aviation, telecommunications and tourism, it is concluded that the effects of the proposed development will be acceptable. The scheme is therefore shown to accord with the relevant policies of the development plan. No material considerations are identified which indicate against the scheme in relation to these matters.

ASSESSMENT The key planning issues raised by this proposal relate to:- 1. Impacts on landscape and visual amenity, including cumulative effects and impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park. 2. The impact of the development upon residential amenity. 3. The ecological impacts of the development, particularly in relation to the SSSI. 4. The impacts upon tourism, recreation and the local economy. 5. Impacts upon the setting of designated Historic Assets and archaeological interests. 6. Impacts upon aviation and telecommunications. 7. Energy Contribution and the environmental benefits of the development.

1. Landscape and Visual Impacts The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and accompanying visualisations have been reviewed by an independent landscape consultant engaged by the Local Planning Authority. The consultant has confirmed that the prepared visualisations meet the Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance and the photomontage material exceeds best practice guidance established by Scottish Natural Heritage. The LVIA assessments undertaken by Lake District National Park and Cumbria County Council have also been taken into account. In view of the fact that the current turbines will need to be removed in 2018, the baseline against which the landscape, visual and cumulative effects of this proposal must be considered is judged to be a site which has no turbines (as opposed to the net impact of the proposal when compared to the existing windfarm). Distance Guidance on the effects of distance on perception of wind energy developments in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (CWESPD) considers that turbines 95 -120 m to blade tip will be visible as follows:- • Dominant as a key focus in close range views up to 2.4 km. • Prominent as a key element in close range views of the landscape between 2 - 4.6 km. • Conspicuous as a noticeable feature in mid to long range views of the wider landscape with blade movement perceptible between 6 - 12 km. • Apparent as a visible feature in long range views of a wide landscape, turbines being perceived as a group rather than individual entities and blade movement. • Only perceptible in clear weather conditions between 12 - 18 km. • Inconspicuous as a minor feature in distant views of a broad landscape only seen in very clear visibility between 18 - 30 km. The above assumes an open landscape. Other factors can affect likely appearance such as weather conditions, season, direction of view and familiarity and expectations of the viewer. Landscape impacts The site lies within character sub-type 9d – Ridges as identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT). This area has a moderate to high landscape value and has been assessed in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (WESPD) as having low / moderate sensitivity. This is largely attributable to the large scale, simple nature of the landscape. The application site is within a landscape character that also flows into and is indistinguishable to the adjacent National Park. The boundary of the Lake District National Park is located approximately 1 km to the north of the nearest turbine. The general landscape type is deemed to have a moderate / high capacity to accommodate “up to a large group” which is 6 - 9 turbines and exceptionally up to a medium wind farm (16 to 25 turbines). However, the WESPD indicates that there are sensitivities relating to other landscape characteristics, which limit this capacity, notably the setting of the National Park and prospects from neighbouring landscapes of high sensitivity. Guidance in the CLCGT highlights the key views towards the sea and Lakeland fells, and sense of wildness which are characteristic of this landscape type, which are sensitive to infrastructure development. In order to assist with the assessment of the potential landscape and visual impacts of the proposal, a series of photographic visualisations and photomontages have been submitted from a total of 28 viewpoints surrounding the site. The viewpoints were selected on the basis of the ZTV analysis, field observations and include specific views of recognised importance such as the Sir John Barrow Monument at Hoad Hill, Birkrigg Common and the summit of Coniston Old Man. The closest viewpoints are within 2 km of the site and most are located within 10 km of the site where the impacts potentially range from conspicuous to dominant. For each viewpoint, an assessment of its sensitivity, the magnitude of change and the level of significance of the impact has been recorded. The level of impact of the proposed development from eight of these viewpoints, all but one of which have a high or very high level of sensitivity, is judged to be major and therefore significant. These include views from Grizebeck, Broughton Beck, Harlock, Kirkby in Furness, Lowick Bridge, Hoad Hill, Woodlands and Great Burney. Three of these viewpoints are within the National Park. The landscape consultant who has reviewed the submitted LVIA on behalf of the local authority, has advised that whilst he concurs with the assessment of these viewpoints, he considers, contrary to the applicants assessment, that there are three additional viewpoints where the impact of the development would also be significant. These viewpoints are within the National Park at Hawthwaite (A593) and adjacent to Coniston Water at the Steam Gondola jetty and Parkmoor jetty. Cumbria County Council and Lake District National Park officers also consider that the impacts from these sensitive viewpoints would be significant. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes that there would be some significant effects on landscape character during the operational phase of the development but that these effects will be relatively localised to the site. The Assessment states that there would be a significant effect on landscape character across some but not all of the landscape within a distance of up to 5 km from the proposed turbines. It contends that the proposed turbines would not prevent an appreciation of the distant views which can be enjoyed from various locations across Kirkby Moor towards the Lakeland Fells and the estuarine landscapes surrounding the moor. It also states that the turbines would be compatible with the underlying landscape and the character type would be able to accommodate the turbines. The landscape surrounding the site exhibits many examples of human interaction with the land including most notably the Kirkby Slate Quarry which has a strong influence on the perception of the moor. The Kirkby Moor site also has a historical and well established association with commercial wind farm development. It is acknowledged that the visibility of the turbines within the landscape would vary, due to the undulating topography of the area and as such the turbines will be screened from view in certain areas. However, from the many viewpoints where the turbines are visible the effects will be significant because of their scale and elevation. The most significant effects upon the local landscape will arise when the turbines are seen in views towards the Lake District National Park from the Open Access land on the higher points on Bank House Moor to the south of the site, as illustrated by the viewpoint from the minor road near Harlock, from the lower land to the east around Broughton Beck, and from the Sir John Barrow monument on Hoad Hill to the south west. From other points closer to the site where only the upper parts of the blades will be visible, the impacts would cause an unpredictable and awkward intrusive relationship with the landscape. The turbines would also be visible from the viewpoints adjacent to the Duddon estuary, a landscape which affords panoramic view with the fells framing the intertidal areas. Whilst the panoramic nature of the views of the site would serve to reduce the relative impact of the turbines from some aspects, they would detract from the smooth ridgeline which runs from Torver to Bankhouse and contribute to the cumulative effects of the existing and consented turbines at the Askham and Furness windfarms. The High Lakeland peaks such as Coniston Old Man are highly sensitive to change and they will have a view of the development. The turbines would be particularly visible from the other peaks and outlying fells closer to the site including Thwaites Fell and Black Combe. Whilst the LVIA has concluded that the development would have a moderate effect on these viewpoints which is not deemed to be significant, the turbines would clearly be visible and more prominent in the landscape from these areas of high sensitivity. The applicant refers to the current impact of the Kirkby Moor Slate Quarry upon the existing landscape. Whilst the quarry lends an industrial character to the landscape, this is focused upon a localised area around the site. From the higher undeveloped parts to the south in particular, the quarry is not seen and the sense of wildness described by the CLCGT, derived from a general lack of development, would be adversely affected by the proposed turbines. Kirkby Moor forms part of a range of low fells, stretching from Torver Common in the north, to Bank House Moor in the south. Although the application site is located outside the National Park boundary, there is a strong linkage between landscape type 9d within which the development would be located and the adjacent identified landscape character type, within the National Park. This is a transitional landscape of rolling hills and rugged fells where there is a relative scarcity of built features. There are strong character flows across the boundary, and as such is considered to be equally as sensitive to change. It is considered that the turbines will form a prominent skyline feature within this landscape, eroding the undeveloped character of the area, and adversely affecting the setting of the Lake District National Park. Visual Impacts The site is located within an area where there are large expanses of Open Access land, an extensive public footpath, bridleways, trunk and local road network, as well as numerous residential properties, including isolated farms, and hamlets, as well as larger villages and towns. The applicant has assessed the visual effects of the proposed turbines upon predicted receptors, falling into these categories. The settlements of Gawthwaite, Netherhouses, Broughton Beck, Beanthwaite, Grizebeck, Chapels, Kirkby in Furness, Beckside, Soutergate, Lowick Bridge and Lowick Green, which are located within 5 km of the site, have been assessed. Of these, Chapels, Beanthwaite and Lowick Green are predicted to experience little visibility. However, significant effects are predicted in parts of the remaining settlements where the turbines are visible. In regard to the effect upon recognised recreational trails and routes, significant effects are predicted by the applicant upon some sections of the Cumbria Way and Cumbria Coastal Ways, the Furness Way, National Cycle Network 70 and Regional Cycle Route 37. Public Rights of Way, minor roads and Open Access land within 3 km are predicted to experience significant effects. Beyond this, up to 5 km from the site, visibility of the turbines becomes more intermittent. From where they are visible within this zone however, significant effects are again predicted. Between 5 - 10 km of the site, the applicant concludes that the impacts would not be significant, due to distance. The major roads within 10 km of the site include the A593, A595, A5093, A5092, A590, A5084 and A5087. The applicant’s assessment indicates that there would be intermittent visibility of the turbines upon certain sections of these roads. Moderate effects upon the views experienced are predicted along some stretches of road. Although these are not viewed as significant, given that some of these roads lie within, or directly adjacent to the Lake District National Park, recreational users can be considered to have a greater focus upon the landscape generally. It is considered that this higher sensitivity would generate a more significant effect than that predicted by the applicant in some areas. There are a number of the selected viewpoint locations within the National Park Boundary where significant visual effects would occur as a result of the proposal. These include viewpoints at Lowick Bridge, Hawthwaite (A593), Woodlands, Great Burney and at Coniston Water. With regard to the two Coniston Water viewpoints and for users of boats on the lake, including the Steam Gondola passenger ferry, the introduction of industrial elements and rotating movement associated with the turbines will detract from the ‘Opportunities for quiet enjoyment’, which is one of the identified ‘Special Qualities’ of the National Park. The turbines will introduce a change in this iconic view that is clearly notable and forms an easily identifiable component in the view. The turbines would be prominent as a skyline feature appearing as over dominant and visually intrusive. With regard to the other viewpoints within the National Park where significant visual effects have been identified, whilst these locations may be less frequented and as such will be viewed by fewer people, they are still significant visual effects and as such great weight should be attached to the protection of the scenic beauty of this landscape which is given the highest level of protection. Cumulative Impacts The wind farms of particular relevance to the cumulative assessment of this scheme are Harlock Hill (5 turbines 53.5 m to blade tip), 3.5 km to the south and Far Old Park Farm at Askham (7 turbines 63.5 m to blade tip), 6 km to the southwest. The Harlock Hill site has consent to be repowered (now known as the ‘Furness’ wind farm, 5 turbines, 99.5 m to blade tip). The applicant has considered the Furness wind farm to form part of the baseline, rather than the existing, smaller, Harlock Hill scheme. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment acknowledges the cumulative effects with the Furness windfarm and also to a lesser extent the Askham site is within the Landscape. The Kirkby Moor site and the consented Furness site will be perceived simultaneously from 12 of the 28 viewpoints, including those with a high sensitivity such as Birkrigg Common, Coniston Old Man, Sandscale Hawes and great Burney. It is noted that from most of these, not all of the 11 turbines will be visible at once, and that they will, due to distance be seen as separate developments. From viewpoints on Coniston Old Man and Great Burney the two sites will be seen in combination as one development. It is considered that the proposed turbines will exacerbate the already significant cumulative effects upon the high ground which forms the core of landscape type 9d. This high ground is prominent in views from the adjacent landscape types noted above, and forms part of the setting of the Lake District National Park. Conclusion The proposed wind farm development will be clearly visible from the surrounding area and due to the scale and elevation of the structures will result in significant adverse landscape and visual impacts from a number of areas both within and outside the National Park, which cannot be mitigated for. There are a number of sensitive viewpoints where the proposal will be seen alongside other wind turbine sites and as such the development would result in adverse cumulative impacts. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan which seeks to protect the special qualities of the National Parks, including their setting. There is also a duty under the National Park & Access to the Countryside Act for the Local Planning Authority to take the National Park Purposes into account when making decisions. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF also states that great weight should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks which have the highest level of protection. It is considered that the proposal conflicts with these policies through the introduction of significant adverse impacts to the visual amenity on parts of the Lake District National Park, which do not currently exist under the baseline condition for the site. The proposal will not protect, conserve or enhance the special qualities of the environment associated with this nationally important landscape designation.

2. Impacts on residential amenity The submitted Environmental Statement considers the potential amenity impacts on the nearest residential dwellings including noise, visual impacts and visual effects arising from shadow flicker. Noise The applicant’s assessment has been carried out according to the recommendations of ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. Baseline noise levels were measured at eight residential properties closest to the site. Using the criteria outlined in the appropriate British Standard for such noise levels (BS5228:Part 1 2009+A1:2014). The predicted noise levels during the decommissioning of the existing wind farm and, construction and subsequent decommissioning of the repowered wind farm would not result in any significant effects. The predicted operational noise levels and measured background noise levels indicate that for dwellings neighbouring the proposed development, wind turbine noise would be in accordance with guideline levels and would not result in any significant effects. However at some locations, under some wind conditions and for a certain proportion of the time wind farm noise may be audible. The applicants contend that it would be at an acceptable level in relation to recognised guidelines. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed that the predicted noise levels are within acceptable limits based upon current approved guidelines. He has however recommended a comprehensive set of conditions to protect neighbouring residents from unacceptable levels of operational noise nuisance, including excessive amplitude modulation, should permission be granted. Visual Impact The applicants have undertaken a Residential Visual Amenity Study for all properties within 1 km of the application site. This is used to determine whether the proposed development would have an overbearing, overwhelming or oppressive effect on residential amenity, such that a property would become widely regarded to be an unattractive place in which to live. Of the 22 residential properties within the 1 km study area it was considered that four properties would experience a significant visual effect on the view from some part of their house and garden. These are the four properties at Moor House Farm located between 931 and 955 metres to the south east of the site, which are occupied by tenants of an interested party in the application. The main focus of views from all of these properties is eastwards and away from the application site. These views would remain unaltered by the proposed development. These properties would also continue to have other views available that are not affected by the proposed Kirkby Moor turbines. The study advises that the residents of these properties would not experience such an overbearing or overwhelming effect on their visual amenity that their properties would become unattractive places in which to live. The study concludes of the other properties assessed the visual effects range from moderate / minor at four of the properties and minor / no effect at the remaining properties. None would experience such an overbearing effect on visual amenity that it would become an unattractive place to live. Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is the effect of the sun shining behind the rotating turbine blades and creating an intermittent shadow. It only occurs inside buildings where there is a narrow window opening and where certain meteorological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail. The sun must be low in the sky and the wind turbine and property must be in line with the sun. The resultant effect is that moving shadows are cast through a window opening which appear to flick on and off as the blades rotate and can be detrimental to the amenity of residents. It has been shown to only occur within a distance equivalent to ten rotor diameters of a turbine, in this case, 925 metres, and the distance between the turbine and a residential property affects the intensity of the shadows cast by the blades. The zone of influence within which properties could be significantly affected by shadow flicker, covers a distance of 10 rotor diameters from each turbine and lies 130 degrees either side of north (relative to each turbine). In the case of the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm, this zone would extend to 925 m from each turbine. The nearest properties at Moor House Farm, Groffa Cragg and Croglin Farm lie just outside this distance and therefore it has been assessed that there would be no significant shadow flicker effects. However, should Members be minded to grant consent for the scheme, it is recommended that precautionary conditions should be attached to any consent which would require the turbines to temporarily shut down (through the installation of automatic turbine shut-down timers) should a shadow flicker effect occur.

3. Ecology The majority of the site is located within the Kirkby Moor SSSI, recognised for its upland heath habitats, particularly heather moorland and one of only three upland SSSI’s in south Cumbria. The submitted Environmental Statement considers the effects on the ecology associated with the proposed development and includes studies to identify the main ecological species within the site and its surroundings, including protected species surveys for otters, water voles, badgers, bats and great crested newts. It concludes that there would be no significant effects on any protected species or habitats present within the site boundary. The likely ornithological impacts arising from the proposed development have also been considered which concludes there would be no significant effects on birds due to the habitat taken up by the construction of turbine bases, access tracks and infrastructure. It was also found that there would be no significant effects caused by disturbance to breeding birds, wintering birds or through bird collision with the wind turbines or birds being unable to use the areas around the turbines. The overall footprint of the proposed development would result in the total loss of 7.5 ha of habitat within the SSSI of which 6 ha are considered to be designating habitats. This represents 0.97% of the total area of the SSSI. This figure also includes 2.86 ha of temporary loss of habitat within the construction corridors. Policy CS8.4 states that development proposals that would have a direct adverse effect on nationally designated sites should not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm, the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. A Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and a Decommissioning and Construction Method Statement (DCMS) forms part of the Environmental Statement submission. These documents set out the proposed mitigation measures which have been designed to achieve a no net loss of habitats within the SSSI. These measures include the restoration and re-establishment of habitats on the existing turbine bases and restoration of the land temporarily affected by the construction corridors. This would reduce the total permanent loss of habitat to 4.3 ha, of which 3.2 ha are designating habitats of the SSSI. It would also propose to restore and manage a total of 26 ha of habitat within the SSSI through the control of bracken, restoration of heath habitat and restoration of mire habitats at Blades Moss. The Environmental Statement concludes that over the life time of the repowering scheme, the successful implementation of the habitat restoration works detailed in the draft HMP, will result in the loss of habitat being offset by the restoration of degraded or poor quality habitat within the SSSI at present. The ecological enhancements are likely to result in a beneficial effect of at least moderate significance. Natural England have confirmed that they generally concur with the overall assessment of impacts on the SSSI although they require more information to demonstrate that the HMP can be fully implemented as it relies on the agreement of third parties including Holker Estates, the Commons graziers and adjacent landowner. If it is not delivered in full then Natural England advises that the scheme would result in unmitigated damage to a nationally important site. The response received from Natural England has been forwarded to the applicants and at the time of writing no further information has been provided. Members will note that the Cumbria Wildlife Trust and the RSPB disagree with Natural England and do not consider that the proposed mitigation measures set out in the Habitat Management Plan adequately compensate for the permanent loss of SSSI habitat. They state that the restoration and enhancement measures relate to existing land within the SSSI for which existing conservation objectives are already identified and cannot be considered as ‘over and above’ those measures necessary for SSSI management. In response to these concerns raised Natural England has further clarified its position, and has stated that they are confident that the developer has sought to avoid damage to designated features of the SSSI by careful design of the turbines next to existing tracks and largely away from more sensitive mire habitats. They state that whilst the proposed mitigation measures set out in the HMP only cover some of disturbance impacts on the designated features, they consider the habitat creation and restoration proposals, including 13.5 ha of dwarf-shrub heath creation / restoration and 12.5 ha of mire restoration offer sufficient compensation for the potential damage.

4. Tourism, Recreation and the Local Economy The submitted Environmental Statement considers the effects of the proposed development on the local and wider economy, the local tourism industry and recreational activities in the area surrounding the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm site. The assessment acknowledges that the benefits to the local economy as a result of the development would not be significant. The development would create a total of 62 jobs during the construction phase of which four are estimated to be local. A total of three jobs would be created for the operational stage. With regard to the potential impacts on tourism in the area, the applicants consider that based upon published literature and data available during the operation of the existing windfarm there would be no significant effects on tourism in the area. However, it could be argued that the much larger scale of the proposed turbines will exert a more significant visual impact on a much wider area, and therefore could potentially have a more harmful impact upon the tourism economy. The scale of the turbines at 115 m means they will be visible as a skyline element when viewed from the two viewpoints adjacent to Coniston and also from boats on Coniston Water itself, which is a popular tourist attraction. The turbines would appear above the woodland and open fell backdrop to the south and it is considered that this would constitute a significant effect which will detract from the ‘special qualities’ of the National Park in particular the ‘opportunities for quiet enjoyment’. Other viewpoints within the National Park at Great Burney, Woodlands, Lowick Bridge and Hawthwaite would be the subject of significant visual impacts. Whilst these areas are not specifically noted for a concentration of tourism attractions, the introduction of these industrial elements may be perceived to disrupt the peace and tranquillity of receptors in the area of these viewpoints. The Lake District National Park Authority, Cumbria Tourism and the Federation of Small Businesses have all raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposed development upon the tourism economy. Recreational Impacts and Public Rights of Way As referred to earlier in the report, there are numerous recreational cycle and walking routes in the area, both within, and in areas surrounding the site, which contribute to the tourism attraction of the area, and which are likely to be affected by the proposed development. These include the Cumbria Way, Cumbria Coastal Way, Cistercian Way, The Furness Way, Haematite Trail, and Regional Cycle Route 37, National Cycle Route 70. The applicants acknowledge that whilst there would be some significant visual effects upon users of the public rights of way within the site, they contend that the existing routes would continue to be enjoyed by these users and the turbines would not deter people from using the moor for recreation. The Ramblers Association contend that the turbines would adversely affect the walking environment from public rights of way crossing the moor because of their scale and dominance in the landscape as well as the intrusive noise levels.

5. Impacts upon the setting of designated Historic Assets and archaeological interests. The Environmental Statement identifies 22 listed building heritage assets that fall within 5 km of the proposal site, with 14 of these falling within South Lakeland outside the National Park. Ulverston Conservation Area and Sir John Barrow Monument on Hoad Hill in Ulverston, located 5.2 km from the application site have also formed part of the formal assessment. Four heritage viewpoints in the form of photomontages have been submitted to enable the assessment of some of these impacts. It is considered that the proposed development would have a significant effect on the setting of Kirkby Hall, St Cuthbert’s Church, Beckside; St John’s Church, Netherhouses; and St Lukes Church in Lowick. Kirkby Hall, a Grade I listed building is located 1.4 km to the closest turbine. The supplied Heritage Viewpoint 2 suggests that due to the nature of the dramatically raised topography immediately behind the house, and the relatively close proximity of the turbines, visible parts of the turbine would have a heightened prominence because they would have longer blades than the existing turbines and they would appear more clearly above the ridge where they would break the skyline. It is considered that the harm would be less than substantial. St Cuthbert’s Church in Beckside is Grade II* listed and is located approximately 2 km to the southwest of the nearest turbine. It is considered that the proposal would have a very discordant and distracting presence in the views of the listed building from the south west. The scale and position of the church with its tall tower make it a notable feature in the landscape which means its setting would have a high sensitivity to change. The proposal would result in substantial features being added to the buildings setting, and the revolving nature of the wind turbines combined with their appreciable height would unfavourably contrast with and challenge the church, and compete with it for dominance over the surrounding land. On this basis and because of its high grading status it is considered that the proposal would have a more than moderately adverse impact on the significance of this heritage asset. St John’s Church, Netherhouses is a Grade II listed building located in open countryside, approximately 2 km to the south east of the site. Its setting is characterised by physical isolation; an unspoilt landscape and by reasonably long outward views over this landscape in most directions, which are only constrained by the hills to the west and east and by the distant peaks of the Lake District to the north. The substantially increased scale of the development means that it would have a significant presence and a transformative effect on views that include the listed building from the south east, from part of the B5281 road and from much of the raised Mansriggs area. In these views, three of the turbines (No.s 4, 5 and 6) would be fully visible at a distance of approximately 2.5 - 3 km, elevated above the church on the 320 m high ridge beyond. In these views the revolving blade tips would be a moving and distracting element that clearly breaks the skyline. The proposed development would lessen the heritage significance of the listed building’s broad rural setting. In addition, because there are no trees or any other vertical elements to be found in such views, nor any other significant modern intrusions, this means that the turbines would not sit close to, or integrate with anything of a comparable scale or form within the landscape. The proposed introduction of these 115 m high vertical features into such a broad and open view, three of them being in relatively close proximity to the asset and, moreover, inserted prominently onto the skyline, would therefore have a visually damaging and overbearing effect on the setting of this Grade II listed heritage asset. St Luke’s Church in Lowick is a Grade II listed building located within the National Park, some 3.5 km to the north east of the proposed turbines. This is a prominent and attractive country church set in unspoilt open countryside which is viewed against the backdrop of the higher moorland ridges. The proposed turbines will have a significant presence in this view and as such will have a harmful impact on the setting of this heritage asset. The Sir John Barrow Monument on Hoad Hill is also listed Grade II *, and is located approximately 5.1 km to the south east of the proposed development. The visualisations show that the proposed turbines would be clearly visible from this panoramic viewpoint. Whilst the current wind farm is visible from this important view, the proposed development would compound such damage to the pristine landscape setting to the north west of the listed building by being much taller and more visually prominent than the existing scheme. It would erode the significance of the views out from the memorial and so undermine an important part of its heritage asset significance. It is considered that the proposal would not result in a harmful impact on the setting of the nearest conservation areas in Broughton in Furness or Ulverston. Under Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Local Planning Authorities have a duty to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of listed buildings and their settings and conservation areas. If any harm will be caused as a result of the proposed development, this should be given considerable importance and weight and creates a presumption against the granting of permission. Overall therefore, the proposed development would have a moderately harmful impact on the combined significance of the heritage assets identified above; but in all cases that impact would be less than substantial. In applying the statutory tests of the 1990 Act the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of these listed buildings. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against public benefits of the proposal, The Planning Practice Guidance defines public benefits as ‘anything that delivers economic, social and environmental progress’ In this case it is considered that the identified harm to the setting of five designated assets is not outweighed by acknowledged environmental and economic public benefits of the proposed development. Archaeological interests The Environmental Statement acknowledges the close proximity of the proposed development to two designated Scheduled Monuments comprising Bronze Age cairns. Given that there is a high potential for possibly nationally important remains to be completely removed within the areas of construction ground works, the impact of the development could be significant. The Historic Environment Officer states that further information should be provided by the applicant, in the form of geophysical survey data to demonstrate how the significance of any archaeological assets that may survive within the site would be impacted upon by the development. This information should be supplied prior to the determination of the application. This additional information has been requested from the applicant who has contended that a geophysical survey would be unreliable because of interference from existing operational infrastructure. However, because the ES states there is the potential for nationally important remains to be disturbed by the construction of the development, the Historic Environment Officer advises that we should be upholding best practice to comply with the NPPF. At the time of writing this issue remains unresolved.

6. Aviation and Telecommunications Members will note that objections to the proposal have been received from the Ministry of Defence and the Joint Radio Company on behalf of Electricity North West due to concerns regarding interference with their respective communications network. In the case of the MOD concerns, they have stated that the proposed turbines will cause unacceptable interference to the Air Traffic Control radar at Warton. The applicants are aware of these objections and at the time of writing no further correspondence has been received on the matter. The objections therefore still stand.

7. Energy Contribution National policy strongly encourages the use of renewable energy sources to help offset greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing reliance on imported energy supplies. They form part of a mix of energy resources being supported by Government. The Climate Change Act requires a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to 80% by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The Renewable Energy Strategy, 2009 seeks to deliver European-set targets that will increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. To achieve the 10 fold increase, substantial additional renewable electricity production will be required. The Government sees an expansion of wind energy capacity, both on and off shore, as key to meeting these targets. Strategic planning policies support the development of renewable energy projects. As noted above, the National Planning Policy Framework encourages local authorities to support low carbon energy proposals that do not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment, and the Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy states that developments will be reviewed in relation to their contribution towards climate change. The applicant calculates that the proposed wind farm would produce approximately 43,000 to 56,700 MWh (mega watt hours) of energy per year, which could meet the electricity needs of around 9,600 to 12,600 households each year, and is expected to offset at least 16,800 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. In assessing this scheme, this contribution towards energy supply needs to be considered alongside the local impacts of the development, in accord with strategic planning guidance.

Other issues: Access and Highways In terms of traffic impact, the development will generate the greatest volume of traffic during the three months in the peak construction period, depending on whether aggregate is sourced on or off site. There would be an average of 100 vehicles per day accessing the site during this period. The Highways Officer has raised no objection in principle, but has asked for clarification as to the size of the vehicles to be used to transport the abnormal loads. This is important in respect of identifying the adequacy of the existing road network to accommodate the abnormally large delivery vehicles. Drainage and flood risk The County Council have objected to the proposed development on the basis of insufficient information regarding surface water drainage which is relevant because of the known flooding issues in the surrounding area arising on the lower slopes of the moor. Any further information submitted by the applicant in this respect will be reported at the meeting. Support from the Affected Local Community In applying the transitional provisions set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015, it is clear that a substantial number of representations received from the local community, including 13 parish councils, do not support the proposed development. The representations received identify a number of potential adverse impacts which are likely to arise from the proposed development including harm to the landscape, visual amenity, residential amenity, ecology and the setting of heritage assets. It is considered that these planning impacts, identified by the affected communities have not been fully addressed and so the proposed development would not meet these transitional arrangements.

Planning Balance and Conclusions: In relation to determining proposals for renewable and low carbon energy, the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should approve an application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It is recognised that this renewable energy development would have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits. Development Plan policies also support in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. However, in this case, great weight must be attached to the identified harmful impacts of the proposed development in respect of the Lake District National Park and designated heritage assets which are subject to the highest levels of protection. It is considered that the harmful visual impact of the proposed turbines within the landscape, including the setting of the National Park is not outweighed by the potential benefits of the development. Additionally, it is considered that the public benefits of the renewable energy generated, would not offset the harm that would occur to the setting of designated heritage assets. Although the proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation, this does not outweigh the harmful landscape, visual and cumulative impacts of the proposed development including the adverse impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park; and harmful impacts upon the setting of designated heritage assets. There are also a number of unresolved issues relating to impacts upon the archaeological interests, impacts upon Ministry of Defence and other communications networks, and highways and drainage.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below:- Reason (1) The proposed turbines would appear as a series of large prominent vertical structures which would be dominant and incongruous in a landscape that lies adjacent to and is contiguous with the protected landscape of the Lake District National Park. As a consequence, the turbines will have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and the setting of the National Park including harm to the visual amenity. The proposal would also result in unacceptable cumulative impacts with existing and consented turbines in the vicinity of the site. The harm to the landscape would not be outweighed by the acknowledged environmental benefits. The development is of such a size, scale and form that it would not be possible to adequately mitigate the harm caused by means of design, siting or landscaping. It is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.7 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, Sections 10 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document and Written Ministerial Statement dated 18 th June 2015.

(2) The turbines would be in close proximity to a number of designated heritage assets. The proposed development would introduce large vertical features inserted prominently onto the skyline, which would have a visually damaging effect on the setting of Kirkby Hall a Grade I listed building; Sir John Barrow Monument, and St Cuthberts Church Beckside, Grade II * listed buildings; and St John’s Church Netherhouses and St Luke’s Church Lowick, Grade II listed buildings. It would cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset due to the great visual distraction caused in views from the assets, and also in views towards the assets. The public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm that would occur to the cultural heritage asset and its setting. It is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.7, CS8.2 and CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, and saved Policies C15, and C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(3) The proposed turbines will cause unacceptable interference to the Air Traffic Control radar at Warton to the detriment of MOD operations. (4) Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the identified archaeological interests associated with the site, contrary to Policy CS8.6 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

(5) Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the mitigation measures and long term management proposals as identified in the Draft Habitat Management Plan and which involve the agreement of third parties, can be fully implemented. The proposal therefore may result in unmitigated damage to the SSSI, contrary to Policy CS8.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statement determining this application by identifying 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.