to
Friday 30 January 2015
Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 10 February 2015 at 1.00 pm in Council Chamber - Allerdale House
Membership:
Councillor Peter Bales (Chairman)
Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong Councillor Carole Armstrong Councillor Nicky Cockburn Councillor Bill Finlay Councillor Margaret Jackson Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Billy Miskelly Councillor Sam Standage Councillor Martin Wood Councillor Joan Wright
Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. If you have any questions or queries contact Paula McKenzie on 01900 702557.
The following Site Visits will take place:
2/2014/0796 – New detached 3-4 bed dwelling, garage, landscaping and access. Land at Tallentire Hall, Tallentire, Cockermouth.
2/2014/0805 – Outline application for residential development comprising of 4no dwellings. Land at Belle Vue, Papcastle, Cockermouth.
Members of the Development Panel will be picked up from Allerdale House, Workington and the bus will leave at 10.30am prompt.
Lunch will be provided in the Lonsdale Room, Allerdale House for Members of the Panel.
Agenda
1. Apologies for absence
2. Declaration of Interest
Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.
3. Questions
To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.
4. Development Panel - 2.2014.0805 - Outline application considering access only, for residential development of 4 no dwellings. Land At Belle Vue, Papcastle, Cockermouth. (Pages 1 - 12)
5. Development Panel - 2.2013.0227 - Proposed wind farm comprising of three wind turbines upto 115m tip height, with associated crane pads, substation building, anemometer mast, new tracks, new entrance plus temporary construction compound. Land at Carwath, Rosley, Wigton. (Pages 13 - 54)
6. Development Panel - 2.2014.0690 - Outline application for up to 25 dwellings. Meadow Bank, Oughterside. (Pages 55 - 70)
7. Development Panel - 2.2013.0664 - Outline application for erection of 60 dwellings. Land Adjoining West Road, Wigton. (Pages 71 - 102)
8. Development Panel - 2.2014.0786 - Erection of food store (use class A1) with associated access and car parking. Land off Curzon Street, Maryport. (Pages 103 - 126)
9. Development P anel - 2.2014.0858 - Outline planning application for 24no self-build plots with details of roads access, layout and scale and demolition of 3no buildings. Land at Former RNAD, Derwent Forest, Broughton Moor, Cockermouth. (Pages 127 - 142)
10. Development Panel - 2.2014.0842 - Erection of 1 no. 20kW wind turbine with a 15.43m hub height and a maximum 21.97m blade tip height. Clea Green,Westward, Wigton. (Pages 143 - 156)
11. Development Panel - 2.2014.0796 - New detached 3 -4 bed dwelling, garage, landscaping and access. Land at Tallentire Hall, Tallentire, Cockermouth. (Pages 157 - 166)
Chief Executive Date of Next Meeting Tuesday 3 March 2015 at 1.00 pm Council Chamber - Allerdale House Agenda Item 4
Allerdale Borough Council
Planning Application 2/2014/0805
Proposed Outline application for residential development comprising of 4no Development: dwellings Location: Land At Belle Vue Papcastle Cockermouth Applicant: Mr D. and Mr W. Robinson
Recommendation: Refused
Summary/Key Issues
Issue Conclusion
Principle of The proposed site is not considered to be physically associated Development with the village of Papcastle and as such is in an unsustainable location in the open countryside with no justified or essential need for residential development. Site History Previous application 2/2009/0612 refused as an unsustainable site in the open countryside with impact upon the landscape and with inadequate supporting information regarding habitat and archaeology. Other site histories, 1990, 1991 and 1995 of refusal and dismissal of appeal for residential development regarding non- essential development in the open countryside. Trees Protected trees within the development site and on adjacent land have been removed in recent years with approval from the Council. The proposals do not require any further protected trees to be removed based upon the illustrative layout. The layout of the site would allow for the protected trees to be safeguarded and additional trees planted as part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme. Habitat Report concludes no significant harm with further bat survey recommended. The report is considered out of date and insufficient to assess likely impact of the development on wildlife and biodiversity. Archaeology Survey concludes no significant remains with no evidence associated with the Roman fort Landscape Smaller site with less encroachment into open countryside than previous application. Any landscape impact considered minimal with potential for mitigation.
Page 1 Affordable The size and location of this small hamlet does not trigger the Housing need for affordable housing. Local Need/Elderly The Local Plan does not make provision for an individual’s local Need need due to personal connection with a site or locality. The notion of a retirement home does not justify the site to be developed for four dwellings. Policy S10 may consider appropriate sustainable sites as an exception outside of defined settlements. The application site and circumstances do not satisfy this policy.
Proposal
Outline application for residential development considering access only. A plan has been provided illustrating a layout of four dwellings with generic house types.
The application is a resubmission to that withdrawn (2/2013/0783) after Officer’s recommendation for refusal as an unsustainable site and with the lack of supporting information. This follows a previous outline refusal (2/2009/0612).
The Site
The application site comprises undeveloped land to the north of the small hamlet of Belle Vue with the A595 bypass to the north. The site is accessed from the former ‘stopped up’ route of the A594 within the hamlet.
The nearest village Papcastle is 260 metres to the south with Cockermouth 820 metres away. Relevant Policies
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014
Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland, Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles (excluding highways Policy S24 - Green infrastructure Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S3 - Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S30 - Reuse of Land Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S5 - Development Principles Policy S7 - A mixed and balanced housing market Policy S8 - Affordable Housing Policy S9 - Rural exceptions sites National Planning Policy Framework
Page 2 Relevant Planning History
2/2013/0783 Withdrawn 2/2009/0612 Outline refusal. Details reported below
Representations
Parish Council – Refuse with regard to the following Insufficient detail and inappropriate outline application subject to change Beyond settlement limit of Papcastle Contrary to Local Plan and strategy for housing growth Precedent for further development joining settlements Encroachment into open countryside Provision of affordable housing unclear and indeed unviable at this location Foul and surface water drainage issues Increased traffic generation Proximity to trees Site management issues Inaccuracies within call in request of Cllr Garrard.
United Utilities – No objection subject to standing advice. Natural England – No objection subject to standing advice. County Archaeologist – No objection or conditions. Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No objection subject to standing advice on hedgerows as a habitat with an additional bat survey recommended. Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions Environmental Health – Objection regarding the methodology and assessment criteria of the submitted noise report.
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining land owners have been notified. Eight letters of objection and six letters of support have been received and reported below.
The application has been called in by Cllr Garrard
Assessment
Site History
2/2009/0612 is the most recent planning application relevant.
Outline refusal for residential development of 12 dwellings including affordable housing. This application was refused at Development Panel in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. The reasons for refusal regarded non-essential development in the open countryside with no essential need, loss of trees, detrimental to landscape character and lack of appropriate habitat and archaeological surveys. This assessment was subject to the policies of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 now superseded. The current application is subject to the new Local Plan and the NPPF however the previous decision is seen to carry significant weight with common policies
Page 3 regarding housing development in the open countryside.
2/1990/0878 Outline Refusal for one dwelling. The primary reason was of non-essential development in open countryside.
2/1991/0825 Outline Refusal for three dwellings. The primary reason was of non- essential development in open countryside. An appeal was made and dismissed by the Planning Inspector. With regard to the reason for refusal the Inspector is quoted as follows. “In my view it would extend the built area of Papcastle into the open countryside” which in his view would “not maintain or enhance the environment” and the “character and appearance of the countryside would be harmed by the development”
2/1995/0025 Outline Refusal for one dwelling. The primary reason was of non-essential development in open countryside.
With regard to the planning history of refusals for residential development at this location, it is clear that the Belle Vue and the immediate surrounding land is considered as open countryside and not sustainable or appropriate for more residential development.
Principle of development
The principle of development is not considered acceptable at this open countryside location and contrary to Policies S1, S2, S3 and S5 of the Allerdale Local Plan and the sustainable objectives of the NPPF.
The group of buildings known as Belle Vue is a small hamlet. It is not considered to be part of the built form of Papcastle or associated physically with the village and its designation as an Infill and Rounding Off Village within the Local Plan. It exists as a detached settlement and as such in terms of settlement hierarch and housing policy is considered to be categorised as ‘open countryside’.
Based upon this designation as ‘open countryside’, the hamlet and the site do not provide a sustainable location for additional residential development and the application does not meet the criteria within Policy S3 that allows exceptions for such development. This criteria is considered as follows.
a) Housing essential for rural workers in the operation of a rural based enterprise (Policy DM2). There is no rural business associated with the site and no justified need for an agricultural worker’s dwelling has been provided. The applicant by his own admission has judged the land to be unsuitable and unviable for agriculture. b) Housing following the rural exceptions policy (Policy S9). This applies to more sustainable locations for affordable housing in Local Service Centres and Rural Villages identified in the Local Plan which this site is not. In any case the applicant has not offered any affordable housing for local occupancy.
With regard to an exception for residential development, the applicant has not provided any evidence of agricultural need for an essential worker at the site, indeed there is no farming activity or rural business of any kind.
The applicant and his supporters have claimed the need for a retirement dwelling for the
Page 4 applicant in order to live at this location on his own land. There is no provision for such a specific, individual local need in the Local Plan where an applicant may have a personal connection.
Policy S10 does offer the opportunity for housing for the elderly in sustainable locations where appropriate services are available for the elderly. This maybe for instance outside the settlement but well connected to a larger village or town with necessary facilities and services required by the elderly. As discussed the hamlet of Belle Vue is not sustainable and without essential facilities or services readily accessible. The site is therefore not considered appropriate for a home for the elderly and fails the criteria of Policy S10. This is consistent with Members’ decision for a home for the elderly at Harrington Parks (2/2014/0585) in an unsustainable open countryside location.
The applicant’s claims for a retirement home or home for the elderly are not justified at this location and does not justify the site development for four dwellings.
Of significance is that during the process of examination of the un-adopted Local Plan, the Planning Inspector discussed and concluded that residential development in hamlets was unsustainable. This conclusion effectively contributed to the adoption of Policies S3 and S5 regarding strategic housing growth.
Considering all of the above and with regard to current Local Plan policies and the objectives of the NPPF, there are no benefits from the proposals that would outweigh the harm of residential development at this unsustainable location.
Access
The outline application considers access. This is planned from an existing field access at the termination of the former A594 stopped up following the road improvements. The Highway Authority does not object to the principle of the access with appropriate conditions regarding the estate road and adequate parking provision and junction visibility.
Point of access is reached via the centre of Belle Vue passing the public house and a number of dwellings with on road parking. The potential traffic associated with the development is not considered to be excessive with only minimal impact on residential amenity. Highway safety will be unaffected.
Layout/Design/Landscaping
The layout of the site is illustrative only. Four dwellings are shown as a single dwelling on the road frontage and a group of three to the rear. This arrangement is such in order to avoid and safeguard the protected trees on site. The illustrative layout is achievable and is acceptable in principle retaining the existing trees and rural setting.
The full details remain a reserved matter if the outline consent is granted. The same would apply to the design of the proposed dwellings and any visual or residential impact. Adjacent dwellings appear unaffected.
Page 5 Drainage
Mains drainage for foul water is available with the potential for a separate surface water drainage system to soakaway and sustainable means. A brief drainage statement and percolation tests have been provided. These matters would be conditioned should any outline consent be granted. United Utilities does not object with standing advice.
Flood Risk
Despite local objection the site is not in a Flood Zone and surface water drainage to sustainable means appears achievable and would be subject to further condition in the event of Outline consent being granted.
Affordable Housing
The size and location of this small hamlet in an unsustainable location does not trigger the need for affordable housing.
Ecology
An ecological scoping survey and report has been provided.
The report concludes the grassland site is species poor and generally of low conservation interest. It is reported that the development would have a low impact on the habitat and protected European species.
The loss of trees and hedgerow is the most significant likely impact but not considered detrimental to protected species with significant hedgerow and some trees retained.
Specific species are considered as follows.
Bat roosts and foraging habitat. No bats were seen on site but a suitable foraging habitat exists. An additional bat survey is recommended if consent is granted.
Badgers. None seen on site with no setts evident. No mitigation required.
Red Squirrels. None seen on site and with limited habitat from Ash and Oak trees. Low impact expected from the development.
Breeding Birds. No significant loss of habitat. Site clearance at appropriate time of year recommended.
Reptiles and Amphibians. Limited habitat potential and with no water on site. No mitigation required.
Natural England does not object with standing advice.
Despite the content of the report, it was undertaken in June 2009 and as such is considered out of date and insufficient to demonstrate the impact of the development on local wildlife interests and biodiversity. This is therefore a reason for refusal.
Page 6 Whilst mitigation justified by survey information can be dealt with by condition however case law has established a satisfactory survey is required prior to determination under the standing advice of Natural England and the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the requirement to undertake a survey cannot normally be dealt with by way of condition.
Trees
Further to the original Officer’s report, it came to light that there were errors within the report with regard to the assessment of protected trees (TPO) at the site. This was in part due to misleading amendments within the applicant’s tree survey that was based on an earlier application for a larger site. A revised assessment was reported on the late list at the Development Panel meeting on 20/1/2015.
In the interests of clarity an accurate assessment of the protected trees is repeated as follows.
An amended plan has been provided accurately representing the protected trees within the site.
A tree survey has been provided by the applicant. It is based upon the 2009 tree survey for twelve dwellings (2/2009/0612) that was refused on a larger site.
The original TPO 5/1990 was for twelve trees T1-T12.
The Council has approved four trees for removal that has commenced.
Of the eight TPO trees remaining only three are in the development site T1 Sycamore, T3 Sycamore and T5 Beech. T2 and T4 have been removed from the development site with consent.
Only T1 and T5 are in close proximity to the illustrative layout of the proposed development. T1 is near the route of the proposed estate road and T5 close to Plot 1. The applicant does not plan to remove them or any other protected trees from the development site.
As siting and layout are reserved matters, it is considered on balance that the siting of the dwellings and the estate road can be achieved to avoid impact upon the trees with appropriate safeguarding and mitigation.
The protected trees and additional tree planting can become part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme at the reserved matters stage should the outline application be approved.
The applicant has provided an amended plan to show the position of the remaining protected trees within the development site and written confirmation that no felling of protected trees is planned.
The removal of T1 and T5 within the development site has been subject to a recent TPO removal application to the Council. After a third party Arboricultural Report by Capita it was resolved to refuse the application with both trees considered structurally sound with
Page 7 a recommendation for further monitoring and assessment at a later date.
On balance the existing protected trees within the development site are not considered under threat at this outline stage. Landscaping remains a reserved matter.
Landscape Impact
Impact on landscape character has been a reason for refusal in the past under ref 2/2009/0612. With a smaller site of far less density and with a number of trees removed with consent since the last application refused in 2009, the impact on landscape character is not seen as a reason for refusal. The development has less encroachment into the open countryside and with opportunities to enhance the site with appropriate landscaping and boundary treatment.
Archaeology
An archaeological report and test trenches have been produced. The report concluded the discovery of a nineteenth century artefact but with no evidence of remains connected to the Roman Fort. The County Archaeologist agrees with these findings and offers no objections to development.
Noise
A noise assessment has been produced with regard to the proximity of the site to the A595 bypass.
The report has concluded a fluctuation in noise levels with intermittent peaks that are not considered sufficiently frequent to cause disturbance. Sound levels are judged not to exceed the maximum allowed and no acoustic insulation measures are considered necessary.
Despite the content of the report Environmental Health has questioned the methodology and assessment criteria of the submitted noise report. The report is considered insufficient to assess likely impact on residential amenity of the proposed dwellings. Disused Land
The applicant has claimed the land to be disused and of little use being dissected by the bypass. The land exists as attractive open countryside providing a rural setting and visual amenity to the area. The fact that it has little agricultural use is not a justification for residential development.
Representations
Eight letters of objection has been received on the following grounds.
Beyond settlement boundary of Papcastle Contrary to housing policies of Allerdale Local Plan and sustainable objectives of the NPPF Visual and landscape impact Set a precedent for further development
Page 8 Loss of TPO trees and threat to those retained Practicality of sewer connection Not infill or rounding off Additional traffic Impact on local wildlife Lack of detail on house type design Outline application inappropriate with details subject to future change Site history of previous refusals Surface water drainage problems Letters of support from residents beyond Belle Vue and Papcastle Noise disturbance during development
Six letters of support have been received. They generally consider the use of the land to be appropriate with minimal impact and support the opportunity for a retirement home for the applicant. The applicant has not submitted his application with evidence of a retirement need and the matter is not relevant to this application.
Such matters have been accounted for in the report above.
Financial Considerations
The application has local financial considerations with regard to the New Homes Bonus Scheme that results from a net increase in dwellings in the Borough.
Conclusion
The hamlet of Belle Vue and the proposed site is considered an unsustainable location within the open countryside and not physically associated with Papcastle. The proposals do not satisfy the exemption criteria of Policy S3 that allows housing beyond defined settlement limits.
There are no benefits of this development that outweigh such harm contrary to the policies of the Allerdale Local Plan and the core principles of sustainable development of the NPPF.
Annex 1
Reason s for Refusal
1. The proposed residential development is considered to be in an unsustainable location within the open countryside with no proven, justified essential need to the detriment of the visual amenity of its site and surroundings. The proposals are contrary to Policies S1, S2, S3, and S5 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted July 2014 and para 55 and the core principles of the NPPF.
2. The submitted ecology report dated June 2009 is considered to be outdated and is insufficient to demonstrate the impact of the development on local wildlife interests and biodiversity contrary to Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted July 2014.
Page 9 3. The submitted noise report is considered insufficient to demonstrate the impact of road noise on the residential amenity of the proposed development contrary to Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted July 2014.
Proactive Statement
Application Refused Following Discussion – Where there is no Way Forward
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.
Page 10
Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 12 Agenda Item 5
Allerdale Borough Council
Planning Application 2/2013/0227
Proposed Proposed wind farm comprising of three wind turbines upto 115m Development: tip height, with associated crane pads, substation building, anemometer mast, new tracks, new entrance plus temporary construction compound. Location: Land at Carwath Rosley Wigton Applicant: Carwath Farm Wind Energy Ltd
Drawing Numbers: Drawing Numbers: Figure 1 - Site Location Plan Figure 2.1 - Site Layout & Application Boundary Figure 3 - Planning Application Fee Figure 4 - Proposed Transportation Route (amended plan 16 July 2013) Figure 5 - Typical Wind Turbine Detail Figure 6 - Typical Anemometry Mast Detail Figure 7 - Typical Access Track, Cable Trench, Turbine Foundation and Installation Area Figure 8 - Site Entrance Detail Figure 8.1 - Internal Track Layout Overview Drawing number 13245B045d Figure 9 - Typical Substation amended detail received 19 July 2013 Figure 4 Proposed transport route amended 16 July 2013 Environmental Statement as amended Revised Chapter 9 of ES regarding noise received 29 November 2013 as further amended. Residential Amenity Issues received 30 September 2013 (David Stewart Associates) Response to Woolerton Dodwell Appraisal Report (August 2013) Landscape and Visual impacts relating to consideration of further cumulative wind turbine developments dated 29 November 2013 Cumulative impact details ZTV received 29 November 2013 Response to comments regarding Lower Green Quarries dated 26 February 2014 (Bright and Associates). Output predictions email dated 28 March from Neil Foxall Email received 8 April 2013 regarding noise Noise report received 21 May 2013 Email received 8 April 2013 regarding micrositing Email dated 22 May 2013 regarding micrositing, 11kV line, field buffer zones. Email regarding community benefit email dated 13 December 2013 Email response dated 23 January 2014 from Neil Foxall regarding objector comments
Page 13 Email regarding alternative site selection 28 January 2014 Email regarding turbine 3 micrositing 18 February 2014 Email regarding Sodar windfarm data 21 February 2014 Hayes McKenzie Noise report 6 March 2014 Hayes Mckenzie Noise report 13 March 2014 Email received 24 November 2014 regarding noise surveys and noise mitigation.
Recommendation: Refused
Summary/Key Issues
Issue Conclusion
Principle of The Council seeks to promote the development of renewable and Development low carbon energy resources provided the impacts (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable. Community There are over 588 letters/emails of objection, in addition 27 response Parish/ Town Councils have objected and 2 MPs have objected. There is little support within the community for the proposed wind farm only 1 letter of support. Visual and The proposed turbines will increase turbines in the area but it is Landscape and not considered that the wind farm will have a significant adverse cumulative impact impact on the landscape character of the area.
The visual effects are ‘Significant’ for a high proportion of residents, footpath/bridle path users and in some instances users of minor roads within approximately 3 km of the turbines.
Effects are not generally significant for receptors at greater distances. The development is more significant than indicated in the LVIA and over a wider area than stated up to approximately 3km of the site.
There are no significant cumulative visual effects either in sequence, combination or in succession with other wind farm sites and with that of the proposed Carwath scheme. Overall, the potential for cumulative effect was found to be of small effect, i.e. not significant. Residential The proposed turbine is within 800m of a number of residential amenity properties a number of which will have direct views of the turbine which is likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the residents of these properties. There are 10 properties within 800m of the turbine site and 84 properties within 2km. There is little evidence of support from the local community for a residential separation distance of less than 800m.
Page 14 Shadow flicker is anticipated (12 properties identified in ES) and would need a scheme of mitigation and a complaints procedure should complaints arise to be secured by planning condition. Noise A background noise assessment has been conducted two surveys (2011 and 2014).
From the prevailing noise levels, potential noise limits have been derived in line with ETSU-R-97 of 35dB or 5dB above the prevailing noise level, whichever is the higher, for day hours and 43dB or 5dB above prevailing background noise levels whichever is higher for night hours.
The applicants noise consultant advises that either the 2011 measurements alone, or the lower of the 2011 and 2014 measurements at each wind speed (for day and night hours independently) is used to derive noise limits for the proposed scheme. Mitigation is likely to be required based on lower measurements from the 2011 and 2014 noise survey results and this would need to be secured by planning condition to meet ETSU-R-97 standards at certain wind speeds and directions.
There is local concern over noise effecting nearby dwellings and the local primary and nursery school. Heritage The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on any designated heritage assets. With the regard to the destruction of potential buried archaeological remains during ground works this is considered to having (following mitigation) minor adverse to neutral effect. There would be moderate to substantial beneficial effects with regard to interpretation possibilities.
Effects relating to designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the site are considered to be neutral and no mitigation would be required. Operational Subject to conditions relating to construction operations the requirements proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the highway network (See amended highway route). Nature Subject to mitigation it is considered that the proposed Conservation development would not have a significant adverse impact on nature conservation interests including bats and birds.
Planning conditions could secure mitigation to ensure the otter and badger species are protected during construction if found at the site if there were to be any development. Hydrology and Flood risk and /or contamination of water is not anticipated to Drainage increase as a result of the development although mitigation would be required by planning condition.
Page 15 Potential benefits The proposal will make a contribution to renewable energy deployment nationally. All of the energy produced will be exported.
The Proposal
This application seeks consent for 3 wind turbines and associated development. The turbines would have a maximum height to blade tip of 115m. The turbines would be of a 3 bladed horizontal axis design and each turbine will be mounted on a tapered tubular steel tower and consist of nacelle containing gear box, generator and associated equipment. The candidate turbine considered for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LVIA is the Repower MM92, with a hub height of 68.5 m, 92.5 rotor diameter and a tip height of 114.5m. The specific colour of the turbines has not been decided however the proposal informs that the turbines are likely to be coloured a pale grey/ off white with a semi matt finish.
With regard to predicted turbine noise levels resulting from the proposed development, the applicant’s calculations have been based on the use of Nordex N90 turbines with a hub height of 70m (see revised chapter 9 amended 29 November 2011).
Wind turbines normally start operating when the wind speed reaches approximately 3 metres per second and designed to withstand wind speeds in excess of 60 metres per second and have a failsafe shut down system that will stop the turbine even in the event of total power loss. The turbines are designed to work within a climatic range of minus 20 to plus 40 degrees centigrade and are fitted with safety systems for ice throw.
The applicant is requesting that the precise locations of the turbines, access tracks and other associated development (whilst respecting all known constraints) be micro sited within a 30m radius of the location as shown on the layout plan; to enable the developer to allow for ground conditions following detailed engineering investigation, to be fully taken into account.
In addition to foundations, hard standing areas are also required at the base of each turbine (20m x 40m crushed stone). A secure temporary storage compound is also proposed. The estimated on site construction period for the development is around 6-9 months.
A permanent anemometer mast of 70m height is proposed on the site to provide information for the control and monitoring of the development. This would replace the existing 60m temporary guyed anemometry mast.
The total development footprint of the wind farm, including the turbine bases and substation building, new access tracks, site access and temporary construction compound equates to 3.89 hectares.
The electrical power produced by the individual turbines will be fed to an on-site sub- station by underground cables. The substation building will measure approximately 6m wide and 14m long by 5.5m high. From the substation a connection will be made into the existing Electricity North West network. The applicant states that it is likely, but not yet confirmed that the connection will be made to the 33kV line which runs through the
Page 16 application site, approximately 500m south east of the proposed substation location. The connection will be made subject to a separate application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
The proposed lifespan of the development is 25 years. On cessation of wind farm operations, the applicant has stated that all major equipment and structures will be removed from the site. Decommissioning could be agreed in accordance with a pre- development planning condition.
Each wind turbine will be rated between 2MW and 2.5MW installed capacity thereby giving the wind farm an overall potential generation capacity between 6MW and 7.5MW. That said, it may be necessary to reduce output from the turbines as required to mitigate noise emissions at certain wind directions/speed (see section on noise). The developer estimates that the carbon emission savings generated by the wind farm could amount to between 175,900 and 433,600 tonnes over its lifespan. (It is noted that this may be less should turbines be required to be reduced in capacity due to noise mitigation).
On cessation of wind farm operations, all major equipment and structures will be removed from the site. The process will take 2-3 months. Restoration normally covers the removal of all turbines (rotors, nacelle and tower), removal of the upper section of turbine foundations to a depth of 1 metre. Decommissioning would be agreed in accordance with a pre development planning condition. Site
The main community of the village of Rosley lies approximately 1.3km to the south of the site. Rosley is a dispersed community and is considered to comprise of the 3 areas: Rosley Top, Rosley Village (with school, hall and church) and area between Longwath and Sandy Brow, with associated clusters and individual isolated properties lying in closer proximity to the wind farm proposed site. Rosley church, village hall and primary school are situated approximately 1km north west of the site. The hamlet of Carwath is directly to the north west of the site and the village of West Curthwaite lies 1.9km to the north, and the town of Wigton is 6.9km to the west. The site is approximately 2.5km south of the A595.
The site is located in open countryside, upon a prominent ridge. The site offers clear panoramic views northwards towards the Solway Estuary and Scotland, and southwards towards the northern fells of the LDNP. The area features very little development. The site does not lie within a nationally designated landscaped area. The Solway Coast lies 12km to the north and the Lake District National Park (LDNP) 6km to the south.
Relevant Policies
National Planning Policy Framework
Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Supporting a prosperous rural economy
Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy July 2013
Page 17 Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014
Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S14 - Rural economy Policy S19 - Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy S36 - Air, water and soil quality Policy S4 - Design principles Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland
Relevant Planning History
SCO/2010/0005 Scoping opinion – 3 turbines Representations
The application has been advertised on site, in the local press and adjoining owners have been notified. Further Information to the Environmental Statement has also been advertised.
The consultation/ representation responses are summarised below.
Mr Tony Objection to the 3 x115m tip height wind turbines on the Cunningham (MP) grounds of cumulative effect; there are too many turbine developments within the Allerdale area and it is now time to say a definite no to any further wind farm developments. Mr Rory Stewart Objection - Against the interests of many in the local community; (MP) Penrith and their landscape, their community, and they should be able to The Border determine except in the most extreme circumstances the future and the nature of their locality. The turbines will have a deep and long term negative impact on the economy of Cumbria. Tourism is the main income earner bringing over a billion pounds a year. Tourism is directly dependent on our natural environment; far more than in other parts of the UK which may have tourism based on sun, our food, or historic buildings; people come to Cumbria for its wild and unspoilt landscape. The views are what make tourism our single largest income-earner, supporting over 10,000 families in Penrith and the Border. Finally, Dieter Helm the professor of Climate Science at Oxford has established that one could achieve the same reduction in carbon emissions currently planned through all wind turbine construction by converting our existing coal fired stations to gas, and at a fraction of the cost. The new discoveries of shale gas in the US and Europe about energy supply and security. Cumbria is already doing an enormous amount to generate non-carbon emitting energy. But it is the central arguments of landscape, economy and above all community wishes that matter in this
Page 18 case. My hope is that we can as Cumbrian’s harness the strength of our opposition and highlight the importance of our landscape, to our economy and lives.
There have been objections received from 28 Parish/ Town councils. To summarise, the objections from parishes mainly relate to concerns over local amenity for residents and the wider community; adverse visual and landscape impacts, noise and safety concerns, tourism, drainage, ecology and cumulative impact.
Parish / Town Summ ary of Parish/Town Council Objections Council Aikton Objection - Visual impact and cumulative effect Allhallows Objection - Cumulative effect; large number of applications for turbines within Allerdale. Surrounded by wind farms at Hellrigg (Silloth), Langrigg, Tallentire, Wharrels Hill (Bothel), Bolton Low House, Bothel and West Newton and many other individual turbines. 3 industrial sized turbines and access track in open countryside and will affect the visual amenity of the parish and the surrounding area. Majority of households are against the proliferation of land based wind turbines because of the adverse effect it has on amenity. The Government has changed its policy on wind turbines and will only allow wind turbines to be installed with the consent of local communities. The community objects to the proposal which should be refused.
Allonby Objection - Visual impact, the area is becoming saturated with wind turbines and they are visible in all directions. Other sources of renewable energy are more efficient.
Aspatria Town Objection - Allerdale has the highest proportion of turbines Council objection to further turbines and cumulative impact within the area.
Bothel and Objection - Adversely affecting residential amenity of the area. 3 x Threapland 115m high turbines will be visible from the parish and in the surrounding area. In terms of cumulative effect in this locality there will be an adverse effect on the local landscape.
Bowness -on - Objection - Detrimental effect on the amenity and environment of Solway the area and concern felt over creating a precedent triggering a proliferation of larger turbines.
Bridekirk Objection - Unacceptable visual impact and intrusion on landscape, proliferation of turbines and unacceptable cumulative effects and not sensitively incorporated into the surrounding landscape. Call for a moratorium of all wind farm approvals and also look at other sources of renewable energy which are more efficient.
Burgh by Objection - Cumulative and visual impact from the Solway to the Sands northern fells and a concern that the site is within Rosely village and that this may create a precedent for future siting of wind turbines
Page 19 within villages.
Caldbeck Objection - Noted within the Cumbria Character Guide and toolkit (LCG) wind energy schemes are a recurring feature and along with other vertical elements such as pylons are often sited along ridge tops. They interrupt the skyline and form prominent features in the landscape. This would be the case when viewing the ‘rolling fringe’ and the ‘coastal plain’ from the Caldbeck Fells and Faulds Brow. Turbines would be very intrusive features in the landscape and have a detrimental effect on the view of the LDNP Northern fells. Over 60% of wind farm in Cumbria are in Allerdale. Wind farms should not be concentrated in this one district of Cumbria and should not dominate the landscape of Allerdale and the very attractive pastoral landscape of Rosely.
Crosscanonby Objection - The turbines will be visible from this village and will have unacceptable visual impact and intrusion on the landscape; would not be sensitively incorporated into the surrounding landscape, do not respect the local landscape; growing concern over the proliferation of turbines and unacceptable cumulative effects; a call for a moratorium of all wind farm approvals; Allerdale has 62% (number increasing) of all wind turbines in Cumbria; other sources of renewable energy are available which are more efficient.
Dalston Objection - Unacceptable visual impact and intrusion on the immediate and wider landscape and visual impact on the wider area affecting residents of Dalston and other surrounding parishes. Too close to residential dwellings and local school. Not sensitively incorporated into the surrounding landscape and/ or habitat and does not respect the local landscape character. No measures to mitigate potential levels of noise likely to affect nearby occupiers. Concern over proliferation of turbines in the area, causing unacceptable cumulative effects when proposals are considered with other planning approvals or other existing renewable energy development. Allerdale BC and Carlisle City Council should be working together to minimise cumulative impact of a proliferation of turbines. There should be a moratorium on ALL wind farm approvals until the projected likely pylon route from West Cumbria has been determined by the National Grid.
Dundraw Objection - 3x 115 m turbines will be visible from this parish and will have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. Cumulative effects of turbine development will have an adverse effect on the local landscape.
Holme Low Objection - The area saturated with wind turbines. Detrimental cumulative visual impact on the surrounding countryside which is contrary to Local planning policies.
Holme East Objection - Detrimental effect on the amenity and landscape of the
Page 20 Waver area; harmful effect on the local community; concern over the proliferation of large turbines.
Ireby and Objection - Cumulative effects in this locality and adverse effect on Uldale the local landscape. Adversely affect the visual amenity of residents in this area.
Kirkbampton Objection -Cumulative effect due to increasing number of turbine applications. Parish is surrounded by turbines within Allerdale and from Carlisle City. Visual impacts within the parish. Residents of properties close to this application will have their amenity severely compromised. David Cameron stated ‘no community should have a wind farm dumped on them when there is a clear indication that it is not wanted’. Edward Davey (Minister of Energy and Climate change) stated ‘I am clear that local people and their Councils should not feel bullied into accepting proposals they do not want’. Kirkbride Objection - Detrimental effect of turbines on the quality of life of local residents along with the amenity and environment of the area which is very popular with walkers and nature lovers. Visual detrimental effect on the rural landscape due to large structures and concern over creating a precedent triggering a proliferation of large turbines.
Orton Objection - Severe detrimental impact on visual amenity, unacceptable intrusion into environment, lights flashing at night. Cumulative impact, interference with high speed broad band signals.
Plumbland Objection - Too many wind turbines concentrated in the small area of West Cumbria. The turbines are too close to the village of Rosley and will have a detrimental impact on village life. The efficiency of wind energy remains yet in doubt.
Sebergham Objection - 3 turbines are an industrial size which will dominate the landscape and have an overwhelming impact on the surrounding area and community. The visual impact of the turbines will have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. Tourism is important to the area and the turbines will be detrimental to this. The village school is in close proximity to the proposed turbines. There are well documented concerns about the impact of low frequency noise on children and how it can effect on their sleep patterns in particular. Dwellings within 800 metres of the proposed turbines. The cumulative impact of this and other proposed sites cannot be underestimated and this will destroy the natural beauty of the area.
Silloth Town Objection - Area saturated with turbines. Detrimental cumulative Council visual impact on the surrounding countryside which is contrary to Local planning policies.
Thursby Objection - Area is saturated with turbines which are having a visual effect on the surrounding area. Concern over the overall
Page 21 impact on the outlook of this wind farm in the area, classed as being the edge of the Lake District. Dwellings within 800m of proposed turbines.
Waverton Objection - Due to the visual impact to the surrounding area and the cumulative effect. Too many wind turbines and clusters of wind turbines in the area; these are degrading the whole beauty of the county of Cumbria which is regarded as a special area for its landscape and views. The majority view of the local community from local research is also against the scattering and accumulation of wind turbines in this locality.
Westnewton Objectio n - Turbines will be visible over a considerable area, adding to what is already rapidly becoming a ‘wind farm landscape’. Allerdale has already done disproportionately more than any other part of Cumbria towards what are now outdated renewable energy obligations. Too little restraint preventing the onslaught of wind power applications on our landscapes and there should be no further need for a proposal such as this, especially so close to the Lake District National Park (LDNP).The site is between the LDNP and the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes and the Great Orton turbines are visible even though smaller and sited lower but a prominent in the landscape. The Carwath turbines would be even more visible and at a much greater distance.
Ministerial Statement reforms state that: The need for renewable energy does not be definition override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities; the need to take account of cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect the impact on landscape and local amenity. Local topography should be a factor in assessing damaging impact on landscape. Should ensure that heritage assets are conserved appropriate to their significance These factors are considered relevant to the application. Government has announced a package of measures to improve community engagement. WCE appear to have offered a reasonably generous community benefit fund which amounts to 10% of the annual net profits from the wind farm throughout its operational life, however the local community does not consider that this recompenses the environmental damage the turbines would wreak on this area, damage that would far exceed any national or local benefits that might be gained from the proposed development. In the spirit of the government’s new approach, the parish believes in the light of the opposition the local decision should be refusal of the proposal and the decision should be respected at the national level. Concern about noise and whether ETSU-R-97 is fit for purpose and there are noise issues at 4 wind farms; High Pow, Hellrigg, Talentire and Wharrels Hill.
Concern about potential damage to water courses given there has been issues at Tallentire wind farm with springs being diverted or
Page 22 drying up and with local flash flooding possibly due to hundreds of tons of impermeable installed concrete foundations and roads/ tracks.
The WCE landscape assessments are considered to be unacceptable; contrary to ALP policy. There would be 3 unwanted and very large industrial constructions within the centre of the village of Rosley, creating an oppressive and dominating effect on local residents, one at odds with the scale and the character of the surrounding area.
Westward Objection - The size of the application 3 x115 metres turbines and extraordinary meeting was called and well attended by parishioners. Concerns raised regard matters of noise; impact on nearby dwellings; severe loss of amenity for local householders; proximity of the turbines to the village school; substantial change to the local landscape character due to the size of the turbines proposed; cumulative impact alongside other wind energy developments which are already operational, consented or proposed in the area.
Wigton Town Objection - The visual impact to the surrounding and wider area, Council taking into account the cumulative effect of wind turbines in the area and for Wigton residents the development will dominate views to the Caldbeck Fells. Adverse effect on tourism within the area from which Wigton benefits as a service provider. Close proximity to the school and homes and the increase in traffic. Will open the doors for even more industrialised sized turbines. Give consideration to the written ministerial statement by Eric Pickles on local planning and onshore wind on 6th June 2013. This pledges to give local people more ability to shape the places in which they live and that protecting our local environment is properly considered alongside the broader issues of protecting the global environment.
Woodside Objection - Concerned about the number and size of wind turbines in the area. Turbines too big.
Eden District Council - No observations to make.
Lake District National Park (LDNP) - The three turbines due to their height and movement will undoubtedly create significant change to the landscape in their locality, however does not believe the effects on the LDNP would be significantly adverse to a point to object to the proposal.
The viewpoints that are considered to be representative and relevant. The remit is to protect the special qualities and setting of the LDNP. Visual effects have been assessed on views from the LDNP. The nearest turbine is approximately 5.2km from the national park boundary. Turbines of this size will be a prominent feature in the landscape though distance will mitigate effects. The site is nearest the LDNP at the Faulds Brow area. This is a limestone ridge where views of the site are restricted by topography from much of the area south of the ridgeline. From within the LDNP the site is not generally visible until
Page 23 rising ground on the Caldbeck Fells at a distance of approximately 9km where visual effects are much reduced. When viewed from the north of the site towards the LDNP, the site is elevated with the effect that land within the LDNP is less conspicuous as a backdrop.
Cumulative effects where the development might be seen in conjunction with other large scale built forms are not an issue in this case.
There is a car park/ viewpoint at OSGR315414 at the boundary of the National Park at crossroads road junction and the ‘C’ road bisecting the ridge carries road traffic which when travelling north-east will view the site. The area is frequented by walkers and valued for these qualities of open space and elevation which it provides. It is considered the experience of landscape by these users is unlikely to be significantly diminished by the development given the relationship between the Landscape Character Types. Road users are at a less sensitive end of the scale of sensitivity and view the site for a short space of time only.
Carlisle City Council - The impact of properties within Carlisle District Council should be taken into account. When undertaking cumulative assessment on the proposed development it is important to note turbine development in the Carlisle City area.
Fire Officer - No representations received
Cumbria County Council - Objection due to adverse landscape and visual effects which are not outweighed by the environmental benefits associated with the renewable energy generation and carbon savings that would arise from this scheme. Members also stressed that the impact on the settlement of Rosley, in both landscape and visual terms was a determining factor.
Cumbria no longer has targets to meet in terms of MW output. The NPPF makes it clear that developers should not be required to demonstrate overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. In strategic policy terms therefore, the contribution being made by Allerdale, or the county as a whole, has no weight, and should therefore not form a material consideration in the assessment of this scheme.
County Archaeologist - Advises that a programme of work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer, and secured through the inclusion of a planning condition in any planning consent. The site lies in an area of some archaeological potential with prehistoric and Romano-British remains surviving within the vicinity. The site has been subject of an archaeological geophysical survey and this has revealed linear magnetic anomalies which may represent features of minor archaeological significance. These remains will be disturbed by the development. The magnetic anomalies should be investigated and recorded in advance of the development secured by planning condition.
This application has not been considered by the County Ecologist. It is anticipated that ABC will undertake a detailed assessment.
Cumbria Highways - Concerns have been raised in regard to the proposed haulage route for construction vehicles. (ABC officers note a revised haulage route was provided
Page 24 15 July 2014 and has been agreed subsequently as acceptable by CCC).
Public Right of Way Officer - No objections
Highways Agency - No objections
Environment Agency - No objections subject to the proposed development subject to planning conditions to protect Gill Beck and its tributaries, this is due to the close proximity of the development to these water bodies. A Construction Environmental Method Plan (CEMP) would need to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority, secured by planning condition. The EA recommends that measures are put in place to prevent silt and other contaminants entering surface water drains before construction work.
Natural England - No objection. The application site is: 4.2km from the River Eden and Tributaries Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is part of the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC); 15.6km from the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SSSI, which is part of the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA).No objections to the interest features and Allerdale BC is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment. With regard to Protected Species Natural England note that a survey of European Protected Species has been undertaken and the development would be unlikely to affect European Protected Species.
The LPA should assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from the proposal to include: local sites (biodiversity and geo-diversity), local landscape character, local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species. Further representations response confirms no objections to the bat and bird assessments submitted within the ES.
Solway Coast AONB - No representations received.
Cumbria Wildlife Trust - Objection. The development has the potential to have an impact on local bat species. 6 species of bats recorded on the site during surveys in 2012 include: noctules, and soprano, pipistrelles, which are both ‘Priority species’ on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. A number of bird species are identified as being sensitive to wind farms by Scottish Natural Heritage or are listed as Annex 1 of the Habitat Regulations and /or Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Schedule 1 species Barn Owl was recorded and the survey are was considered to be of High Local/ County importance as it supports a population of Barn Owl, recognised as being important to the county of Cumbria. Lapwing is a National and Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and were regularly recorded at risk height and a feeding of some 75 birds was observed within the winter survey.
World Owl Trust - Concern expressed at the possible disturbance to the Barn Owl population in the area. The surrounding area supports an important Barn Owl population and Carwath falls within a 10km square area with some of the highest populations of breeding Barn Owls in Cumbria. Barn Owl is a schedule 1 species and the bird is in decline as a species; it is believed that lack of hunting habitat and weather has affected numbers in other areas in Cumbria. The World Owl Trust is trying to conserve any areas of good hunting habitat that exists so that the species is given the best possible chance
Page 25 of survival. The habitat in the Carwath area for hunting barn owls is invaluable.
Barn Owl Trust - No objections but recommend post development monitoring.
Game and Wild Fowl Conservation Trust - No representations received
RSPB - No representations received
English Heritage - No objection. At a height of up to 115m the proposed wind turbines have the potential to be visible over a wide area. Within 5km of the application site, there are a significant number of designated heritage sites; 86 listed buildings and 3 archaeological sites that are scheduled as ancient monuments. Within 2km of the site there are 10 listed building and 1 ancient monument. Although the turbines will be visible from a number of these buildings and sites, the impact of the proposed development on the setting of these designated heritage assets will not be substantial, due to the combination of distance, the screening effects of mature trees, of woodland planting and the local topography.
With regard to archaeological remains being disturbed during construction, the results of assessment to date suggest that this is likely to be limited to the identified remains of ridge and furrow. The outline scheme of archaeological recording proposed appears to be an appropriate level of mitigation. Recording should be secured by planning condition.
NATS - Objection withdrawn.
MOD - No objection subject to planning condition regarding aviation safety lighting.
Arqiva - No objections but Arqiva does have a Microwave link between Calbeck and Carlisle 550m SE of the proposed turbines and for this reason if the turbine layout changes, Arqiva would have to re assess the proposal. Arquiva requests a 200m wide corridor about the line of sight path be kept clear of any turbine or part thereof.
Civil Aviation Authority - No objections to the details submitted within report.
Stobart Air - No objection
Cumbria Tourism - No representations received
The application has been advertised on site, in the local press and adjoining owners have been notified .
There is 1 letter of support - alternative sources of energy must be found and that Rosley is not a tourist destination.
There have been around 588 letters and emails of objection received to date, (some correspondence comprise of multiple representations from objectors), the matters of objection are summarised as follows:
Health, Adverse effect on health and can cause sleep disturbance, headaches, Noise and stress, fatigue, dizziness, vertigo, tinnitus, heart disease, palpitations,
Page 26 Shadow anxiety, hypertension and depression and cognitive development Flicker and disorders in children; infrasound disturbance and will cause noise and Safety sleep loss of nearby residents; will affect an autistic child; a local person suffers from batophobia; will affect the concentration of school children at the local school and turbine 1 is 1070m from the preschool and primary school which is close to the 35dB contour;
Predicted effect of noise levels are marginal (being only a few decibels from limits) and an independent noise assessment required; no guarantee or safeguard for noise levels will be within these noise limits for local conditions at the specific site; noise levels are produced by a metre which is different from noise experienced by people living nearby; considerable discrepancy between people’s experiences living close to existing turbine arrays and the claims based on ETSU-R-97 methodology; when using the proposed mitigation strategy, turbines may be audible under specific meteorological conditions; there maybe calibration drift but ETSU says if the error is greater than 0.5dB a correction should be applied.
An ‘A’ weighted frequency curve reduces the sensitivity to low frequency noise.
Varying speed of wind at different heights from the ground produces low frequency ‘oomph oomph’ thumping sound as blade turbulence noise varies round a cycle of rotation and the level and nature of noise has long term effects on health and quality of life and the thumping and added out-of-sync beating nature of noise from wind turbine arrays has devastating effect on people’s health and ‘wind turbine syndrome’.
Background noise data badly presented and difficult to compare from original results; With regard to the noise mitigation strategy, neither the developer nor the noise consultant has commented on how or who will monitor the mitigation strategy and how it will be enforced. The noise mitigation strategy should be rejected; Mitigation Strategy in Chapter 9 seeks to install 2.5mw machines and operate them at less than their full rated capacity when it is considered necessary by the developer to reduce the noise output. The mitigation strategy is impracticable and unenforceable; the actual make, model and capacity of the turbine will not be known until the turbine procurement process commences, should planning consent be granted.
Negative effects on health noted in 1988 in the Dramstadt Manifesto.
Guidelines suggest there should be a 1.5km buffer zone to residential properties due to noise, health and personal safety.
Consideration should be given to Denbrook Valley Wind Farm, West Devon BC. In May 2013 following research carried out by Southampton University the noise condition was considered to be unattainable and unjust, a subsequent scheme was withdrawn as compliance with a
Page 27 condition could not be obtained.
Cannot limit noise output of their turbines in such a way that they remain economically viable. Even if the Council found the noise mitigation strategy to be technically sound and capable of being adequately monitored and enforced it may not be a viable solution to the problem of unacceptably high noise levels for the community of Rosley.
Strobe affect in sunlight and shadow flicker will affect properties at Lower Green Quarries, Carwath, Kirksteads and Howrigg and there will be refection and silhouetting and rotating lights at night.
Blade failure fragments can fly up to 1 mile
Landscape Cumbria’s greatest assets is its countryside, people visit Cumbria character because of its wild and unspoilt landscape and a large part of the northern Lake District would have a clear view of huge white turbines against a backdrop of the beautiful green Solway Plain. The local area is beautiful and tranquil and the turbines will be a dominant and overbearing presence and prominent in view of fells and will dominate the surrounding countryside. The landscape of north Cumbria is now becoming irreparably damaged and is becoming an industrialised and a wind energy landscape. ‘Wreck the landscape and wreck the economy’.
Unsightliness and visual clutter; 4 x height of tallest trees and as high as a 40 storey tower block out of scale and character. The scale and siting out of context with local environment and the whole countryside will be crowded with inefficient steel structures and the turbines will be eye catching and disconcerting to the viewer and the overall impact is one of a wind farm landscape. The site is the first significant rise above sea level from the Solway Firth and the 115m turbines will be seen out at sea.
Turbines are visible from vast areas. The area of land has 360 degree views across Scotland, the Pennines and the Lake District and the turbines would be visible. There are distinctive vistas to and from northern and western fells and open estuarine views. Impact on valued views from neighbouring high ground and coast, valleys and towns. Change to skyline from dwellings and from Thursby along the A596 and an effect on Solway Coast AONB.
There will be visual intrusion and public amenity would be severely affected for many people, whether walking or cycling in the area or simply going about their everyday business; too close to bridleways and footpaths and this is an important public amenity area.
Will dramatically alter the landscape of the tranquil village of Rosley and 3 parts to Rosley: Rosley Top, Rosley Village (with school, hall and church) and area between Longwath and Sandy Brow and the turbines therefore split the village and threaten the rural setting of Rosely and
Page 28 destroy the heart and soul of the village. Rosley is in between the LDNP and the Solway Area AONB and that gives it an ancillary sensitivity. Turbines viewed from higher viewpoints such as Barnetrigg, Kirksteads, Lower Green Quarries and placing turbines right in the middle of this tiny spread out ancient village seems inappropriate in the extreme and their nearness to some houses is awful (Kirkstead Byre is a main receptor with a major adverse impact). CCC has objected to the scheme on matters of the effects of the scheme on the settlement of Rosley, in both the landscape and visual terms.
Inaccurate images which are not representative.
LDNP are doing nothing to protect the panoramic views and views of the Lake District fells from the Hadrian’s Wall Heritage site will be dominated by these industrialised sized turbines. Adverse effect on the Cumbria Way and ‘the site is located on the edge of an area which scored highly towards ‘most tranquil’ this area extends southwards to the LDNP.
The CPRE have produced a report ‘England’s disappearing landscapes’. In the report Cumbria is listed in particular threat from Allerdale to the LDNP from wind farm cumulative impact.
Change will very significant and adverse and will result locally in a wind farm landscape in which turbines will be the most dominant element that determines the character of the landscape character Type 5a Ridge and valley with wind farm sub type. This is particularly undesirable in an area (which has a small to medium scale or grain) is relatively unspoilt, tranquil and generally unaffected by inappropriate development of any type let alone one of such vertical dimensions and magnitude. It should be noted that the dramatic change relatively close to the site is inevitable as a result of any wind farm development. The ES underscores sensitivity, landscape impact, magnitude and landscape impact significance.
Need bigger buffer zones around turbines. In Scotland a 2km exclusion is used and whilst significant interruption by relief and vegetation and would assist absorption into the wider landscape, these features are likely to result in unpredictable relationships between turbines and a variable skyline with intensifying and disturbing effects such as framing or blade flash at valley rims.
A key characteristic limiting capacity is the dispersed pattern of numerous small rural settlements making it difficult to site developments sufficiently distant so as not to adversely affect their sense of scale and character.
The wind turbines at Bothel village highlights the oppressive nature of the close proximity to residential properties and roads. Residential The negative impacts on residential amenity far outweigh the economic
Page 29 amenity benefits of the proposed development and in planning terms, residential amenity is wider than just the issue of whether there are or not clear views of the turbines from within a dwelling or its curtilage e.g. there is visual impact, noise and shadow flicker.
Contrary to Allerdale Local Plan policy to provide a minimum separation distance of 800 metres between turbines and residential properties. Overbearing impact on adjacent residents. There are more dwellings in close proximity than there would appear given farmsteads have been converted into several dwellings. 35 properties within 1240 metres.
Adverse impact on Whinlands; is not screened only a garden hedge and has an elevated undisturbed view of the rolling countryside to the east and the south east and although the property faces north most of the rooms and the garden face south (turbines will be seen from the kitchen and the dining room).
Howrigg Farm 620 metres north and Barn Cottage 750 metres to south;
Cannot presume that the developing agent is technically competent or will be accurate or wholly transparent in their presentation of data. Cumulative Increased sequential cumulative effect as people drive through the area Impacts and will intensify the overall impact of wind energy development in the area. 6 turbines at Great Orton (68.5 m to blade tip) and adverse effect from Wharrels Hill turbine development at Bothel.
The area is a wind turbine alley and open sequential views from recreation and tourist routes along the coastal edge of the AONB and along the Frontiers of the Roman Empire, Hadrian’s Wall and across the lowland ridges towards Lakeland fells most (notably from Cumbria Coastal way, the B3500, National Cycle Route 72, Hadrian’s Wall trail and from view points and mile castles associated with the wall).
8 other turbine developments within 4 mile radius and the turbines will dominate the view when roads users turn off B5305 onto the B5299.
Turbine developments can be seen from the A595 and A596 against a panoramic backdrop of the Lake District fells and there are more turbines in West Cumbria to the M6 than along the motorway to London; Allerdale has 70% of wind energy in Cumbria. History and Rosley rich in history and first mentioned within the 12 century and is Archaeology part of the ancient Parish of Westward;
Visible from listed buildings and will affect listed buildings and will affect historic sites and ancient monuments (27 properties within 1km including 2 grade II listed buildings).
West Curthwaite has a conservation area and there are listed buildings. Ecology and 39 species of bird within the locality and Whooper Swans winter or pass Habitats through Cumbria and are protected species under legislation and
Page 30 concern regarding bird strikes and devastating effect on migratory bird populations. Migrating winter geese include barnacle geese, pink footed geese and there were 100 plus geese flying over the site 21 November 2013 (photographic evidence of geese within the locality).
Birds include golden plover, merlins and there are Barn Owls within the locality with breeding sites. It is a grey partridge breeding area (a registered ground nesting bird) and a lapwings nesting area. Curlew and oyster catchers within the vicinity and protected birds at risk.
2 species of otter within the area (otters at Chalk Beck).
Area is a high activity area for bats and the report notes technical problems and poor weather, and this would indicative the bats survey readings maybe lower than normal. Collisions and turbulence adversely affect bats (barotraumas) and pipistrelle bats close by, 6 species of bats within the area.
The natural geographical and man-made features of the Rosley area has complex drainage, ponds and quarries, woods and wide grass verges along the quiet lanes and make a range of habitats for wildlife and wildlife corridors. Surrounded by rivers and streams and springs and the source of Jacob’s Gill spring is between Turbine 1 and 3. Within 6km there are 11 watercourses, 4 ponds with wood and quarry within 1km and 7 wooded areas within 1.2km. Close to nature reserves.
Drainage issues and flooding and there will be rain water affecting local becks.
Night time light pollution.
Will disturb peat areas. TV Effects on broadband, internet and TV and in line of site of wireless Reception system. Not carried out an electromagnetic, aviation and seismic monitoring assessment. Will costs be met by the developer if there are problems with reception and transmitted signal?
OFCOM states that the only definitive quantitative way to determine whether a building development has had an effect upon TV reception is to carry out a reception survey of the affected area. 2 surveys should be required. First to assess quality of the reception prior to the commencement of any building works and second after the completion.
Using the BBC wind farm tools, the development would be likely to affect 1250 homes for which there is no alternative air service and may affect 97 homes where there may be an alternative off air service.
Transmitters likely to be affected. Air safety A danger to low flying air craft. There is a RAF flight corridor over the site going E-W and W-E and there are various flights in the locality for
Page 31 commercial, helicopter training and rescue, pleasure flying and NATO exercises. There are microlights, gyroplanes/ gyrocopters and jets and Chinooks within the area.
Direct line of site from the Great Dunn Fell radar.
The MODs Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording station is very sensitive to ground propagated vibration at certain frequencies. Construction of the wind farm may result in extra vibration, raising the existing noise at the seismic array. Traffic Inadequate access during the construction phase and route of transport route during construction should be changed and 2,000 extra vehicles during construction. 3 difficult bends along the proposed transport route and road flooding. B5305 already suffers from heavy traffic and accidents and turbines a distraction to drivers and there are hidden dips in the road. Community The disadvantages in terms of environmental, social, health, wildlife and and Policy tourism outweigh the benefit of an irregular energy supply and the landscape and the environment is for everyone’s benefit.
The applicant and the farmers may own the land but do not own the landscape and that is a legacy and a birth right to all.
Tourism is a main income generator in the locality with over a billion a year and it is an industry that is dependent on the natural landscape. The John Muir Trust states that 43% of people said they would be less likely to visit scenic area, affected by wind farms and such effects could have serious implications for tourism related businesses.
Turbines placed just about anywhere by some political whim, and where a handful of wind farm companies and land owners make huge financial gains at the expense of their innocent neighbours and tax payers generally. The sooner the subsidies for wind farms are completely removed the better for the landscape and older people are suffering from fuel poverty. Motivated by financial greed rather than care for the environment and turbines have been approved randomly and piecemeal. Money is paid to wind farm operators to not generate energy during periods of high generation but low demand. The incentive to build turbines is due tax payers and from energy bills and turbines not effective of efficient at producing energy.
Unacceptably close to homes, the school, pre-school, play park, village hall and many public footpaths and bridleways, (105 homes - 250 people) with in the close locality of the turbines. Several homes within 600m to 770m of the turbine development and school, church and village hall within 1100m of the turbine development and most European countries generally have a 2,000m minimum distance.
Diminishing the value and sustainability of nearby properties;
Page 32 Jeopardise the roll out of superfast broadband.
The small school of 55 pupils may become unviable if it loses pupils and the turbines will kill off the community and make the school less attractive and is against the interests of the majority of the community and hugely divisive within the community. Rosley C of E school less than 1km away the turbines would feature as a ubiquitous and distracting structure within daily lives. Some children will live and go to school in close proximity to the turbine development (within 1km) and will be near turbines during work, rest and play and there will be no remission from the pulsed sound that turbines emit. There are buffer limits in other countries between turbine development and primary schools.
Concerned about Human Rights Act and the development should not be approved if the local community is against it given the Localism Bill. Government’s approach to wind farm development has changed.
Commercial vandalism.
Should explore alternative renewable energy sources such as water power, tidal, coal fire to gas, shale gas, tidal, hydro electric and anaerobic digesters. Outside wind power industry most professional engineers consider wind power to be the wrong road in the research to renewables. Turbines are inefficient sources of energy and back up will be required and Government have set out that on shore turbines are on only 20-25% of the time, other reputable sources put this closer to 11%. Does not add to energy security only adds to electricity bills.
40% reduction in house prices.
Allerdale and Cumbria had more than its fair share of turbines. Needs specialists to assess full impacts and a peer review needed and County Council in its capacity as the strategic planning authority should take control of all the present and future applications in Allerdale.
Community Fund insufficient and no jobs and no real benefit to the local community and the community are not getting a good deal in terms of community benefit and inadequate public consultation.
Breaches to the Aarhus Convention to which the UK is a signatory and the Common Market Directive on Renewable energy is currently being questioned under the Aarhus provisions. Against Human Rights and Common Law. A UN legal tribunal as ruled the UK Government has acted illegally by denying public decision making powers over their wind turbine approval and the necessary information over their benefits or adverse effect. The UK National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) was not subject to public participation and the UK failed to comply with article 7 of the convention in this regard.
Page 33 Officers and Inspectors appear to be more concerned about being seen to working within the planning and energy policies rather than accepting the views of the directly affected communities.
Produce more carbon dioxide than save and unproven benefits related to reduction in carbon dioxide and the increase in energy security. Cement in base and the production is a large carbon dioxide emitter and problems with disposal of cement in foundations.
Massive turbines would not be allowed if not backed by government legislation. It would be outrageous if the planning authority allowed 80m high ferris wheels to be erected on the same scale as the turbines and should be sited on brown field sites.
Whilst the NPPF is generally supportive of renewables it also places great emphasis on the recognition and preservation of the intrinsic character of beauty of the countryside see Planning Inspector Brooks APP/M0933/A/12/2/83618, dismissed single turbine, Hawrigg Farm, New Hutton. It was noted that planning policies can pull in different directions. Design and Some of the tallest turbines within the county and objection due to scale Layout and size and larger than Bothel turbines by 50% and since 2013 there have been over 70 planning applications or screening requests for wind turbines within Allerdale.
Development sited within a lower wind speed area and micrositing buffer zones restricted by constraints including field boundaries and 11kv line;
Old second hand machines might be used.
A green field site.
At night turbines produce static in the air at ground level and air rises to higher levels contributing to global warming.
Letters of objection have been received from the CPRE and FORCE and are summarised as follows:
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE Cumbria Association) (Friends of the Lake District) - Objection on the basis of damage to the landscape setting of the LDNP and cumulative impact. Views into and out of the NP will be damaged and views within the lowland area of north west Cumbria being dominated by wind farms. The NPPF recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside as a core planning principle and great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks which would be impacted by this development.
The wind farm lies within landscape character area type 5a Lowland-Ridge and Valley and the wind farm would erode the undeveloped character of the area and detract from the panoramic views described as a sensitive characteristic by the Cumbria Landscape
Page 34 Guidance Toolkit and would also have significant impact on the adjacent landscape types, particularly 12b Rolling fringe, found less than 3km away which is described as having moderate/high sensitivity.
The application site lies less than 5.1km from the LDNP and the iconic viewpoint of Faulds Brow (would be the closest large scale wind energy development to this part of the boundary of the LDNP). The Faulds Brow view point gives a vista across the northern Cumbrian lowland plain to the Solway Firth and the mountains of southern Scotland and as an area described in the LDNPA LCA as ‘where the intrinsic landscape mosaic of fields can be admired, with views northwards towards the Solway Estuary, and Scotland .’ The proposed turbines will have a direct impact on the rolling fringe (sub type 12b) CWESPD on the edge of the Solway basin and will have an impact on the distinctive vistas to and from the northern and western fells of the LDNP.
FLD strongly disagree with the applicant’s conclusions that the impacts on the landscape of the LDNP are of only minor significance; from Faulds Brow FLD consider that the proposed wind farm sits right in the middle of the view north from Faulds Brow viewpoint across the Solway Firth and Scotland and so would become a ‘key visual focus within the view’. This leads to an impact significance of major at this particular sensitive viewpoint as the development results in changes that largely affect the view, or where the base line context alters such that the development is one of the principal visual elements unmistakably or easily seen.
Carwath wind farm should not be seen in isolation from other wind development in Allerdale. ABC is bearing the brunt of wind energy development within Cumbria with 94 wind energy proposals since 2007. ABC now hosts 62% of Cumbria’s wind turbines.
On visiting viewpoint 16, it was possible to see several wind turbines and individual turbines from the Faulds Brow viewpoint; in particular the Great Orton turbines are highly visible. The landscape is moving from a landscape with wind turbines to a wind turbine landscape.
There will also be an impact on the setting of the LDNP when looking towards the LDNP from the settlements of Dalston and Thursby. This will also apply when travelling along the A595 and A596 where a series of wind farms and single turbines appear to sit between the road and the mountains of the LDNP.
FLD is of the view that the capacity for vertical development in this part of Cumbria has already been exceeded, and that the impact of this particular development will have especially far reaching effects on the character of the more sensitive landscapes of sub type 12b found within 3km of the turbine site and on the character of the LDNP.
The application should be refused on the basis of major landscape and visual impact on the LDNP, and the cumulative wind energy development negatively impacting on the landscape of north west Cumbria.
Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment (FORCE) - Objection
Does not meet government guidance or policy on noise, because of the site restrictions, its location, and the number of properties within the vicinity and its existing level of
Page 35 background noise and should be refused.
Inappropriate size and scale within the proposed setting, adverse landscape impact that cannot be mitigated, and negative impact on residential amenity which would involve a large number of individual properties. Adverse cumulative impact in combination with other wind energy schemes, breach of national and local policies.
The 6 species of bats recorded on the site during the surveys in 2012 included noctules and soprano pipistrelles which are both priority species on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and does not mention the beneficial contribution that bats make to agriculture and the environment by eating insects. Without bats, crop yields would be reduced and insecticide use would increase. In view of both the statutory protection awarded to bats and economic and environmental consequences of any reduction in the number, the application should be refused.
Under the UK Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2012, a local authority exercising any function in relation to town and country planning, must use all reasonable endeavours to avoid deterioration of habitats of wild birds. 66 species of birds in the applicant’s ornithological surveys were recorded, including 7 ‘target species’: barnacle goose, pink footed goose, merlin, lapwing, curlew, golden plover and oyster catcher. The species are identified as being sensitive to wind farms by SNH or are listed on Annex 1 of the Habitats regulations, and/or Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. All 7 species except merlin were recoded flying at ‘risk height’. Of the remaining 59 species, 34 are of conservation concern. At least 31 species were breeding in the survey area or immediately adjacent to it. The area also supports Grey Partridge.
Another schedule 1 species, the Barn Owl was recorded. The survey area is of ‘high local/ county importance as it supports a population of barn owls recognised as important to the county of Cumbria. The need to protect the Barn Owl is being even more important due to poor breeding seasons. There are also Little Owls and Tawny Owls in the area but these appear not to be mentioned.
Local residents report seeing flocks of geese foraging in the field where the turbines would be sited and the fields between the site and Kirksteads, but the ATMOS surveyors only observed geese flying at relatively high altitudes. Some 275 geese were observed, in flight during survey visits, some at risk height and lapwing were regularly recorded at risk height, and a feeding flock of some 75 birds was observed during a winter survey.
The surveys demonstrate the proposed site is a valuable habitat, supporting large number of birds and the adjoining land having been farmed under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme for the past 25 years. The closest turbine would be only 80 metres from the boundary of this neighbouring farm land, jeopardizing years of valuable environmental investment. FORCE cannot accept the applicant’s assertion that the proposed turbines would have no significant impact on birds.
Do not believe an informed decision can be made without an independent noise data/ report. The predicted noise levels have been provided for 2.5 MW candidate turbine but the margins are too close for comfort and assessment of cumulative noise is considered insufficient. FORCE fully support the following of a 35dB day limit being applied as required by ABC EHO. This was used at High Pow which was granted by appeal
Page 36 however there are ongoing complaints regarding noise disturbance from the High Pow turbines despite this safeguard.
Residents have complained of increased farm activity, implying the background noise readings were artificially inflated in noise surveys. The 35dB lower day time level is exceeded at Carwath Bridge, Howrigg Farm, Kirksteads Farm and Rosley Rigg. There are a larger number of houses, not just the 4 listed that would fall within the range, exceeding the lower limit of 35dB. Noise measurements are based on a specification of a ‘candidate’ turbine which is not necessarily the same as that which would be built, and also make an allowance for the requested micrositing, FORCE believe that it is clear the property of Howrigg Farm and the bungalow Howrigg, would be likely to suffer from adverse impacts and loss of amenity due to excessive turbine noise levels.
ETSU R-97 seeks to protect those exterior areas of the property which are used for the quiet enjoyment, not only the interior of the building and the enjoyment of the external environment can be as important as the environment within the home. 27 houses would fall within 35-45dB contour. At Carwath Bridge most, if not 100% of the measured daytime background noise data (spots) falls below and well below the 35dB other than the higher wind speeds of 7 m/s and above. It is low wind speed when there is most likelihood of a neighbour suffering noise from turbines. The proposal should use the worst case scenario for candidate turbines. The adverse impacts have not been mitigated, minimised or satisfactorily addressed, and because of the constraints of the site and the close proximity of houses, loss of amenity by the way of noise will result.
Caution should be taken on applications such as this in order to protect people’s amenity and the Allerdale Local Plan sets out a separation distance of 800m between homes and turbines to safeguard amenity. Howrigg Farm is 621m, Kirksteads farm 760m and Rosely Rigg 728m.
The proposal is contrary to national guidance EN-1 and EN-3, the NPPF and ETSU-R-97 as well as guidance in the Allerdale Local Plan.
Assessment
National Planning Policy 2012 and the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 are broadly supportive of proposals for renewable energy development. The need to meet national targets for the generation of electricity and heat from renewable and low carbon sources is recognised as are the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of such development.
The scheme is supported with an Environmental Statement (ES). It describes all the elements of the wind development, its construction, operation and decommissioning, the nature of the site and its surroundings, the likely effects of the development, and measures proposed to mitigate any adverse effects on the environment. Key considerations for site selection are explained in detail with the associated Environmental Statement and include: predicted wind speed, proximity of site to dwellings, capacity of a site, access, grid connection issues, biodiversity and geological conservation, historic environment impacts, landscape and visual impact, noise and vibration, shadow flicker and traffic and transport issues.
Page 37 To ensure that the impacts of development (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable, Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan sets out clear criteria for the consideration of proposals for renewable energy development, including wind turbines. The criteria most relevant to the consideration of this application are considered below
Landscape and Visual Assessment
The ES considers the likely effect upon the landscape character and the visual amenity of the proposed wind farm together with the potential cumulative effects. The assessment is referred to as the Landscape and Visual Impact assessment (LVIA). The LVIA considers effects within the study area of 30km. A desk review, photograph montages and assessment process has considered the effects upon both landscape character and visual amenity.
Allerdale BC commissioned an independent Peer Review Appraisal of the LVIA; prepared to assist ABC in the assessment of potential landscape and visual impacts as a result of the proposal to construct 3 wind turbines at Carwath and includes comments on: the general approach to the landscape and visual assessment and to the extent to which it accords to current ‘best practice’ guidance; the assessment made of baseline landscape and visual character; the visual receptors identified within the LVIA and the range of viewpoints selected for the assessment and the predicted landscape and visual effects of the windfarm proposal including stand alone and cumulative effects on residential amenity.
The Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment Guidance 2011 identifies 13 Landscape. Character types which are then divided into sub types. The turbine development is in landscape character type 5a Lowland - Ridge and Valley as defined by the Cumbria and Landscape Character Guidance and toolkit (LCG). The key characteristics include ‘a series of ridges and valleys that rises gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland fells; well managed regular shaped medium to large pasture fields; hedge bound pasture fields dominate, interspersed, with native woodland, tree clumps and plantations; scattered farms and linear villages found along ridges; and large scale structures generally scarce’.
The ES notes that within the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (CWESPD), this character LCT 5a type is noted as having a landscape capacity of ‘moderate’ for accommodating ‘up to a small group of wind turbines defined as 3-5 turbines. The LVIA and further rebuttals consider that there will be no overriding or substantial effect to the overall landscape character as a result of the wind farm, and the effects will be limited to a localised area. At a local level 2 further Landscape Character Types (LCT) occur to the south east and south of the site respectively: Intermediate Farmland (LCT No.6) is located circa 3.7km from the south east and is described as a ‘large scale open landscape of intermediate farmland that occurs between lowland and rolling upland area. The land use is predominantly grazing land bound by hedgerows and stone walls .’ and Higher Limestone (LCT No.12 – sub type 12b Rolling Fringe is circa 2.8km south and is noted as open and sometimes exposed, varied scale landscape is diverse in character, historic features, textures and has distinctive limestone characteristics, improved pasture and heather moorland is abundant. Other land cover includes ancient woodland and parkland
Page 38 The land use within the locality generally relates to agricultural practices. Within close range to the site is block plantation and includes areas of woodland adjacent to the road network and due to quarry restoration. Riverine vegetation (Barnetrigg wood) is a prominent feature along the course of Chalk Beck east of the site.
Landscape Effects
The ES advises the landscape character within the immediate context of the site will be affected to a significant level. This has been estimated as being within 0.5km and 0.7km. (LVIA 5.7.23) However this is also mitigated in part by the existing landscape features.
The ES concludes 5.7.23 that ‘ this effect is also mitigated in part by the existing landscape features the woodland to the north of the Site, circa 500 metres distant, restricts visibility and creates a physical barrier to the effect of the turbines. To the immediate south of the Site, the public road creates a physical divide which combines with roadside hedges to alter the character in a subtle sense creating a visual and physical screen and in so doing the predicted effect on the character is partially mitigated’.
The field assessment has confirmed that this change will be very significant and adverse and result locally in a ‘Wind Farm Landscape’ in which the turbines will be the most dominant element that determines the character of a new Landscape Character Type 5a Ridge and Valley with Wind farm sub type. Although the applicant estimates the wind turbine landscape will only extend some 700m from the turbines because limited by hedgerows and other visual screens, the Peer Review considers that this LCT sub type is likely to extend between 1-1.5km because of the 115m height of the turbines which may be seen over hedgerows and tree lines within the immediate vicinity of the site. The extent of significance will diminish with distance as set out below.
The ES sets out in close range (within 2.4km) will be moderate effect and this will reduce as the distance increases. At a medium (2.4km-6km) and long range (6km-18km) the ES states that ‘there will be almost no effects on the landscape character types’, however the Peer Review found Severe effect within approximately 1.0 to 1.5 km and Moderate-Major and Significant between 1 and 3km to the west but Moderate or less elsewhere.
Overall, it is considered that the significant effects on landscape character are relatively local for a development of this magnitude and scale and not in excess of those that might be expected as a result of developing any wind farm development in relatively attractive and unspoilt countryside which has a moderate capacity to accommodate change and this is due to the nature and scale of the wind farm.
Officers note the Peer Review conclusion regarding landscape character whereby the indirect landscape impacts on the character of LCT 5a to the north and north east and east is considered to be Moderate and Insignificant but impacts of Moderate-Major and Significant are considered to be appropriate for the landscape to the west within approximately 3km of the site. The wider landscape setting of the site exhibits a number of characteristics which reduce its overall sensitivity to turbine development; it is relatively homogeneous, lightly settled, and features medium to large scale fields.
• On balance the proposal is considered to be not unacceptable in landscape
Page 39 impact terms • There are no significant effects upon Designated Landscapes, or Registered Parks or Gardens • The site is outside designated landscapes with the Lake District National Park to the 5.1km south, the Solway Coast AONB (Outer Study area) 3.5km to the north and North Pennines to the east. The Site is well distanced from all of these with no predicted significant effects upon the character of these landscapes.
It is noted within the ES that the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have undertaken tranquillity mapping based on dividing England into 500m by 500m squares, and assigning a tranquillity based score based on arrange of different factors which add or detract from people’s feelings of tranquillity. The Cumbria Tranquillity Map revised 2007 shows the Site is located on the edge of an area scored highly towards ‘Most tranquil’ and this area extends southwards to the LDNP.
Visual Effects
The ES sets out (Para 5.8.30) that the turbines ‘are visible within the immediate boundaries of the road to the west and south and to the woodland to the north, the drop in terrain on the eastern side creates a naturally bleak visibility. Beyond this immediate area, in all directions, the visibility of the turbines is not constant and often seen in a background context with woodland and hedgerows forming foreground landscape elements that increase the visually perception of distance and separation from the site. As such, the effect will not constantly remain as an adverse nature’.
Within the ES Visual Effects have been assessed with reference to representative viewpoints. ES Para 5.8.24 notes Significant impacts (those of Moderate-Major or above) are noted from many of the viewpoints closest to the Site including 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10.
The ES advises that in these instances the higher sensitivity associated with the local roads, residential locations and indeed footpaths (or walkers along local roads) together with the increased magnitude due to proximity of the turbines leads to the significant impact assessment.
Viewpoint 1 Carwath Bridge - Residential (moderate to major) and road users (nearest (moderate); turbine 0.98km) Viewpoint 2 Howrigg - Residential (moderate to major) and road users (0.62km) (moderate); Viewpoint 4 4 Kirkstead - Residential (major) and bridleway/footpath users (0.73km) (moderate to major); Viewpoint 5 Lower Green Quarries - Road users (moderate to major) (1.13km) Viewpoint 6 Rosley Rigg - Residential (moderate to major) and road users (0.78km) (moderate to major) Viewpoint 7 Low Ling entrance - Residential (moderate to major) and road users (0.63km) (moderate to major) Viewpoint 10 Intack Head - Residential (moderate to major) and footpath users
Page 40 (1.85km) (moderate)
The ES acknowledges adverse effects could be associated with Viewpoints 4, 6 and 7 (ES para. 5.8.26). A Peer Review Appraisal has been prepared to assist Allerdale Borough Council in the assessment of potential landscape and visual impacts that may result from the application. Although the LVIA concludes that significant impacts are noted at VPs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 i.e. within 1.85km of the wind farm, this is considered in the Peer Review to be an under-assessment.
• Peer Review Visual impact - Significant impact is likely to be experienced within approximately 3km or so of the site. • Visual effects are ‘Significant’ for a high proportion of residents, footpath/bridle path users and in some instances users of minor roads within approximately 3km of the turbines but the effects are not generally significant for receptors at greater distances. • Visual impacts are generally Significant within approximately 3km but Moderate or less and Insignificant beyond 3km.The development is more Significant than indicated in the LVIA and over a wider area than stated up to approximately 3km of the site.
The Peer Review found that Sensitivities have been under assessed for residents, footpath users and users of minor roads and notably the assessments of significance are under-rated for receptors not just in close proximity to the site but also in the wider locality.
The Peer Review concludes the effect of the exercise to assess significance using recalibrated levels of sensitivity previously discussed is to generally ‘mark-up’ the scores by one notch, usually from Moderate to Major Moderate within 3 km or so from the site and from Minor to Moderate or sometimes Moderate Major when view-points are further afield. Officers express concern that the credibility of the submitted LVIA may have been reduced by a misinterpretation of the concept of ‘receptor sensitivity’ and that the methodology used in its preparation has resulted in a general under assessment of visual impacts.
Officers note the roads in the locality are used by walkers, cyclists and other users experiencing the countryside and the roads are quiet. Furthermore the site is located within a community where the rural character is defined by the dispersed settlements, farmsteads and isolated dwellings whereby the community will be likely to use the local roads directly adjacent the site on a daily basis to attend the school, nursery and church village facilities and wider facilities within the larger villages and towns nearby. The impact on the users of the roads when accesses these facilities and going about daily activities will be Significant in close proximity to the site (see viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10).
Officers acknowledge that the human experience of a place is not only visual but many attributes form the opinions on how a place is recognised and appreciated. Officers also note the current tranquillity of the locality reflects the largely undeveloped isolated and rural character of the immediate locality interspersed with surrounding hamlets, settlements, farmsteads and dwellings. It is noted from site visits and when taking
Page 41 account that the locality is recognised as being on the edge of a ‘Most Tranquil area as identified by the CPRE that this helps inform a view that the peace and tranquillity positively experienced by the local community is an important matter for the community and for those people who live and work within the area and when experiencing the locality for recreational purposes.
Residents (Visual) Effect
In order to address community concerns and in the interests of residential amenity and safety the Allerdale Local Plan adopted July 2014 sets out an expectation that a minimum separation distance of 800m will be provided between wind turbines (over 25m to blade tip) and residential properties. It is recognised that in some cases due to site specific factors such as orientation of views, land cover, other buildings and topography it may be appropriate to vary this threshold where it can be demonstrated through evidence that there is not unacceptable impact on residential amenity. Shorter distances may also be appropriate if there is support from the local community.
Within the ES the LVIA sets out there will be 10 dwellings within 800m of the site.
1-Park View 0.63km north
2-Howrigg Farm 0.64km north 3-Heltongate 0.7km north 4-Howrigg 0.7km north 9-Kirksteads Farm house 0.8km east 10-Kirkstead Barn 0.8km east 11-Kirkstead Byre 0.8km east 13-Barn Cottage 0.75km south west 14-Blaenderva 0.77km south west 15-Rosley Rigg 0.77km south west
There have been 588 letters/emails of objection and objections from 27 parish councils and 2 MP’s. There is insufficient evidence of support from the local community for a separation distance of less than 800m to be accepted in this case; only 1 letter of support for the wind farm.
The visual impacts on residential properties and farmsteads within 2km radius of the site have been assessed within the ES (84 properties within a 2km radius of the site) and para. 5.8.32 of the ES notes that there will be Significant impacts on 6 residential properties:
(9) Kirkstead Farm House – 800m east (major impact) (10) Kirkstead Barn – 800m east (major impact) (13) Barn Cottage – 750m south west (moderate to major impact) (17) Low Ling (seasonal effect) – 880m west (moderate to major impact) (22) Whinlands – 1.0km northwest (moderate) (58) Intack – 1.9km south (moderate)
The Peer Review Visual Assessment Audit however considered that the sensitivity of
Page 42 residential receptors of 76 of the 84 properties assessed in the LVIA is raised to High. In this re-assessment of visual amenity using a sensitivity of High, the Peer Review concluded that 17 properties within 2km of the site would experience Significant visual impacts of at least Moderate-Major (Para. 2.38 Peer Review) and there would be Significant changes in views likely to be experienced by 13 residential receptors within 2km, some of which will be highly undesirable.
The Peer Review concluded residential receptors located at three properties (no. 9 Kirkstead Farmhouse, no.10 Kirkstead Barn, and no. 11 Kirkstead Byre) would experience a loss of visual amenity from important internal living spaces and the gardens such that the impact of the turbines could be considered to be ‘overbearing or overpowering’ due to the openness of views and the proximity of the turbines at a distance of 800 m. This distance is only approximately seven times the height of a turbine.
Kirkstead Farm House, Barn and Byre have direct views over the wind farm from principal rooms. These are 3 properties reached by a private lane less than 800m east of the nearest turbine. Turbine 3 would be most prominent to Kirkstead Farmhouse and Kirkstead Barn. Kirkstead Byre also has a conservatory with a direct and open view over the wind farm development. There is local concern that the distance between the dwellings and the nearest turbine is closer than identified within the ES (800m) being approximately 720m with micrositing.
Officer note the findings of the Peer Review with regard to properties at Kirksteads and take account of the ’Lavender Test’ (the applicant has not made reference to the Lavender Test but has described the nature of the views affected). The Lavender Test is derived from appeal decisions made by Inspector Lavender in 2009 and has come to be regarded as good practice in the assessment of visual impacts of wind turbines at close range. It involves assessing whether ‘visual intrusion is of such magnitude as to render the property an unattractive place to live’. Key emphasis is placed upon main views from the house.
The Peer Review also concludes the visual amenity of receptors enjoying the panoramic views obtained from the garden to the north side of the property no. 12 known as Lower Green Quarries would also be severely affected by the visual impact of the turbines at a distance of 950m. This Peer Review notes that garden is clearly a “cherished” part of the property and has been designed to capitalise on the open views, includes a free standing and detached ‘outdoor room’ which allows all-year-round direct views towards the proposed wind farm.
Officers conclude that the wind farm development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of visual effects on residential amenity and there will also be an adverse visual impact on users of the local roads and footpaths as identified within the ES as moderate /major notably at Kirkstead, Lower Green Quarries, Rosely Rigg and at Low Ling.
Other matters that may cause residential amenity issues relates to shadow flicker and noise however mitigation is an option to reduce the impacts to acceptable levels and this can be secured by planning condition. The matter of noise is of considerable concern to the local community (for residents and users of local facilities notably the nursery/
Page 43 primary school). The matter of noise and potential mitigation is addressed later in the report, as is the matter of shadow flicker.
Landscape and Visual Cumulative Effects
In the ES from 5-35km of the site, all proposed, permitted and built wind farm sites above 45m height have been considered and the assessment advises those below the 45m height and beyond the 5km range will only have very minor context to the visual effects and in so doing can be separated from the analysis process.
Effects from sequential routes have been considered within the ES from 13 routes comprising close range (rural roads), and larger B and A class roads at close and medium range from the proposed turbines and the ES sets out ‘That sequential routes that were assessed as part of the LVIA consist of two main arterial highway routes, two B roads and 9 minor roads as follows: A595 that runs north-east and west of the proposed Site; A596 which lies to the west of the proposed Site and joins up with the A595 just north of Thursby; The B5299 east of the proposed site, which runs north-east and south; The B5305 south of the proposed Site, which runs east and west; The eight minor roads all within approximately 4.5km of the nearest turbine. The Peer Review considers Sequential Routes and notes the LVIA considers the potential sequential impacts from a number of vehicular routes in the area and that field observation confirms that the views are never continuous and often limited by topography and by roadside screening. Sequential impacts are considered to be insignificant and it is concluded that the assessment with respect to sequential views is reasonably accurate.
The ES sets out that there are no significant cumulative visual effects either in sequence, combination or in succession with other wind farm sites and with that of the proposed Carwath scheme. Overall, the potential for cumulative effect was found to be of small effect, i.e. Not Significant.
The Peer Review notes that cumulative effects have been considered in the LVIA in combination with the appropriate wind farms in the vicinity and the exercise that has been undertaken is acceptable. The cumulative ZTVs suggest that indivisibility is theoretically possible with a number of combinations of operational and consented schemes and field observation has confirmed that a number of wind turbines are visible in combination with the proposal notably with Great Orton 6km to the north, furthermore, there are other smaller single turbines, however it is confirmed that there is little impact in practice of any Significance.
Highway and Public Routes
The road network within close proximity to the site generally comprises undesignated rural roads which are generally straight along higher ground (along ridge tops) and these connect to villages of Rosley and Carwath, to the south and north west of the site respectivel