Allerdale Borough Council Development Panel 2/2013/0705

Allerdale Borough Council

Development Panel

2/2013/0705

Reference No: 2/2013/0705 Received: 19 September 2013 Proposed Erection of single turbine with a height of up to 60m and a tip Development: height of up to 86.5m with associated infrastructure works. Location: Kelsick House Farm Kelsick Abbeytown Wigton Applicant: Mr Malcolm Dockery

Drawing Numbers: FW04_015 - Block plan FW04_007B - Block plan FW04_007A - Block plan FW04-010 – Elevations FW04-011 - Substation plans FW04-006 - Block plan Email dated 03.12.2013 stating the height of the proposal.

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment, Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection, Policy EN20 - Protection of AONB, Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Policy EN5 - Pollution Control, Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land,

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document. (July 2007)

Ministerial statement

A ministerial statement by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP was issued on 6/6/2013. The statement regards the planning reforms to make the planning process more accessible to communities giving local people the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.

The statement makes specific and direct reference to on shore turbine development and the view that decisions are not always reflecting the locally-led planning system.

It is stated that action is required to deliver the balance expected within the NPPF and to ensure that protecting the local environment is properly considered alongside the broader issues of protecting the global environment.

In this respect new planning guidance sets out clearly that:

1. The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.

2. Decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect the increasing impact upon

a) the landscape

b) local amenity as the number of turbines in the area increases

3. Local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging impact upon the landscape (i.e. recognise that the impact on predominantly flat landscapes can be as great or greater than on hilly or mountainous ones).

4. Great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting.

National Planning Policy Framework.

Chapter 11 : Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. and

Chapter 10 : Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change – paragraph 98.

Paragraph 14 - Achieving sustainable development

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Draft Pre Submission

S32 – Protecting Amenity.

Relevant Planning The Local Planning Authority issued a screening opinion History: (SCR/2013/0048) concluding that the proposed development does not constitute EIA development with regard to visual and landscape impact.

The representations from Westnewton Action Group question the screening opinion (SCR/2013/0048) concluding that the proposed development does not constitute EIA development with regard to visual and landscape impact. Westnewton Action Group state that the original screening opinion should have should SCR/2013/0043 as almost every turbine in the surrounding area needed an EIA.

However the position of the turbine was moved to its current position. This movement and the additional survey submitted by an ornithologist advises that the turbine be relocated to the proposed location, which would be far enough away from known fields to have any significant impact on feeding geese and it would be out of the Whoopers swan flight line. Due to the re-siting of the turbine it is not considered that an EIA would be of benefit.

Representations: Bromfield Parish Council – Strongly object to the application. Reasons: For the cumulative impact on the parish and the adverse impact on the visual amenity from Bromfield Parish.

Boltons Parish Council - Strongly object to the application. Reason: For the Cumulative and visual impact of the turbine will have on the parish as well as the impact on Solway area of AONB.

Waverton Parish Council - Strongly object. The visual impact to the surrounding area and the cumulative effect. There are already too many wind turbinesand clusters of wind turbines in the area; these are degrading the whole beauty of the County of Cumbria which is regarding as a special area for its landscape and views. The Council is also aware that the erection of turbines would lead to the possible building of others and the setting of an unwanted president in this area.

Dundraw Parish Council – Recommendation Refusal Cumulative effect and visual effect affecting owners and the impact on those peoples views. The turbine is right in the area of Solway AONB and will be seen from this area of outstanding nature beauty. The turbine will be in the path of geese it is also in the area of bats. People in out parish and the local community are against accumulation of anymore large turbines, the parish feels as though they have had enough in such as small area. Arqiva – No objections

Ministry of Defence – No objection. The proposed development is in the vicinity of sites used by the RAF Spadeadam electronic warfare tactics facility, and may cause unacceptable interference to threats at these sites. Following the amended letter which was received on the 02/12/2013 the Ministry of Defence has withdrawn their initial objection. However, the Ministry of Defence would still like to be kept informed of when the construction will start and finish the exact position of the turbine (latitude and longitude) and the height of any construction equipment.

Civil Aviation Authority – No objections. Standing advice.

Solway Rural Initiative - Objection regarding the adverse impact on the AONB.

NATS – No safeguarding objection.

Stobart Air – No Objections.

Fire Officer – No Comments.

Environmental Protection – No objections as the noise level predictions at the nearest sensitive receptors are within the ETSU- R-97 simplified noise limit. Environmental Health however wishes to add contaminated land conditions to any recommendation of approval.

Natural England – The proposed site is 1.5km from the Solway Coast AONB. The submitted photomontages do not include any VPs from within the AONB boundary.

VP4 is 1.9km from the proposed site and indicates the size of the turbine at this distance, and therefore the impact it would have at this distance in areas to the north which would be within the designated landscape.

Despite the white cloud background it would a prominent feature in the landscape at this distance, due to the topography of the surroundings. Natural England advises further VPs from within the designated landscape are therefore needed.

In addition, to requiring extra information regarding the Viewpoints from the AONB,

Natural England are satisfied that their impact on Pink Footed Geese and Whooper swans will not be of likely significant. Regarding the need for extra information regarding bats Natural England are satisfied this can be controlled by a condition taken from the mitigation, stated in the bat survey.

County Archaeologist – No objections

Environment Agency – No objections, subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to surface water drainage. In addition to the condition, a note to applicant is further need for works close to Rocketty Beck.

RSPB – No reply to date

Cumbria Highways – No Objections, subject to Construction Method Statement Conditions.

English Heritage – The site of the proposed turbines lies approximately 1.5km to the south of the Grade I listed church of St Mary, the surviving fragment of the church of the Church of the Cistercian Abbey of Holmcultram. It is considered by English Heritage that the turbine will be visible in views to the south from the churchyard and from the Abbey site. However English Heritage do not consider that the turbine will have significant enough impact on the Church or on the site of the Abbey, or on their settings. English Heritage have also considered the potential for the proposed turbine to impact upon the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and its setting.

FORCE – Have provided a full statement of objection summarized on the following grounds.

In appropriate size and scale of the proposal turbine, the effect of which would be exacerbated by the low lying landscape of the Solway Plain.

The agent has ignored CWESPD advice in that the Cumulative assessment will normally be required where there is another development, proposed, approved or operational within 30km of the scheme. The agent has only provided a radius of 20Km.

This agent has chosen to ignore the fact that the Borough of Allerdale already accommodates an exceptionally large number of onshore wind turbines but it is for this reason that the cumulative impact of wind energy, as referred to in the DCLG guidance, is of particular relevance to applications such as this one. Incompatibility with Local and National Planning Policy. The list of the LVIA does not list any of the more established turbines near Maryport and Workington. It includes neither phase of Winscales Wind Farm nor the approved turbines at Tarns, Broom Hill and Hallbank. In addition, none of the Carlisle City Planning Authority turbines have been listed on the assessment. In addition, High Pow wind farm information is incorrect as there are three existing turbines and six as stated by the applicant.

According to the LVIA, the impact of the proposed development on some Swinsty Farm has been assessed as having a major adverse affect. The residents of Abbeytown are already greatly affected by Hellrigg development and are likely to be subject to uninterrupted views of the turbines at Westnewton.

Cumulative Impact due to proximity of the proposed turbine to a Site of Specific Scientific Interest. The turbine is within 50m of a hedgerow. This is in direct conflict with guidance from Natural England.

Damage to the general amenity of local residents.

Potential for interference with Great Dun Fell radars

Westnewton Action Group – Dispute the screening opinion SCR/2013/0048 stating that an EIA is not required. This is disputed as the original screening opinion SCR/2013/0043 was submitted in June with a request for an EIA. Westnewton Action Group believe that the former opinion should have stood, and entirely disagree with the latter opinion’s reasoning on the following grounds:

Almost every turbine application in an area surrounded this site has required an EIA, namely 2 turbine applications at Oulton; a further 2 at Kirkbride, 2 at Seaville and one each at Aldoth, Newton Arlosh, Wheyrigg, Bromfield, Broom Park and Dundraw several that have has full ecological and ornithological assessment. The received advice to re-site the turbine has resulted in its having been moved no more than about 150m from the original site, this minimal change is unlikely to make any potential impact on either feeding geese or whopper swans and there an EIA should have required.

This application is a purely speculative venture by ‘PEP’ rather than that of a local farmer benefitting from the DECC definition of small scale which refers to ‘Typically single turbine installation with a capacity of less than 100Kw and a hub height of about 15m.

The government is already reaching its renewable target nearly eight years early.

Do not consider that the applicant has provided an inadequate cumulative impact assessment. The cumulative impact fails to mention the approved turbines/ built at Brayton Park, Crossrigg, Tarns, Hall Bank, Broomhill, Flimby, Brownrigg, Aikton, Red Dial, Thursby, Thornby Villa as well as the turbines approved at Carlisle City Council.

Consider that the landscape assessments are unacceptable, and believe that there can be no overriding need for this development.

Adverse impact upon character and appearance of the rural area outweighing any benefit.

The application has been advertised on site. Adjoining landowners and nearby residents have been notified.

Thirteen letters of objection have been received as follows.

The objections from local residents generally refers to the

-Adverse impact of the turbine upon the landscape -Impact on the flight path for birds -Impact on the local resident’s TV reception. -Cumulative effect of this turbine when view with Hellrigg. -Reduce property value. -Negative effect on tourism in the area -Noise similar to that of an airplane -The only people that benefit are the land owner -Wind turbines are owned/serviced by foreign firms. -The turbine will kill birds -The turbine will be noisy and cause health issues for local residential. -Turbines are ineffective and inefficient -The turbine is in breach of article 7 of the Aarhus Convention

51 letters of support have been received for the scheme.

The support letters from local residents generally refer to the:

-The need to reduce our fossils fuel -Green energy is better than nuclear -Do not want to rely on nuclear power -Windmills do not spoil the landscape -Helps to solve energy crises for farmer -Farmers need a diverse income

Report The Proposal

The turbine would be a three bladed with a hub height of up to 60m and a 53m rotor diameter giving a total height to blade tip of up to 86.5m. This is a slight amendment to the original proposal as the original proposal specified a type of an Enercon E53.

The proposed turbine location is at OS grid reference ES17635 N549305. Supplementary element include a permanent switch gear housing unit (approximately 3m x 4m x 3m), an access track, underground cabling, a temporary construction compound (approximately 20m x 30m), a temporary assembly area (approximately 15m x 40m) and a crane hard standing area of (approximately 40m x 20m). The site area encompassing the whole of the development is 0.992 Ha.

Access is gained via an existing farm track from the B5302. It is proposed that this track would be extended over the Rocketty Beck culvert by upgrading 130m of an existing cow track and 370m of new, dedicated track.

Site and Surrounding Area

The site is virtually flat agricultural land laid to improved grassland, which is currently used as grazing pasture. The site itself is located 400m south-west of Kelsick house farm and straddles two fields of permanent pasture.

Policy

As core principles, the National Planning Policy Framework includes the requirement to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognizing the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and encourage the use of renewable resources.

The NPPF states that the delivery of low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is central to the economic social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In determining planning applications, LPA’s should:

• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognize that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and

• approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

This positive approach to renewables is underpinned by the Climate Change Act and binding legal targets to reduce carbon emissions.

As the site is in the locality of the AONB members should consider National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 109.

“ The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

●protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

● recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

● minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

●preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

● remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. ”

Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan restricts development within the open countryside to that which is ‘essential’ to meet a local need. However, the weight to be given to this policy now depends on compatibility with the NPPF which specifies approval of such applications if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

In assessing the merits of the proposed development it is necessary to balance the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed renewable energy development with any adverse environmental impact of the proposed turbines, taking into account the additional advice provided in the recent Ministerial Statement and subsequent guidance (see earlier in the report). Of particular note are extracts from the Planning practice guidance and low carbon energy 30 July 2013 which state:

‘Para 2 advises “Government planning practice guidance can be a material consideration in planning decisions and should generally be followed unless there are clear reasons not to.”

Para 3 states

“..Planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable. “

Para 8 includes

“..but in considering locations, local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology (see paragraphs 12-13) and, critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including from cumulative impacts (see paragraphs 43-44). The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to. “

Par 11 specifies

“..The expectation should always be that an application should only be approved if the impact is (or can be made) acceptable. “

Para 15 refers to

“ In shaping local criteria for inclusion in Local Plans and considering planning applications in the meantime, it is important to be clear that:

- the need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections

-cumulative impacts require particular attention, especially the increasing impact that wind turbines and large scale solar farms can have on landscape and local amenity as the number of turbines and solar arrays in an area increases

-local topography is an important factor in assessing whether wind turbines and large scale solar farms could have a damaging effect on landscape and recognise that the impact can be as great in predominately flat landscapes as in hilly or mountainous areas

- great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting

- proposals in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and in areas close to them where there could be an adverse impact on the protected area, will need careful consideration

protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions”

Para 40 states

“.Cumulative visual impacts may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development will be visible from the same point, or will be visible shortly after each other along the same journey. Hence, it should not be assumed that, just because no other sites will be visible from the proposed development site, the proposal will not create any cumulative impacts. “

Para 41 advises

“In assessing the impact on visual amenity, factors to consider include: establishing the area in which a proposed development may be visible, identifying key viewpoints, the people who experience the views and the nature of the views. “

Para 42 refers to

“In identifying impacts on landscape, considerations include: direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts and temporary and permanent impacts. When assessing the significance of impacts a number of criteria should be considered including the sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource and the magnitude or size of the predicted change. Some landscapes may be more sensitive to certain types of change than others and it should not be assumed that a landscape character area deemed sensitive to one type of change cannot accommodate another type of change. “

Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF states that applicants are not required to demonstrate overall need as small scale projects contribute significantly to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to the Government’s overall strategy on sustainability and renewable energy development, as emphasized in the Energy White Paper (2007), The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) the UK Energy Road Map (2011) and a significant number of other policies and commitments. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

The North West Regional Spatial Strategy although recently abolished and is no longer part of the Development Plan, remains an evidence base and therefore a material policy consideration (excluding targets).

Despite its abolishment there remain the binding legal targets relating to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions within the Climate Change Act.

The Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study (August 2011) confirmed that the capacity of operational or consented renewable energy schemes within Cumbria totaled 285.36MW.

This figure is not directly comparable to the RSS targets because the RSS specified electricity generation only; whilst the Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study considered renewable energy schemes for both power and heat. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy recognizes the importance of both electricity and heat from renewable sources and seeks around 35% of electricity and heat to come from renewable and low carbon (non nuclear) sources by 2020. Of the overall figure deployed or consented within Cumbria, 70% is located within the district of Allerdale.

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Regardless of these figures, the imperative for further renewable energy within national policy and strategy is clear. Therefore, the weight to be attached to the deployment of renewable energy is not considered to have diminished.

Whilst this scheme would make only a small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of the economic benefits to this local farming business. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

However, as outlined in the recent ministerial statement The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.

Assessment

The merits of the proposed development relate to balancing the benefits of renewable energy development against any environmental harm, each application should be assessed on its individual planning merits.

It is accepted that national planning policy supports the principle of renewable energy development and its contribution to the national energy targets. However these should subsequently be balanced against any environmental issues or constraints which can be summarised as follows ;

Noise

The nearest residential property not associated with the proposal is Southerfield Hall 750m to the west of the turbine.

The applicant has undertaken a simplified ETSU R97 assessment was undertaken which demonstrated that predicted noise levels would be below 35dB(A) ETSU R97 Simplified Assessment criteria at wind speeds of up to 10m/s.

Environmental Protection has confirmed that they are satisfied with the information provided and that the proposal should be able to achieve the noise limits specified by ETSU subject to the noise level being conditioned.

Ecology

The applicant has provided an ecological assessment which states that the land is of low ecological value in terms of habitat, being dominated by improved grassland fields grazed by cattle. The ecological reports states that the bat levels were low to moderate and mitigation measures are proposed including curtailment at sensitive times.

The qualifying bird species of Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA, SSSI and Ramsar including wintering populations of whooper swans and pink – footed geese and theses species are present in the wider area. An assessment of the possible impacts of the development on geese and swans was provided by local ornithologists (2013), presenting preferred areas for these species and typical flight movements. It is concluded that a single turbine development at this location is unlikely to have a significant impact on birds, but minor levels of displacements or collisions are possible. No significant impacts on the qualifying interest species of the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA, SSSI and Ramsar site or any other designated site are anticipated.

Natural England are satisfied that there impact on Pink Footed Geese and Whooper swans will not be of likely significance.

Regarding the need for extra information regarding bats Natural England are satisfied this can be controlled by a condition taken from the mitigation stated out in the bat survey. Planning officer's also consider that as the turbine is within 50m of a hedgerow there are concerns relating to the impact on bats. However, as the applicant has carried out a bat survey concluding that the survey showed bat recordings to be low. Planning officers are satisfied that the impact on bats can be controlled by condition.

However, Natural England adds that the proposed site is 1.5km from the Solway Coast AONB. The submitted photomontages do not include any viewpoints from within the AONB boundary. View point 4 is 1.9km from the proposed site and indicates the size of the turbine at this distance, and therefore the impact it would have at this distance in areas to the north which would be within the designated landscape. Despite the white cloud background Natural England consider it would a prominent feature in the landscape at this distance, due to the topography of the surroundings. Natural England advises further Viewpoints from within the designated landscape are therefore needed.

Planning officers have requested the additional clearer viewpoints; however the applicant has not been forthcoming in providing any more additional viewpoints from the ANOB.

It is officer’s opinion that there is sufficient information to justify the harmful affect the turbine will have on the ANOB.

Historic Environment

There are six key heritage assets that lie close to the application site. The indirect effects of the proposed turbines on the setting of these heritage assets have been assessed by the applicant. The six heritage assets are Swinsty Farmhouse, Abbeytown, Mill Grove (grade II*) and barn, Abbeytown (grade II), Church of St Mary, Abbeytown (grade I), Kelsick house, Kelsick (grade II). There is also one scheduled monument St Mary’s Abbey, Holme cultram.

The Heritage assessment which accompanies this application states that the turbine will be visible from all identified assets. The applicant’s statement concedes that although the turbine will be seen from the six heritage assets the impact on the setting of the assets and their significance will be negligible. This is because the views from which the assets are best appreciated will be preserved.

This view is supported by English Heritage which state that whilst the turbine will be visible in views to the south from the churchyard and from the Abbey site. English Heritage does not consider that it will have a significant impact on the Church or on the site of the Abbey, or on their settings. English Heritage adds that the situation of the Abbey within the wetlands of north west Cumbria is better understood through views northwards from the Abbey site, and the proposed turbine will not impact upon these views.

In addition, English Heritage does not consider the proposed turbine will impact upon the (OUV) Outstanding Universal Value of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and its setting. English Heritage do not consider that the proposed turbine will adversely affect the ability to understand and appreciate Roman military planning and land use, which forms the basis of the OUV.

The County Archaeology has also stated no objections to the application.

Planning officer’s have given weight to the views of English heritage and the County Archaeologist and do not consider that the turbine will result in any significant adverse visual impacts on the historic environment.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology

The site of the proposed turbine is located within Flood Zone 1. However, the proposed access track is located within Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Environment Agency has stated that with appropriate conditions relating to the surface water drainage of the access road the surface water will be drained appropriately. Transport and Access

Access from the public highway is planned using the existing farm access. A 5m wide access track is required to the site. The Highway Authority has indicated they have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Construction Method Statement.

Officers consider that an appropriate transport route can be achieved in order to minimise the impacts on the highway. The applicant has provided details of proposed site access and strategy including traffic movements, vehicle types, traffic routing and delivery periods. Officers consider such matters can be further conditioned.

Shadow Flicker

In terms of shadow flicker, the standard assessment would be that properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine could potentially be affected by shadow flicker. In this case the rotor diameter is a 53m therefore the zone of influence is 530m. The nearest residential properties is within 750m therefore the affects of shadow flicker would not cause significant harm to any surrounding properties.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

The CAA, NATS and the MOD have all been consulted on the proposal. CAA and NATS have raised no objections to the proposal. However, the MOD did initially object to the proposal as the turbine was within the vicinity of sites used by RAF Spadeadam electronic warfare tactics facility, and may cause unacceptable interference to the threat radars at theses sites. However, following an amended letter dated the 02/12/2013 the MOD has withdrawn their objection.

Tourism

The issue of potential effects on local tourism within the locality has been raised within several of the objection representations. However, the Inspector on the Parkland/Hellrigg appeal, in evaluating impact on tourism including the AONB, considered that if there was not a significant impact on the landscape then the degree of effect on attracting visitors would be limited. He considered the evidence of Scottish research submitted at the appeal indicated that the small number of people discouraged from visiting was insignificant. In the absence of any conclusive evidence on this issue, officers consider it would be difficult to sustain to a reason for refusal at appeal. Further to the Hellrigg appeal officers consider that there is no specific detailed local evidence to demonstrate any conclusive views backed up with evidence.

Landscape/Visual/Residential Impact

This is a key issue relating to the merits of the application.

The applicant has provided landscape and visual impact assessments (LVIA) and supporting information. The applicant has provided a collection of thematic maps to show the proposed site with regard to landscape character designations, residential properties within 1-3km of the site, distribution of existing and planned turbines in the area and maps illustrating zones of cumulative visibility. The mapping is supported with photomontage evidence illustrating that extent to which the turbine would be seen from certain critical vantage points and residential receptors within the locality. The size of the proposal makes the development difficult to screen and by the very nature of the development there is likely to be some significant harmful affects on the landscape and visual amenities of the area; however, the degree of harm needs to be weighed up against the benefits arising from the proposal.

An Environmental Report and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) have been undertaken by the applicant to examine the potential visual impact of the proposed turbine.

The methodology of the applicant’s LVIA and its conclusions are as follows.

Landscape Character

The application site is located within the 5b Low Farmland landscape classification. The county council’s SPD Wind Energy in Cumbria refers to this landscape designation.

“Overall the Lowland landscape type is judged to have moderate capacity to accommodate turbine development. This reflects moderate sensitivity overall and moderate value as a largely undesignated landscape. A significant exception is the small area of lowland that falls within the Solway Coast AONB designation ∗. Here high value and sensitivity attributable to a sense of remoteness, lack of large scale development and contribution as a backdrop and contrast to wilder coastal edge landscapes indicate that any scale of wind energy development is likely to be inappropriate. Whilst this type has moderately strong historical interest this is attributable to the presence of conservation areas, Roman remains, medieval field patterns, historic parks etc. It is considered that wind energy development could be accommodated provided it does not impinge on the site or setting of these valued features and therefore this value should not reduce capacity in the landscape as a whole. Elsewhere some notable localised geographical variations in the sense of enclosure created by the undulating and rolling topography and regularity of land cover patterns affect appropriateness. Greatest potential occurs in the open flatter areas and broad ridge tops where small or, in exceptional circumstances, large turbine groups could relate to the medium to large scale landform without dominating wide views and integrate with regular field patterns. The sense of exposure in these areas would also evoke a sense of purpose and rationality. In the more sheltered and enclosed valleys or undulating fringes turbine development would feel over dominant and conflict with more irregular land cover patterns. Whilst significant interruption by relief and vegetation would assist absorption in the wider landscape these same features are likely to result in unpredictable relationships between turbines and a variable skyline with intensifying or disturbing effects such framing or blade flash over valley rims. A key characteristic limiting capacity is the dispersed pattern of numerous small rural settlements making it difficult to site developments sufficiently distant so as not to adversely affect their sense of scale and character. Settlement size and pattern suggest that up to a small group of turbines would generally be appropriate. Other more localised sensitivities include potential erosion of peaceful rural backwater qualities and impact on valued views from neighbouring high ground or coast, important valleys and towns such as Workington within them. Particular sensitivities in relation to the setting of international and national designations include:

• contribution of the quieter hinterlands to a sense of remoteness and the sequence of contrasting landscapes in the Solway Coast AONB

• open sequential views from recreation and tourist routes along the coastal edge of the AONB and along Frontiers of the Roman Empire: Hadrian’s Wall across the lowland ridges towards Lakeland fells most notably from Cumbria Coastal Way, the B5300, National Cycle Route 72, Hadrian’s Wall Trail and from viewpoints at forts and milecastles associated with the Wall

• distinctive vistas to and from the northern and western fells of the Lake District NP and open estuarine views from the Ravenglass and Eskdale ‘gateway’

• vistas of the north-western tip of the North Pennines AONB”

The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by open fields, hedgerows, individual trees, small areas of woodland, isolated dwellings and nearby villages. Under its landscape classification, (: Lowland, Sub Type 5b Low Farmland) it has a moderate landscape capacity including the landscape characteristics of; undulating and rolling topography, intensely farmed agricultural pasture dominates with is patchy areas of woodland,(but woodland is uncommon west towards the coast) large and rectangular fields, hedges, hedgerow trees and fences bound fields that criss cross up and over the rolling landscape by a series of ridges and valleys which rise gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells.

The guidance concludes that this landscape capacity has a moderate capacity has the potential to accommodate a small group (3-5 turbines) or exceptionally a large group (6-9 turbines). This number is not a rigid criteria and must be assessed against the details of the LVIA.

The applicant’s LVIA has identified that there would be the potential for moderate or major localised impact on the character of the lowland landscape from non-specific general viewpoints up to 1km from the site. This will however decline and diminish with distance with negligible landscape impact beyond 3km including adjacent character areas. It is stated that the turbine can generally be accommodated without dominating wide views. The applicant accepts that this impact is typical of a turbine of this size but claims that the undulating landscape can accommodate such a structure without dominating wide views in accordance with the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance.

The applicants’ evidence advises the site would be visible from a network of public footpaths and cycle routes within the locality; both long and short term views of the turbine would be gained. Public views of the proposed turbine would be possible from along parts of the surrounding highway and footpath network, including local roads views from the B5302. Given the scale of the proposal, the applicants’ evidence suggests it would be visible to a varying extent becoming imperceptible with distance on surrounding public highways and rights of way. Viewpoints/Receptors

A viewpoint assessment has been carried out by the applicant using eleven viewpoints selected in consultation with Planning Officers at the pre-application stage. Photomontages and wireframe visualizations both at wireframe and at the “real scale” have been produced in the standard format to illustrate any potential impact.

Officers have agreed the viewpoints selected at pre-application stage. Whilst the SPD recommends a 30km distance to evaluate visual impact the recent appeal decision at Great Orton Airfield stated alternatively that the main visual impact was concentrated at the local level and therefore discounted the further wider turbine development further afield. The viewpoints agreed by officers sought to identify the key sensitive receptors including; landscape designations, nearest residential properties potential viewpoints of cumulative impact and highway corridors.

On the basis of fieldwork observations and a number of measured parameters, including distance and angle of view, the sensitivity of each receptor and magnitude has been assessed by the applicant as follows: (This has determined the applicants’ views of the significance of any impact from the proposed turbine).

Viewpoint 1: B5301/National Cycle Network Route 72 (6.1Km from the site of the turbine).

This viewpoint concentrates on the road junction. The coastal plain is extremely flat and dissected by long straight lanes; each is lined with hedges and some trees. Buildings are few; traffic is seldom on this road and mainly agricultural, but may also include visitors to the world heritage site within 1km to the west. The blade tips of the turbine appear in the distance behind four turbine towers of the Hellrigg Wind Farm; were the roadside hedge to grow any more, they would disappear completely from view. There would be cumulative impacts with the existing turbines of Hellrigg; the additional significance is however minimal.

Officers agree that despite the viewpoints landscape sensitivity within the AONB given the separation distance officers accept general magnitude for change is slight. Overall it is considered that the views from the west are not likely to impact on the ANOB due to their separation distance.

Although cumulative impact is an issue, the existing Hellrigg windfarm dominates the foreground and the applicant’s turbine would occupy a recessed location with little significant cumulative impact from views from the west.

Viewpoint 2: Southerfield (750m from the site of the turbine).

This viewpoint is located in the farmhouse garden, looking east; the PROW runs down the approach lane before turning away to the west. An occasional glimpse from the lane cannot however be ruled out. The Holme Dub extends from one horizon to the other, the skyline broken only by hedges and some trees. Kelsickhouse Farm is clearly visible in the middle distance; its barn are flat in nature but large in extent and clearly modern in design, as is that of Southerfield itself on the right of the view. The turbine would form a conspicuous vertical in what is at present an unbroken horizontal sweep. The scale of its effect is assessed as Large the turbine will be a change that punctuates the valley floor but remains contained within it.

This viewpoint was primarily picked to assess visual impact Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is large due to the close proximity to the turbine. This is addressed in the visual amenity section of the report.

However the scale of the proposed turbine and its limited separation distance demonstrates the turbine having a prominent extensive and dominant impact on the landscape character. (hence a high proportion of the turbine punctuating the skyline)

Viewpoint 3: Swinsty Road, (Abbeytown 950m from turbine)

This viewpoint is located outside the main window of one of several houses on this side of Swinsty Road. Both lounge and garden of this property offer sweeping views across the Holme Dub and River Ellen to High Pike and Skiddaw in the Lake District National Park. Two lines of small pylons punctuate the horizontality of the scene which, apart from the road bridge on the far left, is of fields and hedges with little sign of modern civilization.

The turbine would be significant and immediately apparent with the landscape, rising from a group of trees close to the horizon. It would form the most modern element; the barns of Kelsick house Farm are visible among trees but being horizontal by nature, these blend into the expanse of the valley floor. The character of the view would change at a stroke; the prominence of the Lake District would be lost. The applicant has viewed the effect of the turbine as Very Large.

This viewpoint was similarly requested to assess visual amenity as it reflects the outlook from the southern periphery of Abbeytown. Officers agree that the visual effect is very large.

Officers from a landscape perspective consider that given the flat topography of the landscape it would not be seen within the context of the valley floor but would alternatively act as a prominent and dominating feature in the landscape. (Similarly punctuating the skyline). The Lakeland fells given their separation distance and low level backdrop offer little benefit in reducing its visual landscape impact

Viewpoint 4: B5302 west of Abbeytown, (1.9m from the turbine).

Views from this elevated location would extend to Skiddaw in clear weather but often include only the valley floor. This is open, rural and traditional, with mature trees and scattered farmsteads visible in the distance. The turbine would skyline on a misty day but be seen against the Northern Fells by good light. The scale of effects here is assessed as Very Small.

Officers consider that the picture due to its cloudy nature lack clarity. (However its visual form is more evident on the “real scale” visualization. Officers did request an additional picture from the viewpoint, however the applicant has declined. Members therefore need to verify whether they have sufficient evidence to assess the visual impact from this viewpoint which is a representation from the AONB designation from the north

Officers do not agree that the effect of the proposal will be very small. It is considered that the views are from a valued sensitive landscape (AONB) and therefore more protection should be given to the impact on valued landscapes (including setting) according to paragraph 109 National Planning Policy Framework. It is considered that this impact will be experienced from other sections of the AONB north of the application site.

Officers highlight that the AONB designation is 1.5km from the site and extends to the north of Abbeytown. (The SPD states that within 2.4km the turbine will become the dominant feature the distance to the ANOB). The flat outlook of the Officers consider that due to the close proximity of a valued landscape area the (ANOB) the turbine from this viewpoint will have an unacceptable adverse landscape impact.

Viewpoint 5: Hadrian’s Wall at Drumburgh (14.1km from the turbine site).

The unclassified road along the water’s edge carries the cycle route while walkers take the parallel route along the separate dam along this section. The view southwards from both is of fields and marches (the Drumburgh Moss) with little sign of modern civilization.

Officers agree with the applicant that the impact will be slight. The viewpoint is within the World Heritage site and within the ANOB, however, the visual impact and effect is slight due to the separation distance from the proposed turbine.

Viewpoint 6: PROW west of Wigton (6.7km from the turbine).

This viewpoint sits at the interface between Wigton and its surrounding country. Aikhead, a residential area to the north-west, and the unclassified road to Waverbridge to the south-west frame the view; power lines march across the fields, which are larger than most in the area. The turbine is lost among trees on the western horizon. The applicant states that the scale of effect is judged to be very small.

Officers agree that the effect is slight due to the separation distance from the proposed turbine. The impact is also lessened by the existing pylons in the locality of Wigton.

Viewpoint 7: Long burn (900m from the turbine).

Viewpoint 7 is located at the west-facing edge of a farmyard which looks out over the valley floor. At present an unoccupied barn stands here but plans are under discussion to convert this into bed-and-breakfast or self-catering holiday apartments, whose prime view this would be. A line of small trees has been planted on the boundary. In the distance some trees and hedges, but also Kelsickhouse Farm, its barns, and Hunter’s Cottage are visible. The scene is one of quiet but modern agricultural efficiency.

The turbine would add a clearly expressed contemporary element. Its height would be in scale with the tree group among which it would appear, rather larger than the turbines of Hellrigg to one side. The scale of effects here is assessed as large.

Officers agree that the effect is large. It is deemed that the landscape impact of the turbine from this is viewpoint will result in an adverse landscape impact due to the close separation distance, open flat topography of the landscape with little vegetation cover (an isolated tree partially screen the turbine from this viewpoint but this will be not generally be the case elsewhere in the vicinity of this viewpoint).

Viewpoint 8: PROW north of Blencogo (2.3km from the turbine)

On leaving the village of Blencogo walkers using this PROW head out into an unspoiled landscape with, for a time, no sign of the modern age. As a linear viewpoint this changes for them once the crest is reached; Blencogo residents see this picture of rural tranquility with the tips of Hellrigg turbines visible over the horizon on a clear day.

The blades of the turbine would appear in partial visibility next to these, in scale with the mature trees scattered across this view. The scale of effects is assessed as Very Small.

Officers disagree that the effects are very small. Officer view the landscape to be large due to the open flat topography of the landscape little evidence of any other man made vertical structure and close separation distance . Only sporadic trees offer low level little screening. The turbine would act as a dominant feature. Hellrigg windfarm is also visible in the background demonstrating combined viewpoint.

Viewpoints 9: St Mungo’s Church, Bromfield (2.2km from the turbine).

Viewpoint 9 looks up towards rising ground on which Crooklands sits to the right. The scene is framed by modern barns to the left, and a row of telegraph pylons crosses the foreground, but all in all this remains one of quiet agricultural countryside.

The turbine would appear from the next valley just above the horizon as another minor but modern element in an expansive landscape.

The scale of effects here is assessed as Minor .

This viewpoint was chosen to asses the impact of the turbine on the listed building. Officers agree that the general magnitude for change is minor. The Church is a listed building and considering that no objections were received from English Heritage. Officers consider that the proposed turbine is considered acceptable in terms of heritage impact. In terms of scale the turbine is seen as prominent in the flat surrounding landscape.

Viewpoints 10: A596 at High Scales (3.9km from the turbine site)

A fleeting view through a gateway which would barely be noticed by motorists, this expansive overview is a worst-case scenario. Walkers and cyclists might have more chance to stop and look. The long view over the Solway to Scotland adds a sense of scale but modern elements such as pylons and metal-clad barns are fairly prominent. The overall sense is broad and horizontal, a modern farming landscape.

The upper part of the turbine would appear in the middle-distance as one vertical structure among many, at a similar scale to the pylons. Its spinning blades would add distant movement to the scene.

The scale of effects here is assessed as Very Small .

Officers disagree that the general magnitude for change is very small, but accept that is visual effect is reduced by the topography with only the upper section visible .Officers deem impact of the turbine from this is viewpoint will not result in any significant adverse landscape impact.

Viewpoints 11: B5301 north of Aspatria (7.6km from the turbine site).

The B5301 crests a rise north of Aspatria which offers the only potential prospect of the Application Site from this town. It leads towards the coastline so would carry a mix of users. They pass through intensively-used agricultural country with Criffel as a distant beacon on a clear day; the pylons of the Maryport-Carlisle transmission lines cross the road just north of here. Only after Westnewton does the industrial character of the A596/595 corridor give way to the rural character of the coast.

The turbine would be entirely screened from view by woodland, in winter as in summer, on rising ground in the distance.

The scale of effects is assessed as Very Small .

This was included to account for any cumulative impact with Warwick Hall windfarm at Westnewton but it demonstrates there will be no combined viewpoints from this highway corridor due to the staggered positions of the turbines. Given the separation distance the general magnitude for change either individually or cumulatively is small given the significant separation distance and the visual man made clutter of the pylons.

Officers in assessing the individual policy merits of the scheme are aware that the site is within 2km of the valued landscape designation of the Solway coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Therefore given the potential for impact on setting of the sensitive landscape designation of the AONB, paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework should be considered as it outlines;

“ The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by;

• protect and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation area interests and soils; “

However from officer’s perspective albeit not within the national designation itself it is considered the limited separation distance resulting in its potential to adversely affect its setting.

Although the visual impact and prominence of the turbine will diminish with distance it is considered it will have a substantial and harmful impact in the locality of the landscape of the site itself especially given the flat topography of the surrounding landscape

Part 2 Section 1 1.37 within the Wind energy in Cumbria SPD considers the promince of turbines in the landscape may be classed as being a dominant feature upto 2.4km from the site. Given the size of the turbine, its limited separation distance from the national landscape designation and the open flat characteristics of the surrounding landscape officers consider the proposal would constitute a prominent dominant feature in the locality adversely affecting the setting of the AONB affecting the views both into and out this important landscape designation.

The proposal is therefore both contrary to the policy landscape guidance within the NPPF and the local plan.

Officer also refer to the Hellrigg windfarm ref (2/20007/0076) which was a similar distance from the AONB designation .The Inspector allowed the appeal contrary to the councils refusal decision (which included impact on the AONB). The Inspector regarding landscape grounds justified his decision stating that ‘there would be other, more attractive features, such as the dunes and the seashore, in much closer proximity that would draw the eye.(reducing the visual prominence of the windfarm) In addition there are existing other man made structures of and on shore .

This current application is in a different location further away from the seashore or the dunes and is further away from any man- made features e.g Anthorn masts and any off-shore wind turbines.

It is therefore considered it would be more prominent and dominant in its flat open countryside context . Officers consider that the current scheme on its individual merits representative of a landscape environment to that allowed under the appeal. Officers accept that the ANOB does not have a generic designation buffer zone but the submitted viewpoint evidence suggests that it would have a significant impact on the landscape at the local level including the setting of the AONB...

Officers conclude that the greater landscape impact will be within 1-2Km from the turbine . Officers consider that due to the close proximity of a valued landscape and the open flat landscape with little vegetation or man made vertical structures within the (ANOB).

Visual/Residential Impact

Residents within 1 km of the site will clearly see the turbine when travelling to and from their properties with varied impact. The nearest residential properties are identified as Southerfield Hall 750m to the west of the site, Swinsty Farm 950m to the north – west of the site, Hunter’s Cottage 950m to the east-north-east of the site and Long burn 900 to the east of the site.

The Lavender test relates to the visual impact upon residential amenity. The applicant has assessed each dwelling appropriately referring to the extent that the turbine would be overbearing, overwhelming or oppressive. In addition it accounts for whether by virtue of this impact whether each dwelling would be an 'attractive place to live' .

The impact on residential amenity and change in outlook of visual amenity on all these properties has been assessed by the applicant. Officers in assessing this evidence conclude the following

The dwellings that the turbine will have the most impact on are Swinsty Farm, Long burn and Southerfield Hall. The greatest concern for the visual amenities of residents of the area is for the residents of Swinsty Farm and the properties along the road with there rear elevation directly facing the turbine. The properties are Thornlea, Criffel View, St Avon, Blencathra and Cumbria. This dwellings are between 950 -1000 metres from the location of the turbine. The dwellings have a rear elevation facing almost directly towards the turbine.

Swinsty Farm has a lounge and garden of this property have sweeping views of the Holme Dub into the Lake District National Park several of the other properties along Swinsty Road have habitable rooms and conservatories to there rear elevations with direct views of the conservatory. The proposed turbine would dominate the views across the open ground of Holme Dub.

It is officer’s opinion that the site and scale of the turbine would be adversely overwhelming overbearing and oppressive from these properties and would cause the six properties Swinsty Farm, Thornlea, Criffel View, St Avon, Blencathra and Cumbria to become an unattractive place to live.

It is officer’s opinion that Southerfield Hall’s orientation to the turbine is one that the kitchen and living room windows on the ground floor will not be in direct line of sight of the turbine.

Regarding Longburn it is officer’s opinion that at present the main living area of Longburn is not in direct view i.e. oblique of the turbine site. It is officer’s opinion that the residential amenity of these two dwellings will be reduced to a level that is acceptable.

Other scattered properties within the area will not be in direct line of sight of the development and considering the distance from the proposal to other dwellings in the locality the turbine is not considered to cause any significant affects on residential amenity.

There are, of cause other properties within Abbeytown and the surrounding area that have a line of sight that the turbine will be seen from. However, because of the separation distance from the turbine and the intervening built form of the settlement of Abbeytown, it is officer’s opinion that the residential amenity of all other properties will be retained to an acceptable level.

Overall, the turbine by virtue of its site, scale and separation distance from the properties Swinsty Farm Thornlea, Criffel View, St Avon, Blencathra and Cumbria along Swinsty Road will have an overwhelming, overbearing and oppressive impact on the visual amenity of its occupiers resulting it them becoming unacceptable places to live.

Cumulative Impacts

In assessing cumulative impact, the applicant’s LVIA considers the impact of turbines seen together in combination, turbines seen one after another in succession and turbines seen sequentially when travelling through an area.

The applicant’s submitted evidence should have included pending, approved and operational wind turbines as part of any landscape assessment in accordance with any current landscape guidance. However, any refusal on cumulative impact by the council must solely be refused on approved or operational turbines.

The cumulative assessment relates to existing and proposed schemes within 10km of the proposal. This distance. Although shorter than required by the SPD is considered appropriate in assessing cumulative impact as confirmed by the Planning Inspector in a recent appeal. (Land to the South of The Flatt Farm, Great Orton, Carlisle Ref 2/2012/0524, APP/G0908/A/12/2187146).

The list below has been amended by Officers to update the changing status of some of the sites. Officers have also added below a number of sites within 5km that the applicant has omitted simply due to the timing of their survey. A wider study area for cumulative impact of 30km is recommended within the Supplementary Planning Guidance but only for structures exceeding 95m. Smaller scale turbines at Dundraw farm and Stepping Stones would by virtue of their separation distance and scale do not have a significant effect.

The applicant has provided a list of turbines and the distance from the site.

Wind Energy Scheme Status (Sept Hub Nu Distance from 2012) height m proposed (m) be turbine. r

Dundraw Farm Operational 15m 2 3.90km

Tallentire Hill Operational 60m 6 14.5km

Great Orton, Airfield Operational 47.5 6 13.8km

Low Tarns Operational 18 2 5.8km

Bolton Low Houses In planning 60m 8 5.79km High Pow II.

Bolton low Houses. Operational 60m 3 5.79km

Langrigg Hall Operational 21m 4 3.5km Hellrigg Operational 80m 4 4.5km

Westnewton (Warwick Under 67m 3 7.6km Hall) construction

Prospect House Currently at 50m 1 3.9km Appeal

Wharrel s Hill Bothel Operational 50m 8 11.8km

Moss Side Farm Operational 15.4m 1 4.0km

Planning officer’s add that this is not an exhaustive list and some turbines have not be added, namely approved turbines at Tarns, Broomhill and Hallbank. Appeals are also pending for turbines at Brayton and Goose Green. In addition, none of the approved turbines at Carlisle City have been mentioned namely the single turbine at Midtown Farm and the two at Orton Grange distance. Albeit omitted, due to the distance these turbines will be unlikely to have a significant cumulative impact relating to the proposal. Given the distance the only the turbine at Tarns likely to be visible. The Tarns wind turbine is 46m (tip height) and is within the area of the zone of theatrical visibility .

Members should be made aware that the viewpoints provided are inconclusive regarding Westnewton and High Pow wind farms. Officers consider that due to the distance between the Wind farms and the proposal the cumulative impact will not cause a significant impact.

The applicant’s cumulative impact assessment considers the sensitivity and value of the landscape, visual amenity and the magnitude of cumulative impact and landscape change as a result of the proposed turbine. The LVIA discusses cumulative change upon landscape character, visibility, views, designated landscapes and sequential visual impact through transport corridors. It is generally concluded by the applicant that cumulative and sequential impact will be generally be a negligible or minor impact from some viewpoints.

The SPD includes advice at paragraph 1.42 of Part 2 that: ‘ a consistent and coherent approach to the siting, design, spacing and scale of schemes in relation to the receiving landscape type will be required to ensure that they make a positive contribution to the overall image. A succession of schemes with different designs and relationships to the landscape can appear confusing as well as raise questions about the visual rationale and suitability of each development.’

With regard to the significance of cumulative landscape impact in the vicinity, reference is made to the dismissal of a recent appeal for three turbines at a nearby site of Broughton Lodge 1.8km to the south (ref 2/2009/0880/APP/G0908/A/11/215611). The Inspector commented as follows. ‘In this regard Broughton Lodge occupies a location where the proposed wind turbines would combine with others in the locality and tip the balance from a landscape with wind farms to a landscape with wind turbines as a defining and dominant element. This would be compounded by the height and prominence of the proposed turbines and the manner in which they would become a prominent local focus making the cumulative effects of wind farm development the more pronounced.’

The Inspector’s comments are triggered by the number and height of the Broughton Lodge turbines and their proximity to other clusters of existing turbine development contributing to cumulative and sequential development.

The proposed turbine will be seen in conjunction with the 4 turbines at Hellrigg when travelling on the B5302 travelling north towards Abbeytown. The turbine being of different height to the 121m high turbines at Hellrigg with different blade high and size will appear as a disjointed unsightly movement and will create a visual confusing feature on the landscape.

It is officer’s opinion that the site, scale and design of the proposed turbine will be visually confusing when viewed in association with the Hellrigg Turbines when travelling north into Abbeytown on the B5302, exacerbated by the flat landscape character of the surrounding countryside (including the setting of the AONB.)

Officers consider the harmful effects of the cumulative impact are not outweighed by the renewable energy benefits of the scheme.

Other Representations.

Regarding the impact on the local residents TV reception Arqiva have stated no objections concerning the applicant. It is officer’s view from this that the TV reception in the local area will not be affected.

Regarding the objection that the turbine is in breach of Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention. Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention is part of legislation produced by the UN committee that seeks to insure that communities are kept informed of all environmental matters regarding proposed developments. This legislation has no weight within National or Local Planning Policy.

Balancing Assessment

Officers do not dispute the needs or befits of renewable energy development and the contribution they can provide to the national energy targets. Similarly the policy context background to renewable energy schemes is also not challenged.

However any such benefits need to be balanced against any environmental harm. Further the recent Ministerial guidance highlighted that such need neither does nor automatically override environmental concerns, especially when taking into account the representation of the local community.

In assessing this application on its individual planning merits officers consider that by virtue of the open flat topography of the surrounding landscape the prominence of the applicants turbine will be visible from a considerable distance (as verified by the applicant’s zone of visibility plan)

Although such impact would diminish with distance it is considered that the scale of this turbine in this landscape environment would be particularly adversely prominent and dominant at the local level which includes the sensitive designation of the AONB to the north of the site. Officers accept that there is no generic designation of any buffer to this to national designation but that the submitted details of the turbine would affect its setting with outlooks both into and out of this national designation.

The degree of visual harm to the landscape is considered significant and is not outweighed by the benefits of the turbine.

In addition the direct outlook and main habitable rooms of the properties on the southern edge of Abbeytown would also be adversely affected as to no longer be attractive places to live.

There would also be the added combined and sequential cumulative effects of the turbine with the Hellrigg windfarm.

From a ministerial guidance perspective there has been a level of support for the scheme, with contrasting objections from parishes and residents.

On balance taking all details into consideration, especially given the national landscape designation of the AONB it is considered that the environmental harm is not outweighed by the renewable benefits and therefore the officers recommend refusal.

Local Finance Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.

Conclusions

Officers consider that the landscape and visual impact of the turbine will lead to a significant negative impact on the residential amenities of local residents and the major adverse effect the turbine will have on the surrounding landscape.

In balancing the degree of harmful environmental effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the cumulative visual and landscape impact against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy, it is considered that in this instance, the environmental harm is not outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal. The decision follows the guidance in the ministerial statement given the strong negative response from the local parish councils.

The recommendation therefore is for refusal.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The Local Planning Authority consider the proposed Reasons: turbine, by virtue of its detached and isolated location to other wind turbines in the locality (and having regard to the weight of objection from the local parish council representations), would form a visually prominent and incoherent feature which would have an advers e individual and cumulative landscape and visual amenity impact on the surrounding open countryside including the setting of the Solway Coast AONB contrary to paragraphs 7, 17, 96, 97 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan,Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part1), the "Local planning and onshore wind" Ministerial statement 2013 and the Department for Communities and local government's "Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy" document 2013.

2. The Local Planning Authority consider the proposal, by virtue of its site, scale and separation distance from the properties Swinsty Farm Thornlea, Criffel View, St Avon, Blencathra and Cumbria along Swinsty Road would have a overwhelming, overbearing and oppressive impact on the visual amenity of its occupiers resulting in an unacceptable place to live contrary to Paragraph 14 and 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Draft Alllerdale Local Plan (Part1).

3. The Local Planning Authority consider the proposed turbine by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with the existing turbines at Hellrigg and its surrounding area would have a detrimental combined and sequential cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape including the setting of the Solway Coast AONB contrary to paragraphs 7, 17, 96, 97 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved). and Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part1), the "Local planning and onshore wind" Ministerial statement 2013 and the Department for Communities and local government's "Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy" document 2013.

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Notes to Applicant: