Allerdale Borough Council
2/2012/0682
Reference No: 2/2012/0682 Received: 28 August 2012 Proposed Erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum blade tip height Development: of 62m and associated infrastructure. Location: Land Adjoining Airfield Wiggonby Wigton Applicant: Windberry Energy Operations Ltd
Drawing Numbers: WB070/01 - General Site Location Plan WB070/02 - Site Plan WB070/03 - Elevations WB070/05 - Site Location Plan
Constraints: None
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 199 9 (Saved)
Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved)
Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs Policy E35 - Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international conservation importance Policy E37 - Landscape character
North West Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP1 - Spatial principles Policy DP9 - Reduce emissions and adapt to climate change Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy
National Planning Policy Framework
Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007
Relevant Planning SCR/2012/0010 – EIA Screening Opinion, 27/03/2012, No History: Environmental Impact Assessment required.
Nearby Sites
2/1996/0529 - 1x 70m (blade tip) high turbine approved at Wiggonby Airfield; 2/1998/0134 – 6 x 67m (blade tip) turbines approved Wiggonby Airfield 2/2012/0524, 1 x 67m (blade tip) turbine Wiggonby Airfield refused and subject to appeal 2/2012/0354 – 1 x 34m high turbine at Green Croft Oughterby, refused. 2/2011/0265 – 1 x 27m high turbine approved at Park House, Aikton 2/2012/0040 – 2 x 46m high turbines approved at Thornby Villa 2/2011/0682 – 1 x 27m high turbine approved at Greyrigg House, Thursby.
Representations: Parish Councils
Orton Parish Council Objects to the proposal on grounds of amenity (height and visual intrusion); Wildlife concerns in respect of bats and nearby nature reserves;
Aikton Parish Council No objections
Kirkhampton Parish Council Public meeting held on 24/09/2012. Surrounded by wind turbines in other parishes in both Allerdale and Carlisle city; The close accumulation of turbines in such a small area gives the effect of a wind farm. This is not a structure wanted by the majority in the Parish that it will affect.
Carlisle City Council: No observations received.
Cumbria County Council – The development would not be a Category 1 Application and would not be responding from a strategic planning perspective. They recommend that the Council use current development plan policies relating to renewable energy and consider potential cumulative impacts.
CAA – No objections
Carlisle Airport – Holding objection subject to the submission of a satisfactory Safeguarding Report.
Stobartair 22/01/2013. I am writing in response to your letter dated 17th January 2013 drawing our attention to a Consultation on Additional Information entitled Briefing Note on Stobart Air Response provided by WPAC Ltd on 16th January 2013. We have not been contacted by the applicant or their agent since your original notification to us and our response on 18th September 2012.
To clarify the situation, every wind turbine application is different and varies by virtue of the size, elevation, location and number of proposed turbines, therefore each application is assessed on its own merits and cannot be assumed to be of a nature that will not affect aviation safety without proper assessment. The airport is the statutory consultee in this regard with responsibility for ensuring that aviation safety is maintained in relation to airport operations within our safeguarded area. In regard to this, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) approved safeguarding area for Carlisle Airport is 30 km radius from the airport and not 15 km as mentioned by WPAC Ltd in their briefing note. The requirement to undertake a safeguarding assessment includes not only the immediate physical safeguarding surfaces but also the traffic flows associated with the airport and its operations. In addition, the Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs) associated with the airport are also assessed. As detailed in our initial letter dated 18th September 2012, the airport requires that such assessment is carried out by a suitably qualified (and, for the IFPs, accredited by the CAA) organisation; the airport offers this service.
However, should an applicant wish to use an alternative provider then the airport reserves the right to charge for the review of such an application where there is technical detail that requires a specialist to advise us. We require a proper assessment to be carried out on this application in order to accurately determine whether or not any conflict arises with aviation safety. We have not been contacted by the applicant or their agent and have no more information that that initially provided. We look forward to receiving more information from the applicant concerning their preferred assessment process.
Cumbria Highways –
The applicant has indicated that all the parts for the wind turbine will be delivered by “normal” HGV. There will therefore be no Abnormal loads going to or leaving the site. Considering the number of applications already taking access off this road and the fact that the access to the site is removed from the highway, I can confirm that I have no objection to this application but would recommend that the following conditions are included in any consent you may grant:
Development shall not be begun until a Construction Method Statement including details of all on-site construction works, post construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their timetabling has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority
Development shall not be begun until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
County Archaeologist – No recommendations or comments
Environment Agency – No objections
Environmental Health – No objections subject to an appropriate condition to control noise.
Ministry of Defence – No objections subject to aviation lighting being fitted to the equipment.
Natural England – The application is within close proximity to Thurstonfield Lough and Orton Moss SSSIs. However, given the nature and scale of the proposal the development is not likely to be an adverse effect on these sites. The SSSI designations do not represent a constraint in determining this application.
The LPA should assess the application against the standing advice related to protected species.
Neighbour Consulations - The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.
There have been in excess of 20 letters from local residents objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
• Cumulative effects • The report does not take into affect all wind turbines and meteorological masts within the area • Impact on landscape • Do not agree with the landscape conclusion that the impact would be ‘moderate and therefore not significant’ • Limits of the landscape study area to 7km • Public opinion should be taken into account well before mitigation is considered • The capacity for wind turbines has been surpassed • The fact the other tall structures exist nearby is not a precedent • The photomontages are of little value due to positions of where the photograph is taken • Photographs cannot show an accurate representation of a moving structure • Precedent for further development • There is no overriding need for the development • The application does not contain a satisfactory or accurate cumulative impact assessment nor an environmental impact survey • The met mast has only been erected and would not have had sufficient data to gather data therefore the application is premature • Very few details of the turbine itself are submitted • The development is a commercial venture with no local benefit • In appropriate in terms of size and scale • Affects on visual amenity of the area • Benefits of the scheme not specified • Would not comply with policies • Noise Impact • Impact on local amenity and visitor amenity • The site is incompatible with the preservation of habitats of protected bird and animal species • The applications in Allerdale and Carlisle are trying to create a large wind farm with single applications
Planning Appeal (Non Determination)
This application is currently the subject to a planning appeal (APP/G0908/A/13/2192507) against the non-determination of this application by this Authority within the time limit allowed. The Planning Inspectorate has agreed to a short extension of time to 16 th May 2013 in order to allow for this Panel to consider this application prior to the preparation of the Authority’s appeal statement.
Report Local Finance Considerations
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations
Introduction
Located close to the border of the district with Carlisle, this proposal seeks permission for the erection of a single 62m high (blade tip) wind turbine on land adjoining the western edge of the former military airfield located some three kilometres to the west of the Village of Great Orton and 800m to the north of the small settlement of Wiggonby.
As indicated, there are a number of turbines already approved in both Allerdale and Carlisle either on the airfield or within its immediate vicinity.
Policy Considerations
Planning Policy
Renewable energy developments are supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which outlines that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 14. Under Chapter 10 of the NPPF it outlines there is a presumption to approve applications for renewable energy proposals unless material considerations indicate otherwise (paragraph 98).
The NPPF states that the delivery of low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is central to the economic social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In determining planning applications, LPA’s should:
• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable
The NPPF is considered to support policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan states that outside the Lake District and AONB, proposals for renewable energy, including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings, will be favourably considered subject to a number of criteria relating to landscape character, biodiversity and natural and built heritage, local amenity, local economy, highways or telecommunications.
As the property is not located within any special landscape designations (including local) the proposal would be in compliance with Policy EN25 of the Local Plan when read in conjunction with the NPPF chapters 109, 110 and 115. The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, under Policy E37, stipulates that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of the landscape, requiring future proposals to be assessed in terms of relevance, visual intrusion, scale in relation to the landscape and remoteness and tranquillity.
The objectives of Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan seek to safeguard sensitive development from pollution generating proposals which would concur with the objectives of the NPPF.
Though the proposal would go some way towards balancing the economic, social and environmental benefits , issues of cumulative impacts within an already established windfarm landscape have not been fully addressed in respect of the requirements and guidance contained within the NPPF and saved Policy EN19 of the Allerdale Local Plan sufficient to outweigh any environmental impact of the proposed turbine.
Financial Implications
There would be no financial implications associated with this development.
Need for and Environmental Impact Assessment
The Local Planning Authority have issued a screening opinion on 27 th March 2012 indicating that the proposed development does not constitute EIA development.
Needs/Benefits
The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.
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.
In order to mitigate the effects of climate change, the North West Regional Spatial Strategy (NWRSS) policy EM17 encourages the use of renewable energy development in order to achieve 15% of the electricity supplied within the Region from renewable energy sources by 2015, rising to 20% by 2020. The RSS includes indicative generation targets and for Cumbria, these are:
2010 – 237.3MW 2015 – 284.8MW 2020 – 292.4 MW
The Courts have determined that the government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies is a material consideration. However, in the context of renewable energy development, this intention is not considered to carry significant weight, given 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 totalled 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 recognises 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.
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.
Site and Surroundings
The site itself is accessed from a bend off an unclassified road that skirts the western boundary of the airfield linking the settlement of Wiggonby with Kirkbampton and located on land adjacent to the now redundant airfield which has been transformed into a nature reserve.
Overall, the character of the area is relatively flat with land primarily utilized in agriculture with interspersed pockets of woodland. The village of Kirkbampton is positioned 3km to the north and the smaller settlement of Wiggonby is located some 800m to the south. In addition, there are a number of interspersed single dwellings or farms and small clusters of dwellings between these settlements and the proposed turbine.
The turbine would be set into reinforced concrete foundations and would connect into the national grid by way of a new connection and this is the responsibility of the applicant to secure and finalise.
The site is within 1km of an erected wind farm of six turbines 68.5m in height to the tip which are located to the south of the proposed site.
A further turbine 282m to the north of the site, 79m high to tip has been withdrawn. Two further turbines have been submitted within the Carlisle City Council area; one has recently been approved at Mid Town Farm, Great Orton (74m to tip) and the second application on land at The Flatt (79m to tip) is still being considered.
The site is located is 13km from the Lake District National Park boundary and 6km from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 5.5km from the buffer of the setting of Hadrians Wall World Heritage site.
The Proposal
The turbine would be three bladed with a 33m rotor diameter inclined on the hub to give a total height to blade tip of 62m.
Details of external finishes can be controlled by condition in order to achieve a satisfactory finish to minimise the visual appearance of the development.
Access and Highways Considerations
Access from the highway would be effected via a 40m long 4m wide metalled track with a central 90 degree bend and 20m turning head to facilitate heavy goods vehicle (HGV) access to the site. This would connect to the highway via an existing modified field access which would lead to a concrete hardstanding, 20 x 22m wide area to allow for the siting of the turbine and temporary location of the crane construction pad
A total of 32 HGV vehicle movements to the site would be required during the 5 day construction period to deliver both turbine components and construction materials. After commissioning is it envisaged that vehicular movements to the site for inspection and maintenance would be infrequent.
Decommissioning would be undertaken after the 25 year lifespan of the turbine, components and hardstanding removed and the site reinstated to its original condition.
The highways authority has indicated that construction vehicles have already used the access construct to previous turbines and therefore no objection to this proposal is raised conditional to acceptable Construction Management and Transport Management plans are approved.
Noise
The nearest residential property not associated with the proposal is Fisher Gill, some 800m to the west and dwellings at Wiggonby, also 800m distant to the south
A noise report accompanying the application indicated that a Cumulative ETSU R97 assessment , factoring in other nearby turbines, was undertaken for the 10 closest sensitive residential receptors and 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. However in order to safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area, conditions are recommended relating to the ETSU noise limits and a complaints protocol.
Based on this advice from Environmental Health, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to noise levels generated, subject to the inclusion of the recommended conditions.
Shadow Flicker
In terms of shadow flicker, the standard assessment would be that properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine could potentially be affected by shadow flicker. In this case the rotor diameter is 62m therefore as there are no residential properties within 620m the affects of shadow flicker would not cause harm to surrounding properties.
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR
The CAA and the MOD have all been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections with regards to the proposal. Conditions are requested relating to aviation lighting and notification when the turbine is erected. Subject to these conditions, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar.
The BBC windfarm tool is applicable to wind farms not single wind turbines also the tool is applicable to turbines of a greater height and electricity output (generally sites of 3MW which is not comparable to this single wind turbine). Officers cannot place great emphasis on the BBC online tool due to the significant differences in the size and capacity of this development. It is considered that safeguarding television reception can be controlled by condition to ensure appropriate mitigation of any interference caused by the development.
Residential Amenity
The nearest residential properties are approximately 800m away to the west at Fisher Gill and Park house and dwellings in the small settlement of Wiggonby approximately 800m to the south. Further afield, is located the small settlement of Oughterby 2km distant and the dwelling at Laverickstone some 1.5km distant, both to the north east of the site. Other dwellings nearby are Roblaw Hall 1.5km to the south east, Gill Cott and Black Brow both approximately 1.km to the south east and, across the district border in Carlisle, the village of Great Orton located 3km to the east.
As already indicated, the cumulative noise risk assessment has factored in the 10 nearest dwellings and has satisfactorily indicated that the development would satisfy the criteria set out in ETSU-R-97 in respect of avoidance of noise nuisance to local dwellings.
The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by open fields and an existing large scale wind farm development to the east of the site. The site would be visible from a network of public footpaths within the locality; in terms of both long and short term views and also apparent from along parts of the surrounding highway network, including local roads and longer views from the A595 and A596. Given the scale of the proposal, it would be visible at a greater distance on surrounding public highways and rights of way.
In respect of assessing possible impact upon the visual amenities enjoyed by local residents, only three cumulative viewpoint representations were submitted with this application providing viewpoints:
• from Great Orton eastward onto the site; (Figure 8.1) • from Oughterby from north west of the site (Figure8.3) and ; • from Wiggonby to the south. (Figure 8.2)
Though each of these is accurate in terms of the limited viewpoints represented, this information is deficient in assessing the possible impacts upon the residential amenities of all of the properties in the immediate locality from which the turbine is likely to be visible, some of which are of similar distance to or even closer to the turbine site than the three photomontage views provided.
For instance there are no viewpoints taken from the west which would be of considerable importance in assessing any impacts upon the residential amities enjoyed by such properties as Fishers Gill, 800m distant, and Park house at less than 1km away. The proposed turbine is also likely to be prominent in the viewpoints from Black Brow and Gill Cot, adequately represented or considered.
From the three cumulative viewpoints provided it would appear that the views from the village Great Orton would be somewhat mitigated by the presence of the Great Orton windfarm in the foreground and the intervening landscape screen and, as such, not generate any discernable detriment to the residential amenities of this village given the greater prominence of closer turbines. Views from Oughterby would be more distant with the application turbine effectively screened by intervening hedge and tree screening and again, with the visual focus placed on the Great Orton windfarm.
However, the Wiggonby viewpoint would appear to accentuate the prominence of the turbine in the middle distance serving as an outrider to the Great Orton windfarm which is only partially indicated. Lack of suitable photomontage and wireframe information prevents and further assessment from other sensitive dwellings nearby. More work therefore needs to be done and this application is clearly deficient in its representation of possible impacts upon the visual amenities enjoyed by nearby dwellings.
Biodiversity
A report on the site has been undertaken by an appropriately qualified ecologist (Wild Frontier Technology Ltd) to support the application which includes a desk based assessment and ornithological scoping assessment.(Phase 1 Survey)
The report identifies that the site is adjacent to the Watchtree Nature Reserve (former airfield) which. The habitat within the surrounding locality is low density and supports a number of ponds, some woodland habitats and wetland areas; these features are of some distance from the proposed site. The application site is a field of planted and improved grassland.
A bat survey was undertaken in August 2011 with no presence of bats recorded. Non breeding curlew and skylark were observed on the site during the Phase 1 survey
The agricultural nature and type of planting on the field does not support any important or rare species. The field would not be seen as an ecologically valuable habitat and the limited construction associated with the development is not considered to cause significant disturbance to any valuable habitat.
The surrounding landscape has field hedging and small pockets of woodland; these areas have been assessed and have not been identified as being of any significant ecological value.
The report identifies that the woodland within the vicinity of the site is not of an age or condition that would support significant roost potential to bats. The site of the turbine is located in excess of 50m from any hedgerows in order to minimise the impacts on bats and comply with the technical advice provided by Natural England.
The bat scoping exercise indicates that the nearest habitat feature that bats are likely to use is in excess of 50m from the proposed turbine which is well in excess of the general guidelines provided by Natural England. Six species of bats have been recorded at the nearby Watchtree Nature Reserve; however, considering the site offers little potential for foraging or commuting routes the development is not considered to affect these legally protected species.
There are two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) close by, namely Thurstonfield Lough and Orton Moss. These SSSI designations would not be affected by the development.
The scoping report on birds highlights that recordings of certain birds may be affected by wind turbines have been identified within the locality; low numbers of curlew have been recorded, due to the low numbers of these species the assessment concludes that the risks to this species would be negligible. The desk study has indicated that it is unlikely have any significant impacts on wintering birds especially as there is significant alternative and superior habitats within the locality.
The fields and hedgerows are unlikely to hold species that would be at risk from collisions with wind turbines. Some ground nesting birds have been identified within the area, there would not be a loss of significant habitat and similar habitats would be available in the area. The development is not considered to cause significant harm to ground nesting species.
The site does not support habitats for barn owls; due to the nature of the field in which the turbine would be located there would be limited potential for hunting barn owls and therefore there would not be a high risk of collision from this development. The barn owl trust indicates that there is currently no evidence that wind turbines in the UK are having an affect on barn owls. The Trust also outline that barn owls are unlikely to be affected by wind turbines due to the way they forage at comparatively low altitudes and most wind turbines would have ground clearance in excess of this. In this case it is considered that there is sufficient ground clearance from the blade sweep not to affect foraging barn owls.
There would be no significant loss in habitats during the constructional and operational phases of the development and no records have identified any key species using the site.
The proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to Policy EN32 of the Local Plan and the relevant parts of the Habitats Directive. Officers consider that the development would not have a significant adverse affect on any of the above species.
Protected Areas
The proposed turbine would not be located within an identified designated site or habitat. The site is not within close proximity to any listed buildings.
The site is not within the Solway Coast AONB or Lake District National Park and as such, there would be no impact on the landscape of either of these protected areas. With regard to the setting of these areas the distance and relationship with existing development the impact of the proposal in this regard is not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
Due to the distance and intervening features the proposal is not consider affecting the setting of Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site.
Cumulative Impacts
No national landscape designations are applicable to the locality. However, the Cumbria County Council’s Landscape Classification identifies the site as being located within landscape classification 5a – Ridge and Valley. Such a landscape is assessed as having a moderate capacity to accommodate wind energy development (3 – 5 turbines), exceptionally a large group (6 – 9) within the adopted Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), albeit it is acknowledged that this document assumes turbine heights of 95-120m. However, the SPD does not automatically allow wind turbine development and indicates that the overall capacity should be determined by considering the sensitivity and value attached to each landscape.
With the coalescence of turbine development within the vicinity of the Great Orton airfield, both within Allerdale and across the border in Carlisle, the locality has developed the character and appearance of a ‘windfarm landscape’ in which the cumulative impact of any additional turbine development is now an important material consideration given that any additions are likely to have further and possibly unacceptable adverse impacts upon the character and appearance on the local landscape and the residential amenities enjoyed by local residents. The addition of this turbine and its visual relationship with the local turbine landscape as well as its impact upon the wider landscape is therefore just such a material consideration.
Located one kilometre to the east of the site is the major wind farm development of six turbines at the Great Orton airfield with each of these turbines being 68.5m in height to blade tip. Close by and adjacent to this and, located within the boundary of Carlisle City Council, is a recently approved 74m turbine (12/0345). However, a further application for a 79m wind turbine was recently refused by Carlisle (12/0638) with adverse cumulative impacts being a consideration in reaching this decision and is presently the subject of an appeal. Other existing large scale turbine development in the wider area includes four turbines at Hellrigg (Parkhead Farm, Silloth) approx 17km to the west and, three large scale turbines have been approved at Warwick Hall, Westnewton 19km south west (construction has not yet commenced). To the south west there are 3 large scale wind turbines at Bolton Low Houses 12.25km distant and 8 large scale turbines at Bothel, 20km. Planning appeal 2/2012/0524 is currently being considered for a refused single turbine 62m to tip and located 1.57km to the north east. A further turbine 282m to the north of the of the appeal site under 2/2012/0524, 79m to tip has been withdrawn (2/2012/0593).
Smaller turbines are also part of this mix with the following approved on sites to the west:
• Park House Aikton 2/2011/0265 - single turbine 20m hub 1km to the north west – approved, • Thornby Villa 2/2012/0040 - two 36.4m to hub height turbines 2.26km to the south west – approved, • Outerby 1.47km to the north (allowed on appeal) -34m to tip • Moordyke 2.9 km to the west(one 34m in height) • Greyrigg 2.8km to the south west (one turbine 27.3m in height to tip)
The applicant has recognised in their written Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that the site is within the vicinity of eight other wind turbine developments. However, this has not been adequately reflected in the limited number of viewpoints (3) provided. From these, it is clear that the proposal would be a visually significant addition to the landscape when viewed from two of the settlements at Great Orton and Oughterby notwithstanding its presence in a now established ‘windfarm landscape’.
A greater prominence within the landscape is, indicated from Wiggonby. However, the photomontage and wireframe (Figure 8.2) is composed in such a way as to essentially exclude the Great Orton windfarm, with the exception of one turbine and, as such, this is of little value and, possibly somewhat misleading in this omission, in allowing for an accurate assessment of an important viewpoint affecting this small settlement
Members may solely consider the cumulative impact on the basis of implemenented or approved turbines (not implemented ) in their judgement of impact on landscape. No weight can be attached to either pending applications or those which are presently the subject of appeal. By reason of the established wind farm character of the locality, it is clear that proposed turbine would extend the visual presence turbines westward over a wide open flat landscape. In this, the proposal would serve to add cumulatively and extend the presence of the wind farm landscape establishing a clear visual link with the large scale wind farm grouping positioned further westward and centred on Great Orton.
Cumulative impact is a material planning consideration and the National Planning Policy Framework emphasises that policies should be designed to maximise renewable development while insuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.
Though occupying a detached location some 1 km the Great Orton site and associated cluster, the proposed turbine would, within the level surrounding landscape, have a shared visual presence with this site (Great Orton) and others such as Midtown Farm when viewed from the wider landscape.
Overall, a significant degree of turbine development has emerged within this locality on the Allerdale/Carlisle border, ranging from isolated turbines to clusters, all at differing scales. Whilst it is acknowledged that a number of the consented turbines are smaller than the scale envisaged for consideration within the Wind Energy SPD, the total number of turbines permitted in the locality already exceeds the indicative capacity of 3-5 turbines (exceptionally 6-9) identified as being capable of being accommodated within this landscape character area. Bearing in mind the aforementioned turbines which are approved, pending or existing, the turbine development within the locality is considered to considerably exceed guidance set out within the SPD In respect of cumulative impacts upon the landscape
This is likely to result in significant harm in terms of cumulative impacts on the visual amenity of the area which would be contrary to the requirements of the NPPF and saved policies EN19 & EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, which seeks to protect and enhance landscape within the open countryside.
CAA Airport Safeguarding
Carlisle Airport supports no scheduled airline services at present but continues to service the arrivals and departures for private and chartered flights and continues to provide air traffic control facilities for civil airspace in the region. Carlisle Airport (Stobart Air) as statutory consultees therefore reserves the right to conduct a thorough assessment of all planning applications in its airspace in order to inform the views of the Airport in whether to object any potential risks that an application may have in respect of civil aviation and compliance with statutory safety requirements.
Though information has been submitted by the applicant with regard to aviation safeguarding, this was not through the Airports nominee for this function and was based on a 15kn safeguarding area whilst Carlisle Airport required a 30km parameter in this respect. As such, Carlisle Airport raised a holding objection subject to the submission of a satisfactory Safeguarding Report.
Though it is understood that the applicant has recently taken steps to regularise this situation they have failed to provide, via the airports nominated contractor the required information to the Airport. Correspondence provided by the Airport (Stobartair) would indicate that this matter was overtaken by the applicant’s appeal for non-determination of this application. As such, at the time of the commencement of the appeal process, the applicant had not been able to satisfy the requirements of Carlisle Airport, as statutory consultee, on matters of airport safeguarding. Though somewhat technical, this information is not available for either this Authority or the Planning Inspectorate to consider. The Airport’s objection to this application therefore still holds and, as such, is sufficient reason for refusal of this application. The applicant has since indicated that steps are taken to regularise this issue and should further information be forthcoming this will be presented to Panel.
Conclusion.
The proposed turbine would not be located within an identified designated site or habitat and is not within close proximity to any listed buildings. However, location of the proposed turbine within an expanding wind farm landscape , is likely to result in significant harm on the visual amenity of the area in terms of cumulative visual impact which would be contrary to the requirements of Chapter 11 of the NPPF in respect of conserving and enhancing the natural environment; the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007 in terms of the inability of the local landscape to accommodate further wind turbine development and; saved policies EN19 & EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, which seek to protect and enhance landscape within the open countryside.
The applicant was been unable to provide, at the time of initiating the appeal process, data sufficient to allow Carlisle Airport, as statutory consultee, to satisfactorily assess matters of airport safeguarding.
As such, the proposal would , on balance, be sufficiently contrary to the requirements of National and local policy to warrant warrant refusal of the application if determined by this Authority.
Recommendation: Refused
Reasons: 1. The adverse and significant harm of this prominent development to the character and quality of the landscape, either individually or cumulatively as part of a group of wind turbines in the locality is considered to outweigh the benefits of the proposal. The addition of a further turbine within this locality would add unacceptably to the extent that turbines are becoming a recurrent and incongruous element in this landscape and within views experienced within the locality and wider landscape of the costal plain. Such a development is therefore contrary to the requirements of Chapter 11 of the NPPF in respect of conserving and enhancing the natural environment; The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007 in respect of the inability of the landscape to accept further wind turbine development and; saved policies EN19 & EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, which seek to protect and enhance landscape within the open countryside.
2. The Local Planning Authority consider that insufficient information has been submitted to allow Carlisle Airport, as statutory consultee, to satisfactorily assess matters of airport safeguarding.
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.
Notes to Applicant: