Borough Council Planning Application 2/2015/0628

Proposed Installation of a medium scale wind turbine 50m hub/ 54m Rotor/ Development: 77m tip (resubmission of 2/2015/0026) Location: Roundhill Farm Welton Recommendation: REFUSE

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Principle of The Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) seeks to promote the Development development of renewable and low carbon energy resources provided the impacts (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable.

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF makes clear that the provision of renewable energy infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

Regard should be made to the Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015 which states planning permission should only be granted where:

• the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and • following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.

The Ministerial Statement 18 June 2015 makes it clear that turbine development should be in specified areas and supported by local communities. Until further work is undertaken to identify suitable areas for such turbine development in Allerdale, turbine applications submitted post 18 June 2015 on a site outside an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan would be contrary to the Ministerial Statement.

Community There have been 74 letters/emails of objection, 4 Parish Councils response have objected and a local MP has reiterated the lack of community support. Visual and By virtue of the scale and siting of the proposed turbine, officers Landscape and consider that there is likely to be an adverse visual and landscape cumulative impact impact.

There are some cumulative visual effects in sequence, combination or in succession with other wind farm sites. Overall, the potential for cumulative effect was found to be „not significant‟, due to distance between other turbine developments and screening from local topography and vegetation.

Shadow flicker Shadow flicker is not anticipated to affect any residential properties.

Noise Noise impacts from the turbine have not been satisfactorily addressed within the application.

Nature The impacts on nature conservation interests including bats and Conservation birds are not considered to be significant.

Residential The proposed turbine is not within the 800m of residential Amenity properties. Although the proposal will not have a significant effect on residential amenity the proposal will nevertheless result in noticeable changes in views from a number of residential properties. There is little evidence of support from the local community

Heritage No significant harm identified.

Benefits The proposal will make a small contribution to renewable energy deployment nationally. The benefits of the development are not considered to outweigh the harm of the proposal.

Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework

Building a strong, competitive economy Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Supporting a prosperous rural economy Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1)

Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles (excluding highways) Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S14 - Rural economy Policy S19 - Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design

Relevant Planning History

2/2015/0026– Screening Direction included within submission indicating that the proposal is not EIA development. The application was withdrawn due to issues with the JRC consultation.

Representations

Sebergham Parish Council – Outline the high level of community opposition towards the development. The council should take into consideration the ministerial statement in terms of addressing community impacts as there is no community support and should therefore be refused. The application is substantially different from what they originally submitted and should be treated as such. The appropriate public consultation has failed to be carried out.

The documents contain omissions, errors and inaccuracies.

The applicant has changed the description so a higher rated turbine can be installed and the LPA has just accepted the change in description for height only with the omission of rating. This conceals fundamental information from local people. No new documents have been provided to substantiate the effects the potential increase in capacity may have. The noise impact assessment is now incorrect as it is assessed for 500kw and not 900kw. The consultation exercise is flawed as the public were not informed of the change.

The grid references within the documents differ which could bring the turbine within 800m of residential properties.

Issues raised in the previous application have not been addressed and therefore should remain a ground for refusal. The distance to the National Park Boundary and Sebergham Castle are overstated. The cumulative impact is inaccurate. The blade sweep and hedgerow distance is incorrect.

The photomontage points are selective and do not provide views of where the turbine would be most intrusive. They do not provide the full impact on local properties and surrounding areas.

Adverse visual impact on sensitive landscape and visual amenity of local residents and visitors. The planning inspectorate has refused smaller turbines on the same elevated fellside ridge one only being 2km from the site.

There are very few other large structures within the area.

Effects on tourism.

The site is not within a designated local plan area for wind.

Westward Parish Council – Object to the application and supports the objections raised by Sebergham parish council.

Boltons Parish Council – Object on the grounds of landscape and visual impact. Outline that there is widespread opposition to the proposal and significant local opposition which in view of recent Ministerial Guidance must be taken into account as a material consideration.

Allhallows Parish Council – Object on cumulative effect and adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area.

Carlisle City Council – No objections

Lake District National Park – No comments – topography from within the National park in this area would make views of the proposed turbine extremely limited.

JRC - No objections

Carlisle Airport – No objections

Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to conditions relating to prevention of bringing mud and debris onto the highway, the submission of a construction and traffic management plan.

MOD – No objections subject to a condition relating to the installation of aviation lighting.

Natural – no objections advise that the national Park should be consulted and standing advice considered in terms of protected species.

NATS – No safeguarding objections

Cumbria County Council – Will not be responding from a strategic planning prospective. The LPA should consider the potential cumulative impacts of the proposal

CAA – No objections

English Heritage – No objections

MOD – No objections subject to the installation of aviation lighting and details of construction timing, maximum height and co-ordinates of turbines.

Environmental Health – The noise impact assessment (24 December 2014, PDA Acoustics Ltd) is based on two candidate turbines – Enercon E48 500kW and EWT DW54 500kW. The assessment demonstrated that the noise levels generated by the wind turbine will not exceed the simplified noise criteria specified within ETSU-R-97. However it is not clear within the current application whether these two turbines are still being considered. I would be grateful if the applicant can confirm which turbine permission is asked for.

The noise assessment appears not to have considered whether there are any other existing or approved wind turbines within 1km of the proposed turbine. Based on the principles of the Institute of Acoustics good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R- 97 consideration should be given to cumulative noise impacts from other wind farms in the locality. If the proposed wind turbine produces noise levels within 10dB of any existing wind farms at the same receptor location then a cumulative noise impact assessment is necessary. I would be grateful if the applicant could confirm whether this applies.

Rory Stewart MP – Objects to the application and supports the views of Sebergham Parish Council who have similarly expressed their strong concerns. The planning inspectors have only recently voiced concerns that the proposed structure would have a significant adverse impact on a sensitive rolling landscape.

The application is directly against the expressed interests of many in the local community. This is their landscape, their community and they should be able to determine except in the most extreme circumstances the future and nature of their locality.

The construction will have a deep and long term negative impact on the economy of Cumbria particularly tourism, people come to Cumbria for its wild and unspoilt landscape.

The application has been advertised on site and neighbouring properties have been notified.

There has been 74 letters of objection (including FORCE and Cumbria Tourism) which outline the following points:-

 Inaccuracies within the application documentation , the application is incomplete and should not have been validated, different locations within the application documentation, amendments have been made to omit 500kw in case they install 900kw turbine (not re-consulted), and ZTV shows a smaller turbine

 Economic impacts including local businesses

 Noise –submitted report is now flawed as they refer to 500kw and not 900kw .The turbine would be within 800m of a residential property with effects on residential amenity, Shadow flicker

 Would not be in line with the ministerial statement. No community benefits. Lack of local support and is directly against the expressed interests of the majority of the community of the area

 Photomontage points are very selective in terms of vantage points Effects on landscape at elevated location with proximity to National Park Adverse visual impacts -can be viewed from Scotland, National park and public rights of way with impacts on the amenity of users of the area e.g. walkers, cyclists and Tourism The turbine is not small scale

 Cumulative effects with proliferation of wind turbines and wider views The development would increase the industrialisation of the area further

 Effects on local wildlife e.g. buzzards, owls and bats

 The application would not support the farm as it is no longer a working farm and the land is rented out Supplying Steadman‟s with electricity is speculation

 Turbines are inefficient and often do not generate electricity Alternative sources of energy are available Waste of tax payers money and subsidies

 De-valuation of property

 Safety of turbine such as fire, ice, toppling over

 Other turbines within the area have been refused by planning inspectorates

 Potential to effect internet connections which are already poor or non-existent

 The adverse effects do not outweigh the benefits

Main Issues:

The proposed site is on land near to Roundhill Farm, which is located within the open countryside between Rosley and Sebergham to the south of the B5305 and west of the B5299.

The application seeks planning consent for the construction of a single three bladed wind turbine up to 77m in height to blade tip (50m hub height with a 54m rotor diameter. The scheme would also incorporate a sub-station building adjacent to the base of the turbine, with an access track 4m by 40m and a crane hard standing 30m by 35m. The colour would be light grey matt finish.

Policy

National Planning Policy and the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) are broadly supportive of proposals for renewable energy development. The need to meet national targets for the generation of electricity and heat from renewable and low carbon sources is recognised as are the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of such development.

To ensure that the impacts of development (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable, Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan sets out clear criteria for the consideration of proposals for renewable energy development, including wind turbines. The criteria most relevant to the consideration of this application are considered below.

In assessing the merits of the proposed development it is necessary to balance the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed renewable energy development with any adverse environmental impact of the proposed turbine.

The implications of the recent Ministerial Guidance which is a material planning consideration is evaluated within this report under a separate heading

Need for an Environmental Impact Assessment

A screening opinion was issued indicating the proposal was considered to be EIA development; however a subsequent screening direction confirmed that the proposal is not considered to be EIA development. The application in officer‟s opinion is considered to contain sufficient information within the supporting documentation to make a judgement on the proposal.

Site and surroundings

The site is in agricultural use and occupies a field which slopes down from the south of the site with hedgerows to the north and east. A new access track would be formed and the existing farm track onto the public highway would be improved the land is within control of the applicant.

The surrounding area is rural in nature, with a number of interspersed single dwellings or farms and small clusters of dwellings and small villages the site is also near to Steadman‟s Factory which consists of a number of large scale industrial buildings. is the nearest town 8km to the north west, with the village of Welton 2.48km to the north east, Sebergham is 2.2km to the east, Rosley 2.73km to the north west, Brocklebank 2.51km to the west and Caldbeck 2.65km to the south. The National Park boundary is approximately 1.77km to the south west.

There are numerous wind farm developments within this part of the borough, of note:-

Within 5km:

 Town head 2.2km to west  Chalkside 2.45km to north

Large scale wind turbine development in excess of 5km:

 Newlands Mill Hesket Newmarket 3.32km to the south east, 57m to tip  How End Farm, Thursby 7.6km to the north, 66m to tip  Great Orton wind farm 10.86km to the north (6 turbines, at 70m to tip)  Great Orton Farm 10.1km to the north (3 turbines, 2 at 86.45m to tip and 1 at 65m to tip)  High Pow 8.45 km to west (3 turbines 95m to tip)  Parkhead windfarm is 21.6km (4 turbines 121m to tip) to the North West.  Wharrels Hill wind farm (8 turbines 81m to tip) is 16km to the west.  Westnewton windfarm (3 turbines 107m to tip) 19.6km to the west  Tallentire windfarm is 24.75km to the south west (86m to tip)

An application for a wind farm at Carwath farm comprising of three wind turbines upto 115m tip height, was recently refused.

An appeal for a single wind turbine at Clea Mire 45m to tip, 6.83km to the west of the proposed site and within the same landscape type has recently been dismissed at appeal in terms of landscape impacts.

Access and Highways

The access to the site is via an access from a minor highway (B5229) which in turn connects with other local minor roads and the B5305. The site would be accessed with standard HGV‟s no oversized vehicles would be required to deliver the turbine.

A small section of new access road would be constructed within the field with a new concrete hard standing installed for the crane to operate from; suitable access is considered to be gained off the highway.

The highways authority has indicated they have no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a traffic management plan and assurance that debris will not enter onto the highway.

The proposal is considered not to affect users of the highway and no objections have been received from the Highways Authority in this regard.

Landscape and Visual Impact Implications

At 77m to tip height, the proposed turbine will be the tallest structure in the immediate locality. There are a number of tall manmade structures within the wider area such as other wind turbine developments and the Brocklebank and Sandale masts. The Brocklebank mast is approx. 3.4km away, and the Sandale mast is approx. 7.7km away.

The size of proposal makes the development difficult to screen and by the very nature of the development there is likely to be some harmful effects 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.

The applicant has provided a landscape assessment that has identified there would be the potential for localised landscape impacts.

The addition of a single wind turbine would not been seen as part of any grouping but would be seen in some of the same views as wind turbine development within the locality. The hillside on which the application sits is agricultural in nature and is devoid from large scale manmade features apart from the Steadman‟s factory and masts at Sandale and Brocklebank.

The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by open fields rising up to the national park. The site would be visible from a network of public footpaths 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 network. Given the scale and elevated position of the proposed turbine, it would be visible at a greater distance on surrounding public highways and rights of way.

The individual turbine would on its own result in only a local adverse impact on landscape character that would diminish with distance. However, the proposed turbine is larger than many of the single turbine developments that are typically found on farms in the countryside and will accordingly have a proportionally wider individual impact. Officers considered that the introduction of a turbine of the proposed scale would further harm the rural landscape character. That landscape is of particular value because the footpath network, views from the local highway and surrounding villages and dwellings.

The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (LCG) supports appropriately located schemes for wind energy in line with the provisions of the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which was adopted by the Council in 2007.The site falls within Cumbria‟s landscape classification The Rolling Fringe, Higher Limestone 12b

– which is characterised by:

 Large-scale undulating topography  Large fields of improved pasture  Stone walls mainly in the east, occasional hedges and  fence boundaries  Very sparse tree cover  Some large scale conifer plantations  Small streams and rivers cut through the rolling  Topography

The guidance describes subtype 12b as being found “around the fringe of the Lake District National Park, near Ullock in the west, from Tallentire to Caldbeck in the north and from Stainton to Drybeck in the east. The sub type continues into the national park and is classified as Type I – Upland Limestone Farmland in the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment.”

The landscape is described as “simple, open landscape, with a more intimate feel in the valleys, and a contrasting feel of wildness in the moorland areas…. Views are often expansive across to the Lakeland Fells…. Otherwise the landscape has a pastoral feel with some tranquillity and a sense of peacefulness.” The guidance goes on to comment on renewable development within this landscape “The Government’s commitment to renewable energy could see an interest in large scale wind energy schemes in this open area which could change key open views and the feeling of wildness felt in parts of this area…..Avoid development in the transitional, fragile and exposed areas that will degrade their character, specifically tall or vertical energy infrastructure developments such as large scale wind turbines and pylons…..Avoid siting large scale wind energy, other vertical structures such as telecommunications masts, pylons and overhead transmission lines in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area.”

The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD indicates that landscape character area 12b has a low to moderate landscape capacity, exceptionally a larger group in blander parts. Substantial views of the northern fells can be obtained from the north across this rolling fringe and therefore this is not considered to be a „blander part‟. Although the SPD advises that this landscape has a capacity to accommodate wind turbines (albeit a low to moderate one, suggested as about 3-5 machines), that does not mean that such proposals would be acceptable anywhere within it.

In this area, it forms the fringe of the northern Lake District fells and mainly comprises large scale, rolling or undulating topography at altitudes of 150-300m AOD with some high points reaching around 380m AOD. The application site sits at 200m AOD and the land rises up to 250m AOD where it meets the national park boundary.

The proposal would occupy a prominent and elevated location that rises up from the coastal plain and continues to rise towards the northern fells of the Lake District National Park. Expansive views are available in all directions. As there are expansive views from the site, then the site would be also be visible from a wide area within which there is likely to be an extensive range of footpaths and other vantage points from where the turbine would be visible.

Within the locality of the site and forming part of the „Rolling Fringe‟, the Council has permitted only a limited number of turbines and at a smaller scale than the current proposal. There are examples of larger turbines permitted within the Rolling Fringe, but these are further afield where levels and the landscape differ.

This higher turbine could therefore be regarded as establishing a larger size of turbine than previously considered might be accommodated on sites in this locality, notwithstanding that each site would have to be considered on its own merits.

Officers are concerned that at 77m to tip, the proposed turbine would be an obvious large feature on an exposed hillside and would represent a departure from previous practice of only permitting smaller and therefore less obtrusive, turbines in such exposed and elevated locations of the „Rolling Fringe‟ landscape classification. If this turbine was to be permitted and similar schemes became difficult to resist as a result, there is a danger that these larger, isolated turbines would be dotted along this elevated „fringe‟ landscape.

It is considered that the proposal would represent a harmful intrusion into the wider landscape, notwithstanding that the landscape type has been identified as one that has low to moderate landscape capacity.

Officers consider it important to protect the setting of nationally designated landscapes; in this case when viewed from the north of the proposed site with the backdrop of the Lake District National Park it is considered to be visually prominent. Given the separation distance, the scale of the proposed turbine and the intervening levels, it is considered unlikely that there would be significant views of the turbine from within the National Park. As such, the proposal is not considered to result in any significant harm on this national designation. A consultation with the National Park Authority has also clarified that they do not consider the proposal likely to impact on the National Park designation.

Cumulative Impacts

The NPPF requires that regard be had to the potential cumulative impact of multiple developments. The combination with turbines within the locality and that of the application turbine would be seen in some of the same views as these existing and proposed turbine when looking east, north and south along the coastal highway and especially from the local road networks surrounding the site. The development would extend the defining characteristic of wind farm development further west.

There is no significant clutter of man-made structures within the immediate vicinity of the site, albeit as noted above, the proposed scheme could be viewed in a wide array of viewpoints.

The existing masts at Sandale and Brocklebank have been highlighted above as manmade structures within the locality. There are no pylons within the vicinity of the site.

In terms of cumulative effects it is considered that a single turbine 77m in height in this elevated position is considered to add a tall vertical structure in a prominent position on this open hillside and there is the potential to add cumulatively with other turbine development in the wider area; but, considering the distance from other wind farms within Allerdale and other smaller turbine development the significance of the cumulative effect is not considered significant enough to warrant refusal of the application on this ground.

Residential Amenity

Policy S19 seeks to protect local residents from unacceptable harm and the supporting text references that in order to address community concerns and in the interests of residential amenity and safety in relation to turbine development a separation distance of 800m to residential properties will be expected. This distance has been established as being generally sufficient to avoid unacceptable impact on residential amenity. The Local Plan does recognise the need for flexibility and that “in some cases due to site-specific factors such as orientation of views, land cover, other buildings and topography, it may be appropriate to vary this threshold, where it can be demonstrated through evidence that there is no unacceptable impact on residential amenity”.

There would be a number of residential visual receptors within the area. The most affected properties that would have direct views of the proposal are Castle Glebe (840m) and High Bothey Beck (900m) to the north of the site and Hazelgill to the south of the site (900m). However, due to the distance from the site (in excess of 800m) given the orientation of the majority of the dwellings and existing screening the proposal does not raise any significant concerns when viewed from these properties. The small numbers of aforementioned properties that have a more direct view of the turbine are not considered to have a significant harm on their amenity to warrant refusal on this ground.

Public Rights of Way

The nearest public right of way is approximately 470m to the north west of the proposed turbine; although visual amenity of users would be affected it is not considered significant enough to warrant a refusal on this ground alone.

There is sufficient topple distance in relation to the proximity of the nearby rights of way; and would be at a distance greater than the height of the turbine.

Noise

A noise report accompanying the application indicated that an assessment was undertaken in accordance with ETSU R97 which demonstrated that predicted noise levels would not exceed the background derived daytime and night time noise limits at 500kw; however, the application has amended to remove the reference to 500kw and indicates that there is the potential to install a 900kw turbine that could be de-rated to 500kw. The council have requested an amended noise assessment to reflect a potential 900kw turbine; however, no further assessment has been submitted and therefore the council considers that there is insufficient information to assess the proposal.

The environmental health department have also indicated the report does not consider if there are any turbines within 1km of the proposed site.

Any further information relating to this issue will be reported to the development panel.

Shadow Flicker

In terms of shadow flicker, the standard assessment would be that properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine could potentially be affected by shadow flicker; this is also influenced by the position of the sun within the sky. In this case the rotor diameter is 54m. There are no residential properties within 540m of the turbine.

Historic Environment

There are a number of Grade II listed buildings within the locality the nearest of which is Sebergham Castle Farm approximately 910 m to the north west. There are approximately 14 listed buildings within the village of Sebergham and 6 within Welton and surrounding areas. Wharnell Hall and adjoining buildings 2km to the south east are Grade II*.

Although the application site could be viewed in combination with nearest listed building Sebergham Castle Farm, given the Grade II listing and distance from the proposal, it is not considered to be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.

When considering the other listed buildings within the locality given the distance, topography and intervening land features it is considered that there would be no direct impact on the setting of these listed buildings.

The site is not located within a known area of archaeological significance.

Ecology

The proposed turbine would not be located within an identified designated site or habitat. There are no specific ecological designations (SAC, SSSI, and SPA) within 2km of the site.

Natural England has not raised concerns on the landscape impact.

An extended phase 1 habitat survey, a bat activity survey and a breeding bird survey has been submitted to support the proposal that does not raise concerns in relation to impacts on designated sites, habitats or protected species including bats and birds.

The ground works in associated with the turbine and access would be limited and is unlikely to cause significant harm to any habitats, due to the nature of the limited works.

The siting of the turbine and blade sweep has been located over 50m from any hedgerows, therefore the turbine is considered to have taken into consideration the best practice for assessing bats.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

NATS and the MOD have raised no objections to the proposal, nor has Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle Airport. As such, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar insofar as these agencies interests are concerned. These organisations have requested notification should there be approval of the scheme and erection of the structures. This could be dealt with by suitable condition if planning permission were given.

Tourism/local economy

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 and more recent appeal at Brayton Park, in evaluating impact on tourism, 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.

Further to the Hellrigg appeal officers consider that there is no specific detailed local evidence to demonstrate any conclusive views backed up with evidence. That said there is wide concern within the community and notably from a local MP and from Parish Councils regarding the potential adverse effect on the tourist industry of Allerdale (which is an important part of the rural economy) as a consequence of the growing number of turbine developments within the district that are changing the character of rural areas and having adverse visual impacts.

In the absence of any conclusive evidence on this issue, officers consider it would be difficult to sustain to a standalone reason for refusal on this ground at appeal.

Local Finance Considerations

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

Ministerial Statement 18 June 2015

Recently a Written Ministerial Statement on local planning has been published on 18 June 2015, in relation to the determination of planning applications for wind turbine development this states: “ local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if: • the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and • following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.”

This application was validated after the Ministerial Statement therefore the transitional arrangements do not apply and the full provisions of the ministerial statement are therefore a material planning consideration.

Allerdale BC does not have an allocated area for turbine development clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan (maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient).

Turbine development has previously been assessed against Policy S19 ALP which is a criteria based policy to address planning matters relating to renewable energy development. However in considering the merits of the Ministerial guidance Policy S19 ALP along with other relevant Allerdale Local Plan policies and material considerations remains helpful to assist in the detailed assessment of this application.

Recent Secretary of State and appeal decisions in respect of wind turbine proposals elsewhere in the country has given significant weight to the Ministerial Statement. Therefore significant weight needs to be given to the four parish councils, the 74 letters of objection (including FORCE and Cumbria tourism) in interpreting whether the proposal has the backing of the local community.

Conclusion

In balancing the degree of harmful effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the impact on the landscape and visual amenity and noise, against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development and lack of community support, it is considered that on balance, the harm identified is not outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal and therefore refusal is recommended.

Furthermore the submission of the application after the issuing of the Ministerial statement means that its criteria are applied in its entirety. In the absence of any existing allocated areas for wind turbines and a high number of unresolved local objections it is considered that the proposed development does not have the backing of the local community. The proposal is therefore also clearly contrary to the recent Ministerial guidance.

Annex 1

Reasons

1. Contrary to the Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015 the proposed turbine site is not sited within a Local or Neighbourhood Plan as a designated area suitable for wind energy development.

2. Planning matters raised by the community, regarding the effects on tourism, potential for noise impacts and the adverse visual and local landscape character impacts have not been overcome to alleviate local community concerns, in order to enable community support of the scheme. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to the Planning Practice Guidance 2015 and Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015 and Policies S19, S32, S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy 2015.

3. The proposed turbine, by reason of its siting, scale and elevated location on an exposed hillside, is considered to represent a harmful intrusion into the wider landscape, the development would be a prominent and incongruous feature within the landscape, and would increase the proliferation of turbines in the area, resulting in a significantly harmful impact on the landscape and visual amenities of the locality. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies S19, S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy 2015 and The Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015.

4. Insufficient detail has been provided with regard to noise. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies S19 and S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy 2015 and The Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015.

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

Location Plan