FC/SOC

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Appeal by Mrs Gillian Cropper on behalf of Community Windpower Ltd against refusal of planning permission by Lancaster City Council

Proposed Construction of 20 X 126.5 metres high Wind Turbine Generators and miscellaneous works

at

Land at Claughton Quarry, Claughton Moor, Claughton,

Statement of Case

by

The FELLS Consortium (the Friends of Eden Lakeland & Lunesdale Scenery Consortium)

December 2010

PINS /Ref APP/A2335/A/10/2136414 Lancaster City Council Ref: 09/01068/FUL

Agent: Mr Tim Sarney; The Hermitage Lodge, Low Road, Crook O’Lune, Lancaster, LA2 9HU [email protected]

1 Grounds of Objection

1.1 The FELLS Consortium (‘the Consortium’) is an umbrella organisation formed to bring together local community groups, parishes and NGOs who have, separately, opposed wind farm construction in the area. The lead organisation, FELLS (Friends of Eden, Lakeland, and Lunesdale Scenery), founded in 1999, has represented the views of the many local communities and organisations by coordinating and expressing objections to the proposed construction of large wind turbine generators with adverse and, on balance, unacceptable impacts on the rural landscape in North Lancashire, the Lake District and the northern reaches of the Eden Valley.

1.2 FELLS participated in the Whinash, Hoff Moor, Brightenber Hill, Armistead, Sillfield, Grise, Berrier Hill and Tallentire Hill Public Inquiries and also submitted written evidence to several others. All these appeals were dismissed with the exception of the Armistead proposal. Conversely, FELLS chose not to object to several other wind farm planning applications elsewhere in North West , including Barrow Off-shore, Flimby, Winscales II and III, Westnewton and High Pow because wind farms seemed less intrusive off-shore and on the industrialised west coast of Cumbria.

1.3 Other local groups within the present Consortium include LandscapeFirst formed in 2009 to oppose the Longfield Tarn wind farm near Hutton Roof and STILE (Stop Turbines in Lunesdale Environment) formed in 2006 to oppose the Cragg Lot wind farm at Arkholme. The Consortium also includes other organisations with interests in aspects of landscape conservation, natural history, ecology, rural leisure, and amenity, including the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE, Lancashire Branch), the Open Spaces Society (OSS), the Ramblers Association (Lancaster Branch), Bay Tourism, the Lune Rivers Trust and Kirkby Lonsdale Civic Society. Also in the Consortium will be representatives of Parishes in which turbines and the access road are sited (Caton with Littledale, Claughton, Roeburndale, Hornby with Farleton) and others from the locality, including Halton with Aughton, Arkholme with Cawood, Wray with Botton, Burrow with Burrow, Ireby and Leck, Melling with Wrayton, and Bentham Town Council.

1.4 In principle the Consortium supports government policy for the generation of electricity from renewable resources and accepts the desirability of increasing power generation from a range of technologies, as clearly enunciated in various expressions of policy by the former and the present Government. It is nevertheless clear that all generation technologies have both advantages and disadvantages. These will be discussed in so far as they affect the balance of arguments in favour of any alternative scheme, whether wind power or otherwise.

1.5 The Consortium is concerned at the strong emphasis on onshore wind energy projects which has developed in the southern reaches of the Lune Valley and the Kendal Low Fells and at the adverse and progressive visual impacts of wind turbine installations in the wider surrounding area. In its view this is one of the most serious threats ever to face the landscape and countryside of the North West of England. The Consortium notes and supports the recommendation of the Officers and the decision of the elected members of the Lancaster City Council Planning Committee to refuse planning permission for the Claughton Moor project.

2

1.6 The Consortium’s objections are principally grounded on the visual and landscape impact of the turbines, the blatant disregard by the applicant for the national status and importance of the designated AONB, degradation of biodiversity and habitat, detriment to recreational amenity and the tourist potential of the Lune Valley, and potential hydrological issues. Its case will reflect the ongoing Natural England consultation to extend the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the consequent impact this scheme would have on the setting of the newly defined area. It will argue that these impacts could affect those sectors of the local economy which are dependent on the environmental quality of the countryside and its enjoyment by both residents and visitors. These issues, it is argued, bring the proposal into serious and wide-ranging conflict with key elements of Government Policy, many Planning Policy Statements, and other local policies and guidance as recognised by the City Council’s decision. In the view of the Consortium, these serious adverse impacts cannot be mitigated and thus are not outweighed by the project’s benefits in terms of power generation and carbon dioxide savings or justified by national, regional or local policy for the development of renewable energy. Government policy clearly requires that all projects - however economically attractive to the promoters - must also be environmentally acceptable in the surrounding area and to affected receptors.

1.7 The Consortium is also concerned about the cumulative effects of the proposal – in landscape, visual and other terms - in relation to the adjacent 8 turbines at Caton Moor, and proposals at Scoping or Planning Application stage at Longfield Tarn, Cragg Lot, Lancaster University, and in the general vicinity.

1.8 For the purpose of this appeal, the Consortium will construct a case incorporating evidence from other like-minded organisations and individuals, including

(i) FELLS (Friends of Eden, Lakeland & Lunesdale Scenery) (ii) LandscapeFirst (iii) STILE (Stop Turbines in Lunesdale’s Environment) (iv) The CPRE Lancashire (v) The Open Spaces Society (vi) The Lune Rivers Trust (vii) Bay Tourism (viii) The various Parishes mentioned in 1.3 above (ix) Relevant amenity, landscape and conservation organisations (x) Specialist ecologists (xi) Individual objectors who either wish to speak at the Inquiry or make written representations.

This will portray a range of views and aim to minimise both duplication and the use of Inquiry time, possibly also bringing other local objectors under our wing.

3

2 The FELLS Consortium case

2.1 Consistent with these grounds of objection the Consortium will;

a) set the proposal in the context of the development of district, county and national renewable energy policy and government aspirations to move towards a low carbon economy, with the deployment of further energy-generating technologies including on- and off-shore wind turbines; Regional issues will be considered in as far as they remain relevant;

b) balance these considerations with a review of those policies which are designed to protect the scenery, landscape, amenity and environmental quality of the countryside at local, National, and European levels;

c) set these alongside matters arising from the location of this site inside the Forest of Bowland AONB and any possible impact arising from any extension of the Yorkshire Dales National Park;

d) appraise the assessment and presentation of claims for the benefits of wind power generated by the proposal as set out in the material submitted by or on behalf of the appellants;

e) examine the visual and landscape impacts of the proposed installation on the exceptional quality of the Lune Valley and the Forest of Bowland AONB, and impacts on local and residential amenities and on opportunities for enjoyment of the surrounding countryside;

f) demonstrate the visual significance of the proposed turbines in the light of existing and proposed wind energy projects; and review any other environmental effects of the proposal, including those related to recreation and tourism, and nature conservation as raised in the appellants’ material and elsewhere;

All the above will be undertaken with a view to demonstrating that the proposed development would cause significant and demonstrable harm to existing interests of acknowledged importance, which is not outweighed by the benefits which it might offer in terms of renewable energy or emissions savings.

2.2 The Consortium will accordingly ask the Inquiry to consider that because of its significant adverse effects on the countryside and local interests, the proposal is contrary to the existing local development plan, contrary to emerging policies and contrary to other relevant national and local guidance. It will conclude that, on balance, such benefits as the proposal may produce would be outweighed by its adverse effects, and that there are no material considerations which would justify a finding to the contrary. As a result, it will invite the Inspector to conclude that the proposal should continue to be refused planning permission in accordance with the detailed recommendation of the Local Planning Authority’s Officers and the unanimous decision of its elected members, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

4

3 Evidence to be submitted and appearances at the Inquiry

3.1 The Consortium will be represented at the Inquiry by a consultant lay advocate [Geoffrey Sinclair, of Environment Information Services], who will also act as a specialist witness on the topics of landscape and visual impacts, potential cumulative impact, and other relevant topics arising from a critique of the Environmental Statement.

3.2 The Consortium will also present supporting evidence from like-minded landscape organisations to demonstrate the undesirability of this project in this location.

3.3 The Consortium will also present evidence on the impact of such a dominating development on several local villages and Parishes, the living conditions and residential amenity of local residents, on users of local bridleways and other public routes and areas of public access. It will also call local witnesses whose livelihood depends on the recognised qualities of this landscape to attest to its value and utility for tourism and recreation.

3.4 The Consortium will also present evidence and call specialist but non-professional witnesses with detailed and intimate knowledge of the area who will demonstrate defects in the Environmental Statement and the Environmental Impact Assessment. These may include:

o bird life including endangered and protected species o the ecology of the Moors in terms of invertebrate life and its diversity; o the integrity of this upland peat moor and its importance as a carbon sink, in the regulation of local hydrology, and the health of local streams and rivers; o important protected mammalian species; o amphibians and reptiles o enjoyment of the countryside and the safety of its users chiefly as these relate to vulnerable local features and bridleways, paths and byways;

The names and further details of the local and expert witnesses will be released with their evidence when the final details are known. At present it is anticipated that there may be approximately 50 written statements and/or Proofs covering the above topics. Some of these may be taken as written evidence and an attempt will be made to avoid duplication with the witnesses of other opposing Parties.

3.5 Illustrative material may be presented by means of videos or screen-projections which will support certain aspects of the evidence, in particular in relation to the portrayal of the visual impacts of the proposed turbines or to tabulations and diagrams.

3.6 In the interests of presenting a co-ordinated case to the Inquiry, the Consortium may also seek to incorporate the evidence of further objectors, should they be identified, so as to save Inquiry time wherever possible.

In order to organise the Consortium’s evidence it would be helpful to know as soon as possible if the Inspector intends to run the Inquiry using a ‘topic-based’ approach or whether each participant will be asked to present all their evidence.

Although it is as yet too early to make a firm estimate of the time required for the Consortium’s evidence in chief, it is suggested that at least three days should be allotted, to include an allowance for cross-examination, both of the Consortium’s

5

witnesses and of the appellant’s witnesses by the Consortium’s advocate. It is suggested that following the Statements of Case from all Parties, the pre-Inquiry Meeting would provide a suitable opportunity to allow better estimates to be made.

4 Documentation

Reference may be made to planning policies and other publications which are in the public domain or listed in the Statements of Case of the principal parties and which will be expected to be treated as Core Documents. The Consortium would wish to participate in the process of assembling Core Documents for the Inquiry and will provide electronic copies of any additional material necessary to support its case for the normal pre-Inquiry distribution. To avoid duplication, additional Core Documents will be provided after a review of the first draft Core Documents list submitted by the LPA and the Appellant. Correspondingly, the Consortium would expect to be provided with its own set of Core Documents to enable it to play a full, constructive and accurately documented part at the Inquiry, as has nowadays become standard practice for active Third Parties. Other relevant published material will be cited and if necessary produced with the evidence. Any individual correspondence and minor, specific or recent documentation will be incorporated in the evidence and/or attached as Appendices to the witnesses’ Proofs. Minor extracts from other published documents which may not be readily available will be similarly provided.

5 Amendment of Statement of Case

The Consortium reserves the right to extend or amend this Statement of Case in matters affecting either its scope or its detail in the light of any additional or amending information supplied by the parties, or that emerging from relevant sources in relation to the application.

Submitted by The FELLS Consortium, 20th December 2010

Mr. Tim Sarney

Agent, and contact for administrative purposes.

The Hermitage Lodge, Low Road, Crook O’Lune, Lancaster, LA2 9HU

[email protected]

6