Agenda Item Committee Date Application Number
A5 4 April 2011 10/01061/FUL
Application Site Proposal
Lancaster University Installation of a single 2 MW wind turbine generator, Bailrigg Lane with a maximum tip height of 100m, together with Lancaster associated site access, on-site access tracks, Lancashire hardstanding areas, temporary construction and storage compound, cabling, landscaping and environmental measures
Name of Applicant Name of Agent
Lancaster University Owen Tucker
Decision Target Date Reason For Delay
18 January 2011 Officer caseload and consequences of the volume of public representations
Case Officer Mrs Jennifer Rehman
Departure No
Subject to the submission of further information and clarification in respect of ecological matters and TV interference, the submitted proposal is recommended Summary of Recommendation for approval subject to a legal agreement to deal with TV/Radio interference and mitigation, and conditions.
1.0 The Site and its Surroundings
1.1 Lancaster University campus occupies a large site located between the A6 and the M6 motorway, approximately 1.3 km south of Lancaster. The site that is the subject of this application relates to a 23 hectare parcel of land in the university’s ownership and on the east side of the M6 bound by Hazelrigg Lane to the east and south, and agricultural land to the north towards Hazelrigg Wood and Blea Tarn reservoir. This site is predominately used for agricultural purposes; mainly grazing.
1.2 The site forms a long narrow hilltop ridge tightly situated between the M6 motorway and Hazelrigg Lane. There are two distinct groups of woodland within the site which form two belts on either side of the ridge. A small hilltop copse is situated adjacent to the northern boundary just outside the application site. The two large belts of trees separate the site from the M6 to the west and residential properties fronting Hazelrigg Lane to the east. To the north, the development site wraps around the existing woodland and extends up to Hazelrigg Lane, directly opposite the access to the Lune Valley Kennels. These areas of woodland are subject to Tree Preservation Order No. 467 (2010). The university field station, which comprises grassland, research plots, greenhouses, a small building and a permanent metrological mast and telecommunications mast, are situated in this corner of the site. To the north of the application site there are a line of electricity pylons and wires which cross Langthwaite Ridge and connect to a second line of transmission pylons which run north- south through the Quernmore valley.
1.3 Surrounding land is predominately used for agriculture with the exception of Blea Tarn reservoir to the north and two small groups of residential properties including Blea Tarn Farm and Hazelrigg House and barns. On the east side of Hazelrigg Lane (east of the application site) lies a leisure complex known as Forest Hills; a kennel’s business and associated dwelling known as Valley View Kennels and a small detached bungalow, namely Eastrigg. Beyond the western boundary of the application site and the M6, lies the campus of Lancaster University which practically extends the full length of the application site but on the other side of the motorway. Bailrigg village is located to the north of the campus (to the north west of the application site on the opposite site of the motorway). The village consists of approximately 23 dwellings, the majority being semi-detached or detached dwellings of individual and distinct character, including Bailrigg Farm which is now a small complex of converted residential barns. Bailrigg is the closest settlement to the application site located circa 0.7km to the north west. Galgate is located approximately 2km to the south (from the turbine to the church) and Quernmore located approximately 2.5km to the north east. The southern extremity of the urban area of Lancaster is located approximately 1.2km from the application site; this includes the residential areas of Scotforth and Hala.
1.4 The topography of the site rises from 40m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) at the southern boundary of the site to 96m AOD at the northern end of the site where the University Metrological Station is situated. A small valley runs north-south along the eastern boundary of the site. The land levels to the north fall towards this valley where the source of a small stream (tributary of the River Conder) has formed and runs down the site towards the southern boundary where it runs under Hazelrigg Lane via a culvert. To the west of this small valley levels rise to a ridgeline situated between the two areas of woodland. The ridge is approximately 85m AOD in the north falling to 40m AOD at Hazelrigg Lane over a distance of approximately 800m.
1.5 The site is owned by the University with no public rights of way passing through it. Access to the site is via a field access to the south off Hazelrigg Lane, approximately 180m north east of the M6 under bridge on Hazelrigg Lane. There is also an existing access into the University Metrological Station at the northern end of the site.
1.6 The site does not fall within any national landscape designation and is simply allocated as Countryside Area in the Lancaster District Local Plan. The site is located 1.4 km west of the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty boundary.
2.0 The Proposal
2.1 Lancaster University is seeking full planning permission for the installation and operation of a single wind turbine with an output of approximately 2MW and associated infrastructure and landscaping. The proposed turbine fall within Schedule 2 II of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 1999 and as such a full EIA and Environmental Statement (ES) accompany the application. This is a resubmission of the recently refused application for two 100m turbines on the same site.
2.2 The proposed turbine will be a three bladed, horizontal axis machine with a hub height of approximately 60m, a blade length of 41m with a rotor diameter of 82m, giving a ground to tip height not exceeding 100m. The turbine rotor and nacelle will be mounted on a tapered steel tower (approximately 3.8m – 3m wide), supported on reinforced concrete foundations approximately 15m x 15m with an overall depth of 3m.
2.3 The associated infrastructure includes:
• Approximately 1050m of access track from Hazelrigg Lane up towards the turbine, with a nominal width of 5m • Access alterations • Crane hardstanding pad (28m wide by 48m long) • Temporary construction and storage compound • Earthworks • Approximately 1.3km of underground cabling to each turbine and to the electricity substation on the main University campus • Stream culverting where the access track crosses the stream • Approximately 690m of hedgerow to be removed
2.4 The location of the proposed turbine has been selected following a process of constraint mapping (Chapter 2 Volume 2/Figures 2.3 in Volume 3). The University carried out extensive preliminary work in respect of the design process. As part of this process the University discounted 125m and 130m high turbines in favour of a 100m high machine. Seven possible sites were initially considered and ranked having regard to the constraints map and mitigation difficulty. Two of the seven sites were selected as preferable sites and were subsequently carried forward as part of the recently refused proposal. The southern turbine of the previous scheme (referred to as turbine 1 in the constraints mapping chapter) has been omitted from the current proposal. The location of the proposed turbine is as follows:
• Grid Reference [349175.7, 457789.2] at the northern end of the site at c 87m AOD. The site is constrained by the BT radcom link only. The most significant constraint at this location apart from the radcom link is noise, particular given the proximity to nearby dwellings, including Valley View Kennels.
2.5 It is proposed to utilise the existing field access at the southern end of the site off Hazelrigg Lane. This access will be widened and altered to provide additional means for abnormal loads turning left into and right out of the site. The proposed access will consist of a bituminous surfaced bell mouth incorporating the access junction. It will have a 16m radius on the western side and 14.1m radius on the eastern side with a total width up to 45m including the overrun area. These radii will tie into a 7.7m wide access road at the gate. On the western side of the junction there will be an over-run area which shall be surfaced using a grass reinforcement geogrid product.
2.6 An access track is proposed up the centre of the site on the eastern side of the ridge, adjacent to Beck Wood. This will run 1050m from the proposed widened entrance off Hazelrigg Lane at the southern end of the site to the location of the proposed turbine. The access track would have a nominal width of 5m and will require excavation of a maximum of 300mm depth of top soil. The ground underneath will be compacted and a geotextile base layer with crushed stone will be laid on top to a thickness of 500mm. A grass reinforcement geogrid will be used to provide a running surface for the part of the access track and for any overrun areas for abnormal load vehicles. In addition, the existing landform will need some re-profiling to suit the longitudinal design of the access track, together with appropriate drainage provision for surface water, although the design has attempted to follow the site contours as best as possible.
2.7 The proposed crane pad measures 45m x 28m and shall be situated adjacent to the turbine foundation. This will require deeper foundations, due to higher loads the areas will undergo during construction, using up to 600mm of Type 1 granular material and will be constructed in a similar manner to the access track with appropriate surface water drainage laid around the pad. This pad will lie flat (albeit with a very minor gradient of 1%) and will sit below the turbine foundation. (Please note clarification regarding the site contours and earthworks at the top of the site where the turbine is proposed have been requested. A verbal update will be provided on this matter).
2.8 The site storage and construction compound would be located in the south western corner of the site in a triangular field located between in the existing field access and the proposed access track, approximately 3500m 2 in area. The compound will house temporary portable buildings, containers for machinery and equipment, parking for construction vehicles and secure storage of components and materials. At the end of the construction period, all equipment will be removed and the hard standing covered over with stored topsoil which would then be re-seeded. A drainage management strategy will be in place to deal with both surface and foul drainage from this area of the site.
2.9 Approximately 1.3km of underground cabling would be required to link the turbine to the existing electricity substation on the main University Campus. The route for this is from the University intake substation following Green Lane through the Campus and then along Hazelrigg Lane. It then runs alongside the proposed access track to try to minimise ground disturbance. To lay the cables drenches of approximately 1100mm deep and 610mm wide are typically required.
2.10 It is anticipated that approximately <5000m 3 ( 7500-8500) tonnes of material will be excavated during construction for the turbine bases and infrastructure. It is proposed that as far as practical this material will be reused on site primarily for restoration of disturbed ground or during the implementation of the proposed habitat mitigation strategy. A spoil storage area has been defined in the application. This will be located above the site compound as far away from the watercourse which runs along the eastern boundary of the site.
2.11 In addition to the above a 50m section of stream will need to be converted in order to construct the access track at the northern end of the site where the turbine is proposed. The stream will be culverted underneath the track as a consequence of the topography of the land in this location and the high water table surrounding the stream.
2.12 The proposal also involves the removal of approximately 690m of hedgerow across the site and one hedgerow tree. To compensate for this loss approximately 0.42 hectares of planted woodland, 737m of hedgerow and 41 hedgerow trees are proposed.
The permanent land take associated with the development, which comprises the turbine foundation, site access track and crane pad hardstanding, totals to approximately 0.8 hectares.
3.0 Site History
3.1 Lancaster University has a complex and extensive planning history. However, the most relevant planning history relates to the recent refusal of planning permission for the installation of 2 No. 2MW 100m high wind turbines and associated infrastructure. As Members will recall this was refused because of the impact of the turbines on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. Prior to this recent refusal, planning permission was granted for the erection of an 80m anemometry mast. The anemometer had a temporary consent for 12 months and has now been removed.
Application Number Proposal Decision 09/00837/FUL Erection of an 80m Anemometry Mast on a guide tower for Approved temporary period of one year 10/00039/FUL Installation of two wind turbine generators, each with a Refused on residential maximum tip height of 101m, together with associated site amenity grounds. access, onsite access tracks, hardstanding areas, temporary construction and storage compounds and landscaping
4.0 Consultation Responses
4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:
Consultee Response Natural England Natural England has not formally objected to the development, but advises that the local planning authority, in the determination of the application, considers the impact of the development on protected species, biodiversity and landscape. Other than generic guidance provided as part of this consultation, the following comments have been received: • The site is still only 1.4 km from the AONB; however the impact of the development has been reduced by omitting one of the turbines from the proposal (compared to the previous proposal). The loss of the southern turbine removes previous concerns regarding the design and layout of the development. The previous scheme involving two turbines at different heights (land levels) made for an uneasy grouping which was more intrusive. • The turbine will be backgrounded or partly backgrounded in some views from the west by the Forest of Bowland uplands, and though clearly visible as a landmark and competing to some extent with other landmarks in Lancaster, it is likely to be more acceptable as a single feature than the 2 turbines would have been. • The single turbine will still be visually associated with transmission lines which already cross the Langthwaite Ridge and can be seen in many existing views of the site, including views from the AONB (viewpoints 3, 4 and 7). Natural England has previously expressed concerns over the degree of visual clutter in the area. This coupled with the likely future upgrading of grid connections in North Lancashire is unlikely to improve the situation. Notwithstanding this, Natural England has stated that the relationship of the single turbine to the ridge itself is acceptable and unlike the previous scheme it does not involve turbines in different character areas. • At present, cumulative effects with other existing or proposed wind turbines are not significant.
County Ecology No objections to the development provided the development is carried out in accordance with the relevant chapters and appendices of the ES. They have however highlighted an inconsistency in the ES relating to the retention or removal of the hedgerow within the blade sweep path and that proper consideration should be given to the use of an alternative access route avoiding the need for impacts on the stream. The matter relating to hedgerow will be clarified in preparation of the committee meeting, although in accordance with Natural England advice it is anticipated that this will be hedgerow will be removed and that the length of this hedgerow has been calculated into the overall figure of 690m of hedgerow loss.
If Members approve the development the following conditions are recommended: The method statement for the removal of trees with bat roosting potential (Environmental Statement, Appendix A) will be implemented in full. • Post-construction monitoring of bats and birds will be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations in Appendix C and B of the Environmental Statement. Copies of the monitoring reports will be submitted to Lancaster City Council, Natural England and Lancashire County Council ecologists. If monitoring indicates significant impacts on bats, further mitigation measures, to be agreed with Lancaster City Council in consultation with Natural England, will be implemented. • Tree felling, vegetation clearance works, demolition work or other works that may affect nesting birds will be avoided between March and August inclusive, unless the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed by further surveys or inspections. • No site clearance, site preparation or development work shall take place until a repeat survey for badgers has been undertaken. If badgers are found to be present, mitigation measures must be submitted for approval. • No site clearance, site preparation or development work shall take place until full details of the proposed wetland area and stream enhancement works have been submitted for approval to Lancaster City Council in consultation with specialist advisors. The approved works shall be implemented in full. • Prior to completion of works, a detailed long-term management plan will be submitted to and approved by Lancaster City Council in consultation with specialist advisors. The approved management plan shall be implemented in full. • If works that would impact on any watercourse or within 10m of any watercourse are due to be undertaken after November 2010, then a repeat survey for water vole should be carried out prior to the start of any such works. If water voles are found to be present, mitigation measures must be submitted for approval. • All trees being retained in or adjacent to the application area will be adequately protected during construction, in accordance with existing guidelines (e.g. BS5837: 2005 Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations ).
North Lancashire If the local authority is minded to approve this application, a monitoring scheme Bat Group should be undertaken in order to understand any impact on bats at the site. If bats are found to be at risk, then steps should be taken to minimise the risk e.g. by restricting hours of operation or reducing the turbine speed. This can be achieved by condition.
County Landscape The County Landscape Officer has raised some significant concerns about the Officer (LCC) development but overall does not consider the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed wind turbine to be unacceptable. The following comments have been received:
The site is identified within Lancashire’s Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development document as an area of moderate – high sensitivity. The Landscape Officer previously commented (10/00039/FUL) on the inappropriate scale of the turbines on a relatively small scale ridge situated close to nearby landscape scale comparators; concluding that the site and surrounds have a very limited landscape capacity to accommodate wind energy development. The Landscape Officer previously had concerns about the number and design of turbines. The County Landscape Officer maintains their view that the proposed development does not address previous concerns in respect of scale, in particular that the turbine is too tall for the rolling nature of the landscape and as such it will overwhelm the landscape. A rotor diameter of 82m out of a total ground to tip height of 100m would give a disproportionate blade length to tower height. Whilst these blades may move slower, the shear size of the blades in comparison to surrounding features would emphasis the machines dynamic presence in the landscape. The development would not have a major impact on the setting and character of the AONB primarily due to the small scale of the development in relation to the size of the AONB and the mitigation effects of the separation distance between them. Despite the above concerns, the County Landscape Officer has clarified their position concluding a refusal on landscape grounds would be weak, particularly given the absence of any major cumulative impacts with other operation and consented wind turbines/farms.
Tree Protection No objections subject to appropriate tree protection and landscaping conditions. The Officer following comments have been received:
The site in question contains either wholly or in part two significant woodland areas, a third woodland lies just beyond the site boundary. There are also a number of single trees and over 0.5km of mixed species hedgerows. The woodland areas and single, individual trees are subject to a tree preservation order; as such they are now protected in law. The current proposal does not require the removal of any woodland. It is proposed that 690m of hedgerow is removed and a single, individual tree to accommodate the development proposals. This work must be undertaken outside the bird nesting period 1 st March to 31 st July inclusive. The applicant has proposed extensive compensatory planting including 0.42ha of new woodland (over 700 trees and 1150 plants as shrub edge woodland); 737m of mixed species hedgerow (2900 plants) and a 3m wide strip of shrub edge planting to the woodland, a number of standard trees within the new hedgerow (41 standard trees) and an area of marginal aquatic planting (250 plants). The proposed landscape scheme makes an important and significant contribution towards the future tree cover within the site and the future sustainability of the woodlands. There are a number of elements of the development that threaten existing trees, in particular the access tracks and site compounds. An Arboriculture Impact Assessment – Supplementation Report has been provided to address these concerns. The Tree Protection Officer is satisfied with the contents of this report, subject to a condition for an Arboricultural Method Statement for the access roads, hard stand, pathways, service trenches and drains.
County Archaeology No objections subject to the following condition: (LCC) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.
County Strategic No objections to the proposed development. The scheme will positively contribute Planning (LCC) towards regional renewable energy targets and is therefore compliant with the relevant policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy.
Ministry of Defence No objection to the proposal provided the turbine is fitted with a 25 candela omni- directional red lighting, or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern to be fitted with aviation lighting. Condition infrared lighting to be installed opposed to the omni- directional red lighting due to potential visual impact (although 25 candela lighting is very low).
Civil Aviation Subject to comments from other aviation operators, in particular the MoD, there may Authority be a need for aviation obstruction lighting and the blades to be coloured white in accordance with International aviation regulatory documentation. There is a requirement in the UK for all structures over 300ft high to be chartered on civil aviation maps. Should the wind turbine development progress, developers will need to provide details of the development to the Defence Geographic Centre. CAA recommends that the local planning authority consult North West Air Ambulance at Blackpool Airport.
NATS (National Air NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposal . Traffic Service) Blackpool Airport No aerodrome safeguarding objection to the proposed development.
Lancashire No objections. Constabulary The Air Support Unit generally avoids the University for environmental reasons and conclude that the siting of the proposed turbine would not be a significant risk to their operations. As a matter of course they do not generally fly east of the M6 in that area due to rising ground levels.
Lancashire Fire Consult Building Regulations to ensure that the development meets the requirements Rescue of Part 5 of the Regulations.
County Highways No objections. The following comments have been received:
The Highway Authority is generally satisfied with the Traffic Transport and Highway Impact chapter of the submitted Environmental Statement and has confirmed that they have no objections to the granting of planning permission subject to the following conditions:
• A Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted and agreed in advance of any commencement of any works. • Construction of the development hereby approved shall not commence until the approved scheme referred to in the condition above has been constructed and completed in accordance with the scheme details. • The applicant is also advised that the granting of planning permission will require the applicant to enter into an appropriate legal agreement with the County Council as Highway Authority.
The Highway Authority have advised that in two locations abnormal loads on route appear to over sail private land, although one site could possible be within the University’s ownership. This matter has been highlighted with the applicant for them to address accordingly.
Highways Agency No objections to the proposed development on the basis that the proposed turbine is situated over 250m from the M6 motorway, which is an acceptable offset distance from the highway boundary. The location of the turbine is 100m in excess of the Highways Agency’s minimum topel distance.
The Highways Agency has also noted that the transportation of the turbine to the site will involve the use of the strategic road network. Due to abnormal loads the applicant should contact the Agency well in advance to arrange agreements of the details. This to be added as an advice note if Members approve the development.
Environmental No objections subject to conditions relating to noise control and mitigation to prevent Health adverse impacts, particularly given the close proximity to nearby dwellings.
Environment No objections subject to a condition for a scheme for wetland habitat enhancement Agency and stream re-profiling to be submitted and agreed.
The Environment Agency have questioned the appropriateness of the proposed access, stressing that is the access was taken off Hazelrigg Lane to the north east of the site, this would remove the need for culverting. Any works to the watercourse within or adjacent to the site including the creation of an access road culvert would require consent from the EA. If Members support the proposal, an advice note would be included on the decision notice.
United Utilities No objections to the proposed development.
Regional Planning No comments received. However, based on the Schedule of Regionally Significant Body 4NW (former Planning Application Criteria 4NW would not consider this application to be Regionally NWRA) Significant. They would usually only comment on schemes with a 25+ megawatts total installed capacity for renewable energy schemes.
Ellel Parish Council No objections to the development.
Scotforth Parish Strongly object to the development concluding the submitted proposal should be Council refused for the same reasons as the previous application and that it would be inconsistent of the Planning Committee to accept the revised application.
A summary of the reasons for opposition are as follows:
• The proposed turbine is too close to dwellings. The significant of the magnitude of change and effect has been measured as substantial and major for a number of dwellings (Andalucía and other properties including Bailrigg village in particular). At 100m the proposed development, like the previous scheme, remains overly dominant and over-bearing. The Parish also have concerns in respect of shadow flicker and noise and how any potential problems arising from the affects of both shadow flicker and noise are controlled, funded and managed. Reference to European separation distances between turbines and dwellings has been noted by the Parish Council. The Parish refer to the Private Member’s Bill in the House of Lord’s seeking to introduce minimum distances that wind turbines can be sited from residential areas and the current government’s Coalition Agreement which identifies its objective to give local people a key role in determining whether or not to approve development proposals. • The Parish Council refer to previous Inspectors decisions relating to residents amenity. • The current Localism Agenda should ensure that the views of local people are taken into account. • The scale of the turbines, evident by the photomontages proposed as part of the submission, confirm that the turbine will have a high visual intrusion on the wider landscape (which is described by the Case Officer previously as ‘small, low-lying, complex and intimate’); thus compromising the significance of ‘Historic Lancaster’ and the iconic architecture such as Ashton Memorial. are completely disproportionate to the local surroundings, they would dominate the landscape. The Parish Council stress that the lifetime of the turbine is 25 years at least – “a generation”. • Inadequate community consultation on the current proposal. There are no benefits to the local community. • Further comments have been submitted expressing concerns about the impact of the development on terrestrial and satellite TV reception. With regards to OFCOMS guidance over 6000 homes to the south of Lancaster could be adversely affected. The Parish believe further assessment should be carried out before being determined by Planning Committee.
Friends of Eden, Object to the development. Their reasons of opposition are as follows: Lakeland and Lunedale Scenery • FELLS comments on the changes in Parliament and the focus for localism and (FELLS) the influence this has on planning policy (intention to remove RSS for example). FELLS states that any regional renewable energy targets or targets for Lancashire are irrelevant – adherence to regional targets cannot be advanced. • Unacceptable proximity to neighbouring residents and as a consequence would significantly violate the amenity of local residents. FELLS refer to the Private Members Bill for separation distances between dwellings and turbines and standards set in Scotland and Wales. • FELLS refer to the Sillfield, Carlisle and Gargrave appeals which were all refused on the grounds of residential amenity. They further comment that the removal of one turbine from the scheme does not diminish the serious impacts on 10 properties which remain close to the proposed turbine. The approval of this application would breach best practice as the arguments raised in the above appeals are equally applicable for this case. • FELLS have particular concerns about noise impacts to the property Andalucía (Valley View kennels). • The development flies in the face of all the statements about community involvement and participation and is contrary to best practice. • No significant benefits to a single turbine. The development would blight the lives of nearby households for at least a generation and as such the application should be rejected.
AONB Joint No comments submitted in response to this resubmission. However, Members are Advisory Committee reminded (for information only) that the AONB committee previously made no objections to the development commenting that solely from the basis of AONB purposes alone ie 'conservation and enhancement of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty' they did not feel there were sufficient grounds to object to the proposal.
CPRE Object to the development on the grounds of unsustainable development and significant detrimental impacts on residential amenity. The following comments have been received:
• Criticism of the residential amenity survey, commenting it fails to address the day to day living with such a large moving structure in such close proximity to dwellings. It also concludes that significant effects are acceptable. • The photomontages submitted are not a true representation, they do not show the true scale of the turbine. Reference to European separation distances have been made and peoples perception of living in such close proximity to a turbine. • PPS22 states that wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals are materials considerations and should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. • CPRE question whether or not the University will actually produce 17% of the university’s electricity supply – given possible actual wind speeds this could be nearer 10%; They go on to question the proposal a nd energy figures, indicating heat/air source pumps, PV panels could be more effective, bringing the technology to where it is used and preserving landscapes. • CPRE are not against wind turbines per se but believes they should be carefully located and controlled – this site is the wrong location. • PPS7 recognises the importance of preserving the landscape and our rural area – the turbine is completely out of scale and would dramatically affect the rural character of the surrounding area.
OFCOM Standard response identifying the fixed link ends(s) within or have paths that cross 500m radius of the stated turbine locations. Regarding assessment with respect to TV reception, OFCOM simply refer the local planning authority to the BBC online tool, which provides a rough estimate of the population that may suffer interference to their television services from a wind farm built at the location specified. The tool is not intended to be a substitute for an on-site survey where the potential for disruption to television services may be assessed more accurately. With regards to the BBC tool, the applicants have indicated that this only provides a rough estimate of the population that could suffer interference. The applicants maintain that have performed and analysed the proposal based on recognised methods.
Joint Radio No objections Company Ltd (JRC) JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry and the Water Industry in North-West England. This is to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements. In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided. JRC has stated that although they recognise that there may be effects which are as yet unknown or inadequately predicted. JRC cannot therefore be held liable if subsequently problems arise that we have not predicted.
5.0 Neighbour Representations
5.1 There has been a considerable amount of public interest in the submitted proposal resulting in a significant number of representations received both against the development and in support of the proposal. It is important to note that it is not necessarily the number of letters received that is important, although this clearly highlights the significance of the scheme to the local community, but the content of the representations received and the overall planning merits of the scheme.
5.2 At the time of compiling this report, in excess of 530 letters of objection have been received, including two letters from Eric Ollerenshaw OBE, MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood. Mr Eric Ollerenshaw MP has commented that the proposed development is not materially different from the previous proposal and as such should not be supported because of the scale of the turbine and the subsequent adverse impact on the visual environment; the loss of residential amenity by virtue of shadow flicker and noise and; the impact of the development on local wildlife and the physical environment. Mr Eric Ollerenshaw MP has submitted a further letter expressing concerns that supporters have been directed by the ‘Yes 2 Wind’ website and as such have asked Officers to ensure views from those in the immediate location are given careful consideration.
5.3 The majority of the objection letters are from local residents, particularly those close to the application site, however there have been a number of representations received from people as far a field as Skipton, Poulton-le-Flyde, Windermere, Old Hutton and Nottinghamshire to name a few. It has also be noted that a significant proportion of the objections received have been in the format of a petition letter; a standard letter signed by individual people and families. Notwithstanding this their comments have been considered.
5.4 The objections received have been summarised as follows: Procedural Concerns: • The scheme is no different to the previous scheme as far as the northern turbine is concerned. All the negative aspects remain from the previous scheme – there remains potential damage to the environment. • Concerns expressed about the pattern of comments received in response to the current application. For example, comments stating that the present application is not nearly as objectionable as the previous one would not a valid approach. It appears that the University’s strategy in gaining planning permission would be through submitting a truly awful application, followed by merely bad one. • Concerns expressed about the quality and content of the submitted Environmental Statement and its incompleteness, in respect of residential assessments. Some residents believe the application is deliberately misleading. • Some residents have concerns that the planning department are “backing the application”. • It is clear from the ES that there are too many constraints on the site and as such the site should never have been considered for this type of development. The request for 50m micro- siting rules out this site altogether because of the statutory constraint areas.
Residential Amenity Concerns: • Excessive scale and inappropriate proximity to residential properties - there are 10 properties within 700m, 3 less than 500m and one less than 250m and a further 28 houses approximately 700m away. This would result in a dominant, imposing and overbearing feature in the landscape which would be detrimental to residential amenity; a concern exacerbated by the fact these are not static structures and have constantly moving blades. • The affect of the moving blades in direct and peripheral vision from residential properties would be harmful to the enjoyment of resident’s private homes. • The previous application was refused on the grounds of impact on residential amenity. The only difference between this application and the earlier application is that fewer people are affected. • Many residents refer to recent appeal cases (Carlisle, Gargrave and Silfield) whereby proposals for wind turbines have been refused on the grounds of residential amenity. • Many residents have referred to minimum separation distances applied in Scotland and Wales and other European Countries. French Government requires a minimum distance of 1.5km from residential property; in Scotland a minimum distance of 2km is encouraged. The Companion Guide to PPS22 suggests a practical separation distance of 350m. The World Health Organisation recommends 500m . Some residents have referred to Dr Nina Pierpont “Wind Turbine Syndrome” which suggests turbines should be located at least 2km from residential properties. • Some residents have referred to the 1.5km stand off distance being considered by Parliament (Private Members Bill) stating that the proposed development would conflict with this possible ruling. • Some residents have expressed concerns about the content and accuracy of the residential amenity survey. In particular, there have been concerns expressed about the number of properties assessed and the results and assumptions made. For example, the survey has considered outlook from windows but fails to consider wider amenity issues including the enjoyment people experience from “living” in the countryside. Not all people worry about the views they experience from rooms in their homes but views and general tranquillity from walking, riding, cycling in the area. Concerns have also been expressed stating that despite comments such as the ‘magnitude of change is major’; ‘the effect of change is major’ and; the ‘result being significant’, the applicant still concludes the proposal is acceptable, leading some residents to believe the report is inaccurate and deliberately misleading. Some residents also believe the photomontages produced as part of this report do not reflect reality. • The conclusions made in the residential amenity survey, commenting that there will not be an unacceptable impact on residential amenity and overbearing effects will not be experienced have been strongly disputed and noted by some residents as arrogant and incredible, as the turbine will blight the lives of many local residents.
• Concerns have been received relating to noise, vibration and shadow flicker. With regards to
noise, many residents have concerns about the intermittent (swish) and low frequency noise
omitted from the turbines and associated health implications. In respect of shadow flicker,
residents in close proximity (such as Bailrigg village, and the immediate neighbouring
properties) have serious concerns about the impact of shadow flicker, commenting that due
to the topography of the area and proximity of properties to the turbine, shadows could be
thrown further than the standard 10 times rotor distance. Other nearby residents have
indicated that the properties located close to the 126m turbine in Garstang suffer unbearable
affects of shadowflicker and the affects of a constant low frequency thudding noise. One
resident from Garstang has stressed that it is too late for residents of Garstang but it is not
too late to stop a further unnecessary development that will similarly blight the lives of people
living in and around the University.
• Tree cover and hedgerows are hardly a convincing argument to mitigate the visual impacts of
the development, especially during the winter months when there is little cover.
• A neighbouring resident close to the Animal Sanctuary comments that the dogs bark quite frequently and that the noise emanating from the turbine will increase dog barking which will indirectly increase noise and disturbance to the area. • Construction process will be substantial and disruptive.
TV Interference: • Concerns regarding the interference with television and radio reception. Some residents believe that they will suffer deterioration of TV and radio reception and state that it is unlikely that the full affect on reception would become apparent until the turbines are fully operational. • Up to 6000 homes to the north and northwest of the proposed turbine (mainly the Hala area) may suffer loss of digital/radio signal or degradation of picture quality. Sky TV signal will also be affected. • Following updated information provided in relation to TV interference, concerns have been expressed about the content and quality of the report and the fact that the report shows the extent of possible TV and SKY reception problems to the Winter Hill transmitter. • Proposed mitigation is also unpractical for some residents. The University’s response for people to switch to a cable provider is far from helpful – there are no cable providers in Lancaster. • Claims that the impacts on TV/Radio signals can be mitigated by changing from Winter Hill to the Lancaster transmitter it not an option in all cases due to local topography. • Residents have pointed out that the advice on the OFCOM website states that because of the unpredictability of the effect of wind turbines on television and radio reception they should not be closer than 500m from an occupied dwelling.
Character of Area: • The proposed turbine will be visually intrusive and will dominate the skyline, potentially competing against Lancaster’s historical landmark; the Ashton Memorial. The turbine, at the scale proposed will appear disproportionate and out of scale with the surroundings, changing the quality and character of the landscape considerably. Residents have indicated that the unsightly and dominating impact of such a structure can now be viewed at the Dewlay Cheese Factory in Garstang. • Turbine has a diameter bigger than a 747 jumbo jet. • Detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider countryside and Morecambe Bay, with the turbine affecting views from Clougha, across to the AONB and Sunderland Point. • In addition to the turbine, the need for an 1km access track up the centre of the site also has significant environmental impacts leading to the urbanisation of the countryside. Some residents also believe that the location of the track could set a precedent for the southern turbine to be built in the future. The location of the access has been questioned, given the proposal is not only for one turbine at the top of the site. • The development would have a harmful impact on the distinctive character of Bailrigg Village, which the Council have indicated a desire to retain as part of the Master Plan for Bailrigg Science Park. From the village it appears overbearing and out of scale with surroundings – stressing no screening can help lessen the impact. • Concerns regarding the cumulative impact of the development with Caton Moor Wind Farm and the Dewley Turbine. • The development will destroy views and the general enjoyment of the countryside including recreational walking, cycling and horse riding. • Proposed structure only about 15m less than the height of Blackpool Tower.
Ecology: • Destruction and loss of 690m of hedgerows and habitats for many species. • Loss and disruption to biodiversity, for example birds moving between Morecambe Bay and Bowland Hills. • Replacement planting is not acceptable and will not mitigate for the loss of flora and fauna as it will take many years for new habitats to establish. • Proposal still involves culverting and subsequent loss of habitat for fish, otters, kingfishers and dippers. • Concerns about the lack of evidence submitted to show how the turbine would affect wildlife in the area, in particular seasonal visitors such as swallows and permanent residents such as owls, bats, buzzards, sparrow hawks etc.
Highways/Safety: • Development will lead to an increase risk of road traffic accidents by way of driver distraction which will have a knock on effect on traffic through the city. • Concerns regarding blade failure/blade tip disintegration and flying ice blocks, particularly given the close proximity to the M6. • Concerns regarding topel distances to motorway, minor roads and houses. • Potential road flooding through lack of natural drainage.
Energy Development • The University have not properly considered other forms of energy production saving that would have minimal impact on the environment. They should considered smaller turbines on the western campus. • University should adopt better housekeeping, such as turning lights off in order to reduce energy consumption, together with proper maintenance of buildings, heating systems and lighting systems. • Many residents have questioned the efficiency of wind turbines and the energy production and carbon saving calculations produced in the Environmental Statement. Some state that there is growing evidence that wind turbines achieve very little. Fore example during our coldest December for 100 years, all the thousands of turbine in the UK produced less than 1% of our electricity between them. Countries such as Denmark, Holland and Germany (the pioneers of wind energy) have now abandoned wind turbines and are investing in other forms of renewable energy. • The electricity production figures produced are exaggerated due to the assumed load figure of 0.3. According to DECC, the loading figure is closer to 0.27. • The University has estimated that 2,802 tonnes of CO2 will be saved per annum. This assumes a value of 0.533 tonnes of CO2 saved for every MWh of electricity generated. The value currently used by DEFRA is 0.43 tonnes CO2 per MWh. This still sounds tremendous until you realise that one Boeing 747 aircraft produces the same amount of CO2 in five days; • Carbon emissions produced as a result of production, transportation, construction and decommissioning of the turbines result in wind turbines being inefficient and a waste of time. Building power stations should be the way forward. • Concerns regarding the precedent of this development. The proposal constitutes sporadic development – developments of this nature should be designated to existing wind farms such as Caton moor or off-shore where wind source is far more efficient and less intrusive in the landscape. • Turbines would affect the data collection form the Metrological Monitoring station on Hazelrigg Lane.
Social, Cultural and Economic Concerns : • The affects of the development on human health is also a concern, both from the noise and general disturbance of the turbine and the consequences of interference with TV and radio reception; • Similar to residential amenity concerns, there are some people who work for local businesses in close proximity to the proposed turbine. At the kennels for example, employees generally work outside most of the day and as such will have to work under the shadow of this huge moving machine resulting in no escape from it. • Adverse affect on local businesses, in particular Valley View Kennels. Concerns have been submitted by the owners of this business stressing that they could lose business as a consequence of the turbine being so close to their site, which in turn could lead to a loss of employment. The owners also stress, that as well as living on site they also work on site and as such will never be free from the affects of the turbine in such close proximity. • Concerns relating to the adverse effects of turbines on animals (dogs, cats and horses in particular) in particular the effects of shadow flicker – epileptic animals for example. • The University have already received a Government grant of £5 million and they will receive further payments from a complex system of renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) and also probably through the climate change levy. The scheme is about money not carbon savings. This is the university benefiting from overly generous subsidies no matter what the cost to local peoples. • Concerns that the University “flexing its corporate muscles” – using the turbines as a marketing tool. • Cost implications to the University due to claims for compensation from people blighted by the development. • Presumably if the Council support the development, then those affected will have their council tax amended to reflect the loss of amenity. • Objectors have stressed that many of the letters of support have been submitted from either students, staff or people from further afield who do not live in the area on a permanent basis. • Concerns regarding the level of community consultation carried out. • Loss of property values and desirability of houses within close sight of the wind turbines. • Precedent will be set for more turbines on this site and the surrounding area if this one is allowed.
5.5 Despite the number of objections received and the gravity of these objections, it is also noted that many of the objectors are not opposed to the University’s commitment to reduce their carbon emissions through the development of a renewable energy scheme. However, many remain extremely concerned about the scale, design and location of the proposed wind turbine to neighbouring dwellings.
5.6 There has also been a considerable amount of support for the development. At the time of compiling this report, in excess of 706 letters of support have been received commenting on the wider environmental benefits of the scheme. Representations have been received from local residents (District wide), students and staff of the University and people from as far as Manchester, Pulford, Kendal, Shrewsbury, Sheffield, Garstang, Edinburgh, Grange-over-Sands and Grasmere to name a few. Like some of the letters of objection, a significant number of support letters have also been in the form of a petition letter. Notwithstanding this the content of these letters and reasons for support have been considered. The main reasons for support are summarised as follows:
• These are projects of national importance and should be taken very seriously - the Lancaster University Wind Turbine is a thoroughly necessary project. • The benefits of reducing the University’s carbon footprint and supporting government commitments to reduce CO 2 emissions far outweigh any environmental impact (noise, visual and landscape impacts). Global warming is a serious threat which needs to be taken seriously. The 2008 Act Climate Change Act sets targets for an 80% reduction in CO 2 emissions by 2050, the UK and Lancaster has little hope in reaching this target, as such radical proposals like this one need to be taken seriously in order to sustain our future and future generations. Comments have been received indicating that the Met Office predicts that the rise in temperatures means the Earth will experience a greater climate change than it has for at least 10,000 years and would be difficult for many people and ecosystems to adapt to this rapid change – the need to tackle climate change is very real; we can not ignore the dangers of global warming. • Government have set targets for the use of renewable energy and wind power is the most advance method available that is reliable to contribute towards reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. PPS22 fully endorses the principle of wind turbine development. • An over reliance on energy imports is crippling the economy – utility bills as a consequence are rocketing. Resisting wind farms will simply result in an ever increasing energy gap. • Renewable energy proposals are clean and environmental friendly. Harnessing the wind The UK provides the best resource for wind energy development. • There will be long term benefits to the everyday health of people if we reduce the burning of fossil fuels and support vital renewable energy proposals. • Many supporters stress that NIMBYism should not be allowed to thwart the UK’s attempts to tackle climate change. • Many supporters comments that they would prefer the look at a wind turbine rather than the monstrosity of a nuclear power station. • The proposal stands near a range of existing pylons and the M6 motorway and as such little more visual or noise impact than the structures and noise already present. • The location of the site provides good access to infrastructure for construction and decommissioning. • One resident who lives near the Dewlay turbine has commented that despite some scepticism initially, the turbine does not impede on the overall appearance of the landscape and finds it quite therapeutic. Others have taken a similar view and agree it now seems part of the landscape and is a sentiment to local businesses individually trying to address climate change. • Turbines are visual pleasing and could attract visitors to the area supporting the local economy and the tourism industries. Architecturally wind farms are a triumph - they are statuesque, elegant and graceful structures. • Investment to the local economy – the development would generate local jobs and in the short term (construction process) and generate business for local hotels and restaurants; • Demonstrates that the University and the City Council are serious about developing sustainable futures. It will create a visual statement. • Some supporters dispute with the reasons for opposition and have conflicting opinions with regards to the visual impact and the environmental benefits of the proposal. Some supporters suggest objections on visual grounds are short sited. • Turbines are today's necessary infrastructure; like rail, electricity pylons, road networks were in their day – people adapt to change over time.
The Local Planning Authority acknowledges that it is quite normal for objectors and supporters of schemes to canvass for or against a proposal through the use of standard replies, which has been the case in this instance. However, the local planning authority when determining a proposal should always adhere to national and local planning policy guidance, which makes it clear that it is not the volume of representations which should influence a planning decision but rather the weight of evidence for or against a proposal in planning terms which is important.
6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies
6.1 National, Regional and Local planning policy are relevant to this proposal. The following list is of particular relevance and shall form the principle policy framework for assessing the application:
6.2 National Planning Statements (NPS), Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Guidance Notes (PPG)
PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) sets out the Governments overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development and provides generic advice for all new development. The Government sets out four aims for sustainable development. These are: • developing strong, vibrant sustainable communities • protection of the natural and historic environment • prudent use of natural resources • promoting a strong, stable and productive economy
With regard to environmental protection, PPS1 states that a high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources, conserving and enhancing wildlife species and habitats and the promotion of biodiversity. It goes on to state that planning policies should take account of environmental issues; such as the mitigation of the effects of, and adaption to, climate change through the reduction of green house gases and the use of renewable energy. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, mitigation and compensatory measures may be appropriate.
PPS1 (Planning and Climate Change Supplement) indicates that planning has a key role to play in tackling climate change and securing progress towards the UK’s emission targets. It also states that planning authorities should provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low-energy generation and as such policies should be designed to promote and not restrict renewable technologies and supporting infrastructure. Subsequently, applicants for renewable energy development should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy, nor should the energy justification for a proposed development in a particular lo cation be questioned.
PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) now supersedes PPG15 and PPG16 in relation to the historic environment and archaeology. The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. In order to deliver sustainable development, PPS5 states that polices and decisions concerning the historic environment should:
• Recognise that heritage assets are a non-renewable resource • Take account of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of heritage conservation • Recognise that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained in the long term.
Policy HE1: Heritage Assets and Climate Change is particularly relevant. HE1.3 states that where conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the significant of heritage assets in accordance with the development management principles in this PPS and national planning policy on climate change. Policy HE6 of PPS5 states that where an application site includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, planning authorities should require developers to provide an appropriate desk-based assessment or where appropriate a field evaluation with an application.
PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) sets out the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so i t may be enjoyed by all. This advice is also formally provided in PPS 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, which supersedes certain paragraphs of PPS 7. When determining planning applications for development in the countryside, local planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced. They should have particular regard to areas that have been afforded statutory designation for their landscape, wildlife or historic qualities. Major developments should not take place in these designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. When determining planning applications for development in the countryside, planning authorities should:
• take account of the need to protect natural resources, and; • provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the policies set out in PPS22.
PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) sets out planning policies on the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geological conservation though the planning system. The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted adequate mitigation measures are put in place and appropriate compensation measures sought. PPS9 states that Ancient woodland is a valuable biodiversity resource; once lost it cannot be recreated. Planning authorities should not grant planning permission for any development that would result in its loss to deterioration unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location, would outweigh the loss of woodland habitat. Aged or ‘veteran’ tress found outside ancient woodlands are also particularly valuable for biodiversity and their loss should be avoided.
PPS22 (Renewable Energy) is the overarching national policy that sets out Governments stance on renewable energy development and positive steps towards delivering Governments commitment to tackling climate change. PPS22 sets out a number of key principles that planning authorities should adhere to when considering applications for renewable energy developments. These include:
• Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily; • Regional and local policies should be designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources; • The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever there scale, are materials considerations and should be given significant weight; • Planning authorities should not make assumptions about the technical and commercial feasibility of renewable energy projects; • Small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and meeting energy needs both locally and nationally. Planning authorities should not therefore reject planning applications simply because the level of output is small;
• Developers of renewable energy projects should engage in active consultation and
discussion with local communities at an early stage in the planning process;
• Proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as
how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful
consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.
The Government has already set a target to generate 10% of UK electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. The White Paper sets out the Government’s aspiration to double that figure to
20% by 2020. PPS 22 requires regional spatial strategies to include regional targets for renewable
energy capacity in the region, and states that these targets should be expressed as the minimum amount of installed capacity. PPS22 also emphasises that the potential to generate substantial amounts of renewable energy from offshore projects should not be used as a justification to set lower targets for onshore projects.
PPS22 has regard to the potential landscape and visual effects of renewable energy developments and states that such effects may be minimised through appropriate siting, design and landscaping.
PPS22 (Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide) offers practical advice as to how the policies contained in PPS22 can be implemented. The guide provides advice and guidance relating to a range of technologies. With regards to wind turbine development, this guidance expands and covers social and environmental benefits, together with issues such as noise, shadow flicker, landscape and visual impact, access and associated infrastructure, electromagnetic interference, ecology, historic conservation and archaeology. The companion guide should be read in conjunction with PPS22.
PPG24 (Planning and Noise) advises local planning authorities when determining planning applications for development which will either generate noise or be exposed to existing noise sources to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business. The authority should ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance, considering carefully in each case whether proposals for new noise-sensitive development would be incompatible with existing activities. Authorities should consider whether it is practicable to control or reduce noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Ambient noise should be taken into account when considering the application.
PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) requires flood risk to be taken into account at all stages of the development process. PPS25 recognises that flooding cannot be wholly prevented, but its impacts can be avoided and reduced through good planning and management.
Draft National Planning Statement (NPS) EN3 for Renewable Energy Infrastructure – Section 2.7 relates to onshore wind and reiterates the guidance contained in PPS22. It identifies the key impacts of onshore wind development as the historic environment, landscape and visual, noise, shadow flicker, and traffic and transport. This policy also lists a series of information to be provided with applications.
PPS (No Number Yet Allocated): Consultation (Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate) March 2010 – this consultation document brings together PPS1 Climate Change Supplement and PPS22 into a new draft PPS for Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate . The requirement for this is a response to a significant amount of new legislation and policy, such as the Climate Change Act 2008 and The Low Carbon Transition Plan and Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009). The consultation document states that the planning system sets out the overall framework for development. This should help secure progress against the UK’s emissions targets, both by direct influence on energy use and emissions through, for instance, encouraging energy efficiency, and through bringing together and encouraging actions from others. Policy LCF14: Renewable and low carbon generation is most relevant and reiterates a number of the criteria in PPS22 for determining planning application for renewable energy proposals. For particular importance, it reiterates that planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate overall need; and that significant weight should be given to wider environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy projects.
6.3 North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) - adopted September 2008.
Policy DP7 (Promote Environmental Quality) seeks to protect environmental quality by, amongst other means, respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes; maintaining and enhancing the quantity and quality of biodiversity and habitat; the protection and enhancement of the historic environment; and maintaining tranquillity of the open countryside and rural areas.
Policy EM1 (Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets) - The Region’s environmental assets should be identified, protected, enhanced and managed. Schemes should deliver an integrated approach to conserving and enhancing the landscape, natural environment, historic environment and woodlands, and where proposals affect these assets then mitigation and compensation for loss or damage should be a minimum requirement. Of particular relevance is Policy EM 1 (A) which states that planning proposals should identify, protect and maintain distinctive features that contribute to landscape character in the Region. This approach recognises the importance of landscape character assessments undertaken by local authorities.
Policy DP9 (Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change) – as an urgent regional priority, plans, strategies, proposals, scheme and investment decisions should contribute to reduction ion the Regions carbon dioxide emissions form all sources in line with national targets to reduce emissions to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. Increasing renewable energy capacity and promoting microgeneration are key measures identified to help reduce carbon emissions.
Policy EM17 (Renewable Energy) supports the development of renewable energy schemes. It states that in line with the North West Sustainable Energy Strategy, by 2010 at least 10% (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020) of the electricity supplied in the North West should be provided from renewable energy sources. The following criteria should be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. The criteria includes:
• anticipated effects on local amenity resulting from development, construction and operation of schemes (e.g. air quality, atmospheric emissions, noise, odour, water pollution and disposal of waste) • acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, including cumulative impact • effect on the region’s World Heritage Sites and other national and internationally designated sites or areas, and their settings but avoiding the creation of buffer zones • effect of development on nature conservation features, biodiversity and geodiversity, including sites, habitats and species, and which avoid significant adverse effects on sites of international nature conservation importance by assessment under the Habitats Regulations • potential benefits of development on the local economy and local community • effect on agriculture and other land based industries
Policy EM18 (Decentralised Energy Supply) expects local planning authorise to provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low carbon energy development in order to contribute to the achievement of regional renewable energy targets.
6.4 Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP)- adopted April 2004
Policy E4 (Countryside Area) – Within the countryside development will only be permitted where it is in scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape, is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping, would not result in a significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interests, and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.
Policy E3 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) – Development within and adjacent to the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which would either directly or indirectly have a significant adverse effect upon the character or harm the landscape quality, nature conservation interests, or features of geological importance will not be permitted. Any development must be of an appropriate scale and use materials appropriate to the area.
Policy E7 (Protection of Water Resources) – Development proposal which would affect an existing watercourse will only be permitted where the water quality would be maintained or improved, and there would be no significant adverse impact on the landscape, nature conservation, recreation and amenity importance of the watercourse.
Policy E12 (Nature Conservation) – Proposal must take into full account any impacts upon wildlife, wildlife habitats, protected species and important geological features. Where development is permitted, developers will be required to minimise any adverse impact and/or create and provide for the appropriate management of compensatory wildlife habitats.
Policy E22 (Wind Farms) – partly superseded by the Core Strategy, states that proposals for the development of wind turbines will be assessed against their impact on the character of the landscape (including cumulative impact), nature conservation, historical conservation and nearby dwellings.
Policy E35 (Conservation Areas) – development proposals which would adversely affect important views into and across a Conservation Area or lead to an unacceptable erosion of its historic form and layout, open spaces and townscape setting will not be permitted.
Policies E44-E46 (Archaeology) – development proposals should take into account archaeological considerations and the need to safeguard important sites from damage or destruction. Development proposals that would have an adverse impact on the site or setting of a scheduled ancient monument or other monument of national importance will not be permitted. Other sites of archaeological importance will also be protected. When development affecting such sites is acceptable in principle, a scheme for mitigation of damage should be secured to preserve the remains in situ, or where preservation is not justified adequate provision for investigation and recording before and during development will be required. An archaeological assessment and/or evaluation will be required as part of the planning application to make adequate assessment of the nature, extent and significance of the remains present and the degree to which the development is likely to affect them.
6.5 Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS) - adopted July 2008
Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of climate change. This policy requires development proposals to be integrated with the character of the landscape and where appropriate enhances biodiversity. The use of renewable energy technologies and the efficient use of land (previously developed land) are measures promoted by this policy.
Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by empowering rural communities to develop local vision and identity, identify and need local needs and manage change in the rural economy and landscape. Development should protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements.
Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) – proposals should maintain and improve the quality of development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conser vation Areas and other rural areas. New development should reflect the positive characteristics of its surroundings including the quality of the landscape.
Policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) seeks to maximise the proportion of energy generated in the District from renewable sources where compatible with other sustainability objectives. The need for renewable energy must be balanced against landscape impacts, local amenity, habitats and species, farming and land based industries and local transport networks.
Policy ER1 (Higher and Further Education) states that Lancaster University is the Districts most important economic asset and its continued growth is important to the District and to the Region. This policy seeks to support the continued expansion of Lancaster University within the existing built- up part of the campus and, outside this area, where special justification is demonstrated.
Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) – its purpose to improve the District’s environment by:
• protecting and enhancing nature conservation sites and landscapes of national importance, Listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites • minimise the use of land and non-renewable energy • resist development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and properly manage environmental risks such as flooding, • ensuring that development in the city of Lancaster and other historic areas conserves and enhances their sense of place • protect and where possible enhance habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscape
Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) – ensuring all major development proposals are accompanied by enforceable measures to minimise and mitigate the transport impacts of development.
7.0 Comment and Analysis
7.1 Procedural Matters This current application has been submitted following the recent refusal of planning permission for the installation of two turbines for Lancaster University on the site currently being considered. This earlier application was determined by Members on the 10 May 2010 and was subsequently refused for the following reason:
The proposed development, by reason of their scale, design, close proximity and visual impact, would exert a significantly harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents and as a consequence would be contrary to Planning Policy Statement 22 and saved polices E4 and E22 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.
7.2 Despite the refusal of planning permission for two wind turbines and associated infrastructure on this site, the current application must be assessed on its own merits and considered in accordance with the policies contained within the Development Plan.
7.3 Main Issues The main issues for Members to consider in the determination of this application are namely:
1. The benefits and contribution that the proposal would make to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation; and the extent of compliance with the national, regional and local policies listed in section 6.0; 2. The effects of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the landscape; and the extent of compliance with the national, regional and local policies listed in section 6.0; 3. The effects of the proposal upon the living conditions of nearby local residents, particularly in terms of visual impact, noise and shadow flicker; and the extent of compliance with the national, regional and local policies listed in section 6.0; 4. The effects of the proposal upon biodiversity and habitat; and the extent of compliance with the national, regional and local policies listed in section 6.0; 5. The effects of the proposal on television and radio interference; and the extent of compliance with national, regional and local policies listed in section 6.0;
7.4 The applicant has prepared an environmental appraisal of the scheme which comprehensively covers the likely environmental impacts and potential areas of concerns associated with the development. The five areas of concern noted above have been addressed within the submitted Environmental Statement and supporting addendums, along with a series of other considerations. It is noted that there has been a great deal of opposition to the proposal and that interested parties have raised a number of other issues in addition to the above key considerations. These concerns have been summarised in section 5.0 of this report.
7.5 Renewable Energy Generation The Climate Change Act 2008 was put in place to set legally binding targets for the UK to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. The UK Government has also set a target of 10% electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources by 2010, rising to 15% by 2015 and 20% by 2020. The EU Renewable Energy Directive has also set the UK with a legally binding target of achieving 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. Government later produced the Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) in July 2009 which provides a strategy for how the UK can achieve the EU target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020 in order to meet the wider challenge of climate change. The RES indicates that these targets will be delivered through mechanisms to provide financial support (feed-in tariffs and the Renewables Obligation); drive and clear away barriers; increase investment in emerging technologies; and create new opportunities for individuals, communities and business to harness renewable energy. Of the potential mix of technologies available to contribute towards these targets, wind energy development is identified as one of the most developed and cost-effective renewable electricity technologies.
7.6 These targets are set out in PPS22 and adopted in the RSS. The RSS provides a breakdown of renewable energy generation targets for each County by renewable energy type. For example in 2010 Lancashire should have been generating 205.5MW of electricity from onshore wind turbines (including wind farms, clusters and single large turbines) and 239MW from all renewable technologies, increasing to 249MW and 297.4MW respectively in 2015. As of November 2010, the total operating capacity (all renewable technologies) amounted top 137.8MW; a shortfall of 101.16MW relative to the 2010 figure. Further updated figures indicate that the total operating capacity (onshore wind turbines over 1MW with planning permission and operational) in Lancashire amounts to 142.4MW . This is a shortfall of 63.1MW to meet the latest 2010 target (from onshore wind turbines including wind farms, clusters and single large turbines) for the County. The struggle to meet targets across the Country has led to the publication of the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan 2009 and the UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009, which is likely to lead to adoption of a new national planning policy - Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate , superseding PPS1’s companion guide and PPS22. This is currently a consultation paper. In addition to these national and regional drivers, adopted Core Strategy policy ER7 supports renewable energy development in the whole, commenting that encouraging and establishing the District as a centre of Environmental technologies is part of the Districts economic vision. It does however indicate that the need for renewable energy must be balanced against landscape impacts, biodiversity and land based industries, such as farming. Partially saved policy E22 of the Local Plan takes a similar approach.
7.7 The above policies and targets clearly emphasise the growing need for renewable energy installation in both the Region and the UK as a whole.
7.8 Lancaster University is the District's most important economic asset and its continued growth is important to the District and the Region. The University are committed to UK Government targets of reducing carbon emissions and recognises that sustainability and a reduction in carbon emissions is an essential part of their future growth and development. Lancaster University’s Energy and Carbon Management Plan (2009) sets out the University’s principal strategy to manage carbon emissions in future years and has been developed as part of the Higher Education Carbon Management Programme process. In addition, the University also have a Sustainable Energy Strategy (2007) which forms part of their infrastructure Masterplan.
7.9 The total electricity consumption of Lancaster University in the year 2008/2009 was 32.3 GWh (32,300 MWh). The primary function of the proposed wind turbines is to harness wind energy to create a clean and sustainable source of electricity to replace part of the University’s grid supplied electricity. The installed capacity of the development will be 2MW which will generate an electrical output of approximately 5,387 MWh per annum. This represents 17% of the University's overall electrical consumption and in turn it will also result in a 10% reduction to annual utilities carbon emissions at the University. It is anticipated that the turbine would generate on average as much electricity as is consumed by approximately 1146 households per year. In light of these figures, it is quite clear that the proposal would positively contribute towards meeting national and regional targets and such would conform to Regional Spatial Strategy polices EM17 and EM18, together with national and local planning policy. It is noted in a number of recent appeal decisions, that the need to reduce carbon emissions is not just something on a Government wish-list. There is a statutory obligation to produce substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over a relatively short period of time. As such the need for renewable energy through development proposals must carry considerable weight.
7.10 Efficiency of Wind Energy Development The companion guide to PPS22 indicates that the principle of harnessing wind energy by wind turbines is well established and that there is no doubt about the technical feasibility of wind power. In addition, it states that the UK is particularly well placed to utilise wind power. Unlike many universities, Lancaster University’s rural setting places it in a unique position whereby the utilisation of wind power will make for very high yielding from a sustainable energy resource and as such will make a significant contribution to the Governments targets for reducing carbon emissions.
7.11 Throughout the consultation process one of the key areas of concern from many objectors is the perceived ineffectiveness and inefficiency of wind technology, together with concerns about carbon emissions produced during the construction, transportation and installation of wind turbines. It is noted that some objectors believe the University could consider other renewable energy proposals, such as smaller turbines on the campus itself, together with better housing keeping (tuning lights off) rather than a proposal for a large scale turbine in the proposed location. A further criticism put forward is that off-shore wind turbines/farms are more efficient and a less intrusive method of generating wind than on-shore wind turbines.
7.12 Whilst some of these concerns are valid points, the Government clearly takes the issue of climate change and its implications very seriously. There is a vast array of policy documents produced by Government which endorse the use of renewables and wind technology in particular. These have been fed into national planning policy (PPS22) which clearly states that wind energy development is accepted as a vital method for meeting energy demands of the Country and states that planning authorities should not reject planning applications simple because the level of output is small – they still provide a limited but valuable contribution towards overall outputs. Similarly, the potential to generate substantial amounts of renewable energy from offshore projects should not be used as a justification to set lower targets for onshore projects. Opposition on the grounds of the efficiency, validity and viability of wind energy technology and development is not a material consideration. This issue has been addressed in many of the recent appeal decisions:
Robin Brooks, the Planning Inspector for the Sillfield appeal (APP/M0933/A/09/2099304) reported: “…the precise nature of climate change, the contribution that wind power can make to averting such change, its inherent efficiency, the scale of carbon dioxide savings…are matters for the political arena rather than a planning [application]”.
Paul Griffiths, the Planning Inspector for the appeal at Newlands Farm, Carlisle (APP/E0915/A/09/2101659) reported: “…Key Principle (v) of PPS22 confirms that assumptions about technical and commercial feasibility of renewable energy projects should not be made. I find it difficult to understand why a developer would take a scheme to an Inquiry, if the project was not commercially sound”.
7.13 It is abundantly clear in current planning policy of the scale and urgency to tackle climate change. It is equally clear that the benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight in the determination of planning applications. In this context, the output from the proposal and its overall contribution to meeting regional targets for the production of energy from renewable sources is acceptable and complies with the relevant policies listed in section 6.0 of this report. How these benefits balance against other material considerations will be discussed in the following sections.
7.14 Landscape and Visual Impact The applicant has carried out a thorough Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) as part of the submission and has undertaken this with regard to best practice and relevant legislation, policy and guidance. Computer generated Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps and wireframes have been produced within a 15km radius. These are based on bare ground conditions and as such represent the worst case scenario; they exclude any localised screening or intervening structures and therefore fail to take account of anything that lies between the viewpoint and the turbine. ZTV or visibility maps subsequently tend to over-estimate the extent of visibility and as such the applicant has also provided a series of visualisations (or photomontages). These help illustrate a more representative view and are common practice when dealing with applications of this type, although it is acknowledged that such visualisations do not provide the perfect view/experience of the development as they can not illustrate the motion of the turning blades. Notwithstanding this a selection of 12 representative viewpoints experienced from various distances and directions and landscape character areas were agreed with the local planning authority prior to the application being submitted. Despite some criticism from objectors, the methodology undertaken as part of the submitted LVIA follows standard practice employed in this field and is not disputed or questioned by Officers or consultees, such as Natural England and the County Landscape Officer.
7.15 The aim of the LIVA is to identify, predict and elevate potential key effects arising from the proposed development, in particular the visual effects and landscape effects. Firstly, it should be noted that there is a distinction between landscape effects and visual effects. The former is the degree to which the site and the immediate landscape setting can accommodate change with regard to effects on its fabric, character and quality. Visual effects of the proposal relate to how the proposal will change the character of available views and change the visual amenity of visual receptors. The sensitivity of potential visual receptors will vary depending on the location of viewpoints, receptor activity and the importance of a viewpoint. Parameters of landscape sensitivity equally depend on the landscape value, quality and capacity to accommodate development. The applicants have clearly identified that residents living within view of the proposal would usually be regarded as the highest sensitivity group, although the threshold for significance of the visual effects relies on professional judgement. This is a matter wh ich warrants careful consideration of local circumstances. The assessment suggests that it is generally rare for the impact of the development on a single property to be categorised as high significance for the development overall. This is an area of continued controversy and will be discussed later in the report, although it is clear from previous Inspectors decisions that the impact of a wind turbine proposal on a single property can clearly be classified as ‘high sensitivity’ and result in an impact of high significance.
7.16 In terms of the assessment undertaken, for clarification purposes landscape sensitivity is described as high, medium and low; and the magnitude of change arising from development described as substantial, moderate, slight or negligible. Magnitude of change can vary in response to distance; the duration of the effect; the extent of development in the view and the field of view; the background to the development; and other built development visible. The significance of landscape or visual effect is assessed in terms of major, moderate, minor or none. For example, where landscape sensitivity is considered high and the magnitude of change arising from the development is described as substantial (i.e. a total loss or major alteration to key landscape elements/features such that the baseline landscape character will be fundamentally change), the significance of the landscape and visual impact is regarded ‘major’. The measure of significance does not however necessarily imply an adverse effect. The effect may be temporary or permanent; direct or indirect; positive or negative. These terms are used to provide consistency throughout the submission and form part of the analysis of landscape and visual impact.
7.17 The application site is located adjacent to the M6 motorway south of Lancaster within the rolling lowland landscape of the nationally recognised Bowland Fringe and Pendle Hill landscape character area (No.33), which sits adjacent to the Morecambe Bay and Lune Estuary charac ter area (No.31). The key characteristics, amongst many, of the Bowland Fringe and Pendle Hill include:
• undulating rolling landscapes; • Small to medium-sized fields enclosed by well maintained hedgerows and mature trees; • Extensive semi-natural woodland, on both valley bottoms, sides and ridges; • Meandering, tree-fringed watercourses with oxbow lakes within predominantly pastoral landscape; • Dense north-south communication corridor (M6, A6, railway line and Lancaster Canal); • Small villages, hamlets, scattered farmsteads of local traditional vernacular
7.18 The site is situated in an area which is a pinch point in the region between these two landscape characters areas and could be described as a communications corridor where transport (M6, A6 and railway), services and communications routes come together. As a consequence, transmission lines, electricity pylons, the M6 motorway form prominent features in the landscape; together with the larger buildings on the university campus (Bowland Tower) and distant views of Heysham power station.
7.19 With the exception of the above nationally recognised character areas, the site is not located within any national or regional landscape designation. It is, however, only 1.4km from the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. At the local level the site is situated within designated ‘countryside area’.
7.20 The Lancashire County Council Landscape Character Assessment ‘A Landscape Strategy for Lancashire’ (2000) has provided baseline information for the submitted LVIA. This document defines a number of Landscape Character Types (LCTs), which are then sub-divided into Landscape Character Areas (LCAs). The development site falls within two landscape character types and areas (LCTs and LCAs). The northern half of the site falls within LCT7: Farmed Ridges and LCA7c: Langthwaite Ridge. The southern part of the site falls within LCT12: Low Coastal Drumlins and LCA12c: Carnforth–Galgate –Cockerham. For clarity, the proposed turbine is situated within LCA 7c: Langthwate Ridge with the access and construction compounds located within LCA 12c: Carnforth–Galgate –Cockerham.
7.21 The characteristics of the two character areas are quite distinct. Langthwaite Ridge which has an orientation of north south and appears relatively low in comparison to the backdrop of the Bowland Fells. The distinctive round-ridged profile with wooded sides sets it apart from the adjacent low lying drumlin field. The mix of farmland and woodland is typical of this character type and in this location is noticeably visible from distance views. The main characteristics of the Low Coastal Drumlin LCT (LCA12c) is that of low lying land extending behind the coast from Morecambe Bay between Cockerham in the south and Carnforth in the north. This landscape supports an extremely high proportion of the built up areas of Lancaster and Morecambe and as such provides a convenient transport corridor (M6, A6, and mainline Railway) which run side-by-side in a north south orientation.
7.22 The Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development in Lancashire (Lovejoy, 2005) provides strategic guidance on the sensitivity of Lancashire’s landscapes to wind energy development. The application site falls within a LCA which is identified to have a moderate-high sensitivity to wind energy development. Notwithstanding the findings of sensitivity, this study also identifies the potential scale of wind energy development considered most appropriate within each of the LCAs. Langthwaite Ridge is identified as being appropriate to accommodate small to possibly medium scale clusters of wind turbines, with small scale defined as 2-5 (nos) 1.3MW+ turbines, although this is clearly subject to other material considerations and the site specific sensitivities, which may or may not demonstrate a smaller or greater capacity than that indicated in the Lovejoy report. It is also worth noting that the technology of wind turbines has probably advanced considerably since this report was completed and as such, what may have been regarded small scale then may not longer be regarded small scale. However, until this report is updated, this document and the guidance therein provides a baseline for proposals in Lancashire.
7.23 In terms of landscape and visual effects, the development proposed would have different impacts (temporary/permanent, direct/indirect and positive/negative) in response to the construction, operational and decommissioning stages of the development, although it is clear that the operational stage of the wind turbine will give rise to prolonged landscape and visual effects. Whilst this is the case, temporary effects at the construction and again at the decommissioning stage will occur, including ground excavation, compound and storage areas, vehicle movement, foundation areas and cable runs. The application indicates that the construction operation would take place over a period of approximately 5 months. The landscape effects encountered during the construction and to lessen extent the decommissioning stages will be considerable, but by in large would be temporary and localised and as such would be considered ‘moderate’ to ‘minor’. The only exception would be the direct effects caused by the loss of 690m of hedgerows, which has been adequately mitigated through the landscaping proposals. This will be discussed under the biodiversity section of the report. All land, other than the access track, the turbine and crane pad, would be removed and the land reinstated back to its original agricultural form upon the turbine becoming operational. The proposal therefore maintains a significant proportion of pasture land across the site (14.3ha), which would allow the tenant farmer to continue utilising the land for grazing sheep. The reinstatement of the site upon construction can be adequately controlled by an appropriately worded condition.
7.24 The LVIA clearly indicates that the direct effects (landscape effects) of the development will be localised with the indirect effects (visual effects) experienced over a greater distance from the turbine. There will clearly be a substantial magnitude of change to the fabric, character, quality and visual amenity of the landscape within a 3km range which would result in significant effects. The ZTVs clearly show that the theoretical visibility of the turbine (both hub height and blade tip height) would be widespread within 5km of the proposed turbine. Beyond the 5km range visibility would be predominately experienced to the west, south and south east with more dispersed visibility to the north and east. The submitted visualisations help illustrate the likely landscape and visual effects of the development. The effects are however assessed based on landscape sensitively. Of the 12 sites selected, which includes sites within 0.8km – 19.4km of the application site, the sites most likely to experience significant landscape effects are those where landscape sensitivity is high and the magnitude of change substantial. These include Bailrigg, Galgate, Bay Horse Road, Quernmore and Jubilee Tower. The latter three sites are regarded highly sensitivity due to their location within the Forest of Bowland AONB (landscape designated and visitor/recreational attraction) and the former due to sensitivity to residential receptors in particular. Visual effects in particular are concerned wholly with the effect of the development on views and the general visual amenity as experienced by people (receptors). Visual effects are assessed in relation to viewpoints, settlement, properties, tourist and recreational destination and transport routes. The proposed development will be visible from many aspects within a 5km range. The most prominent views will be from the motorway heading northbound and from nearby roads and properties within approximately 1km. The site will also be visible from the adjacent golf course and nearby public rights of way. There are a number of individual residential properties that will have clear sight of the proposed turbines. The impact on residential amenity will be discussed under a separate heading.
7.25 From a landscape perspective, the critical concern relates to the impact of the development upon the landscape where it will be situated and its relationship to the nearby LCAs and the AONB. The LVIA has identified the landscape effects on Langthwaite Ridge as Major to Moderate Major within 3km of the application site and Substantial to Moderate, leading to Major to Moderate Major within the Galgate-Cockerham-Carnforth LCA, again within 3km of the application site. As a consequence of the location of the site within close proximity to neighbouring LCAs, it is inevitable that there will be the localised blurring of landscape character area boundaries. This localised impact is of significant concern. The omission of the second turbine (southern turbine) however, has been regarded a positive step towards tackling landscape impact. This has removed previous concerns about the ‘stacking’ effect of the development and the fact that the two turbines were located within two different LCAs. However, it is clear from consultation responses, in particular the County Landscape Officer that the scale of the proposed turbine remains a great concern from a landscaping perspective.
7.26 The intricate and small scale landscape patterns formed by groups of trees, plantations and field boundaries on the ridge upon which the turbine would be located tend to sit at right angles to the contours. Both in isolation and in combination these patterns tend to lead the eye upwards to the ridge skyline. This landscape geometry and a natural tendency to look towards ridge skylines greatly enhances the potential for a tall vertical structure in the landscape to appear as a dominating feature. The Landscape Officer remains of the opinion that the proposed turbine is too tall for the rolling lowland landscape and as such fails to create a harmonious visual relationship with the landscape character area. The Landscape Officer has also highlighted the importance of siting and design in the landscape and has indicated turbines have a more harmonious relationship with landforms and other landscape elements when the ground to tip height is less than one half to one third of the key features in the landscape. The key landscape features and scale comparators in the area where likely landscape visual impacts would be most significant (distances of up to 3km from the wind turbine) include the ridge on which the turbine would be sited (high points ranging from 96m - 144m), trees, hedgerows, small scale farm buildings and dwellings, Lancaster University buildings, communication masts and electricity pylons. The ground to tip height of the proposed wind turbine would exceed the heights of all of these landscape features by, in many cases, a considerable margin. The proposed location of the wind turbine close to and amongst these features rather than being separated from them by a large proportion of open space would further emphasise the dominating effect. It is possible to argue that the presence of existing man-made infrastructure and vertical features within the landscape makes for an appropriate place to introduce an additional landscape feature of significant scale, as landscape quality is already compromised to a certain degree. However, the landscape experts would suggest otherwise and maintain their view that other vertical features simply exaggerate the disproportionate scale of the turbine. This effect is clearly noticeable when viewing the site up close. However, in more distant views, the turbine, despite appearing a prominent feature within the landscape on the top of the ridgeline, will appear of similar scale to existing infrastructure and other land masses. It is clear from the visualisations that the turbine has no backdrop when viewed from the east, north and south. It is only views from the west where the scheme is partially ‘backgrounded’ by the Forest of Bowland uplands and the impact of scale is less of an issue.
7.27 Aside from the height of the turbine and its relationship to other vertical features and landmasses, the County Landscape Officer also has concerns that the rotor diameter of 82m out of a total ground to tip height of 100m as proposed would also give a disproportionate blade length to tower height. Whilst it is acknowledged long blades move slower than shorter ones and therefore can appear to be less visually distracting, the sheer size of the proposed blades in comparison to surrounding features and the tower would really emphasize the machine's dynamic presence in the landscape. It is inevitable therefore, that the proposed development by virtue of its scale and location would result in a harmful impact on the landscape when viewed from localised vantages points in particular. The balancing effect of landscape impact, however, must be considered against the benefits of the proposal. This will be discussed at the end of this section of the report.
7.28 With regards to other receptors of the development, the visual impact from the motorway and adjacent roads is considered not significant, although clearly in closer range to the turbine, in particular travelling north from junction 33, the effects would be more profound. From the Lancashire Coastal Way the LVIA concludes a slight to moderate visual effect despite possible significant effects from viewpoints within 5km. It also concludes slight to moderate visual effects from national cycle route 6 and regional cycle route 90. Notwithstanding this, the overall effects on these routes would not be significant.
7.29 Following on from concerns expressed about the overall landscape impact, there have been a number of objections received from residents of Bailrigg Village expressing concerns that the proposed development would have an overbearing and dominant impact on the ‘distinctive character’ of the village. The submitted LVIA has considered the landscape and visual effects of the development on this settlement, concluding that the magnitude of change would be substantial and the level of effect considered major, particular for properties on the northern perimeter of the settlement and those occupying elevated positions. Notwithstanding this, the LVIA indicates that the potential visibility of the wind turbine is reduced due to the orientation of dwellings, topography and intervening vegetation and structures. Officers have visited Bailrigg village to consider the impact of the development on the overall setting of the village. Private residential amenity issues will be discussed later in the report. With regards to setting, there are a small number of dwellings within the overall village which will experience more prominent views of the development and the impact on these cases could be regarded significant; however overall Officers are of the opinion that the setting and character of Bailrigg village and the setting of the Listed farm complex (Bailrigg Farm) would not be significantly compromised by the development. The village sits in a hollow at approximately 50m AOD with the M6 motorway situated to the east running in a north-south direction at approximately 80m AOD, together with the A6 and main railway line situated to the west, albeit further away than the motorway and on lower land. In addition, immediately north of the village within 250m of a number of dwellings are the large transmission pylons and lines which run from Heysham to Quernmore, which also cross the application site. These large, man-made structures, in such close proximity to the village have quite a noticeable and imposing impact. The proposed turbine will be situated on the east side of the motorway located approximately 800m from the core of the settlement. Given the turbine location on the top of the ridge, it is expected that it will be visible from a number of locations within the settlement, including Bailrigg Lane when approaching from the A6, some of the existing dwellings and the public footpath which runs from the settlement to the University. Whilst it is accepted that the motion of the turning blades would exaggerate the structures presence within the landscape, the overall impact of the development on the setting of the settlement is not considered significantly overbearing, by reason of the distance of the turbine to the settlement; the difference in topography; and the presence of existing infrastructure in this location.
7.30 The submitted LVIA has also considered the impact of the development on the settlements of Galgate and Ellel. These settlements and a number of properties within 5km of the proposed turbine could experience some form of visibility of the development, as shown in the submitted ZTV maps and visualisations. The overall landscape and visual effects from Ellel and Galgate is considered to have a Major/Moderate effect, however on balance given the distance form the proposed turbine (in excess of 1km) and again the presence of other major infrastructure located between the site and these settlements, the landscape impact would not be considered unacceptable from a planning point of view. Settlements located further afield, including Glasson Dock and Overton have also been assessed but the conclusions draw no significant effect. There is no reason to dispute these conclusions in this instance.
7.31 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects The proximity of the proposed turbine to other wind farms has also been assessed and forms an important part of the ES. Neighbouring wind farm/turbines considered include Caton Moor, located approximately 9km north east of the proposed site within the Central Bowland Fells LCA, and the now operational turbine at Dewlay Cheese in Garstang, some 13km south of the proposed site within the Forton-Garstang-Catterell LCA. All three sites are located within different LCAs substantial distances away from one another. In view of this they are able to co-exist without transformation of landscape type and coalescence of character. The application has further assessed the potential cumulative impact which could be generated from schemes pending decisions or having submitted scoping and screening opinions to the local planning authority. Since the submission of the application, two 125m turbines have been allowed at appeal at Eagland Hill in Wyre Borough. It is considered that the proposed site is located considerable distance from this site and again would not give rise to coalescence of LCAs or LCTs. No objections have been raised in respect of cumulative landscape and visual effects.
7.32 Conclusions for landscape and visual impact In addition to planning policy in response to renewable energy, one of the key principles of PPS7 is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character. Similarly, both regional and local planning policy seek to protect and enhance environmental assets and ensure new development is scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape, is appropriate to its surroundings. There is no doubt that the character and appearance of the landscape would fundamentally change and the countryside in this location would be significantly affected. However, the site in question does not occupy a completely uninterrupted landscape. The site is situated in a transitional landscape dominated by communications infrastructure and transport networks. The presence of large pylons, the university buildings (Bowland Tower) and the motorway on either side of the site already have a massive impact on the character of the landscape. It should also be noted that as part of the NW Coastal Connections Project in relation to the National Grid upgrades to supply Heysham Nuclear Power station and the anticipated new build by 2018, the Heysham to Quernmore link will require significant upgrades and potentially a second row of pylons and transmission lines, further adding to the communications corridor that presently exists within this landscape. Such an application, if and when it is submitted, would be determined by the Infrastructure Planning Committee (national government). However, that said, the character of Langthwaite Ridge would dramatically change and would represent a ‘wind farm landscape’ that would have a localised adverse impact on the character and appearance of the ‘countryside area’, contrary to policy PPS7, DP7, EM1, E4, E1 and SC3. Notwithstanding this, a significant factor to be considered is the fact that the turbines have a lifespan of 25 years and after that it is anticipated that the land will be reinstated to its former condition. A recent appeal Inspector comments that ‘ twenty- five years is a tiny proportion of the history of the landscape…and if landscape is to survive in the long-term future then consideration must be given to accepting shot-term harm to its character ’.
7.33 It is clear from the submission and from Officers' observations, that there will be a significant localised landscape and visual impact as a result of the proposed development. However, whether this would outweigh the overall benefits of the proposal requires a carefully considered and balanced judgement with regards to national, regional and local planning policy. PPS22 states that renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. It is becoming evident from recent appeal decisions (both allowed and dismissed) and the increase in planning submissions for turbines in this district and others, that developments for large scale turbines in more sensitive, intricate and more densely populated and urbanised locations are becoming more frequent. This, one suspects, is principally due to the larger landscapes being at full or near capacity or that such landscapes are designated and afforded the greatest level of landscape protection. This in itself means sites outside of designated areas are more likely to become under pressure to develop. The Government is under growing pressure to support renewable energy proposals and as such we are going to have to accept development of this nature in non-designated landscapes more often. On balance the landscape and visual impacts identified would be outweighed by the long-term environmental benefits of the proposal. This was the same approach excepted by members when assessing the previous proposal for two turbines.
7.34 The impact on residential amenity There are a number of residential properties in very close proximity to the proposed turbines. Issues such as shadow flicker, noise and the effects on living conditions such as outlook are a serious concern. These are covered in the section below.
7.35 Shadow flicker Shadow flicker is a particular phenomenon associated with wind turbines. It is the effect of the sun shining behind rotating blades and creating an intermittent shadow inside nearby buildings. The advice given in the companion guide to PPS22 explains that shadow flicker can only occur when sun shines through the turbine blades, thereby casting moving shadows. It only occurs inside buildings and only where the shadows are seen through a narrow window opening creating the effect of light flicking on and off. The guidance also indicates that it will only occur when certain metrological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail and as such the effect is not constant. For the effects of shadow flicker to occur there would have to be uninterrupted bright sunshine for shadows to be cast. Subsequently, buildings, trees and other topographical features could help reduce the potential effect. It should also be noted that the effects of shadow flicker will only occur 130 degrees either side of north relative to the turbine with shadows potentially case 10 times the rotor diameter (up to 820m of the application site). Despite the specific conditions needed for the phenomenon to occur, when it does occur it can be a source of nuisance and as such the impact of this on residential amenity in particular is a material consideration. The effects of shadow flicker can also be categorised as a potential health effect, often associated with epilepsy, although some residents have indicated it could lead to other health implications, such as increasing the risk of migraines. In terms of the risk to epilepsy, the guidance in PPS22 indicates that 5% photo-sensitive epileptics are sensitive to the lowest frequencies of 2.5-3 Hz. Modern turbines are known to operate at levels below 1 Hz (this relates to the blade passing frequency – one cycle per second) and as such the proposed turbine is unlikely to give rise to undue health implications arising from the development.
7.36 There is no planning guidance available regarding what levels of shadow flicker may be considered acceptable in the UK. In the absence of this guidance, the applicant has adopted a generally accepted maximum figure of 30 minutes per day; 30 hours per year; or 30 days per year which every is the greatest. These guidelines are derived from guidance applicable in Germany. As such the applicant has suggested that a significant effect only occurs above these thresholds. In terms of amenity issues arising from shadow flicker, the submitted application has quantified the potential and expected effects at a number of sites in close proximity to the application site. The submitted ES indicates the worst case scenario and expected levels of shadow flicker at 21 receptor points. 4 of these 21 points have been identified above the threshold of the ‘potential’ effects which could lead to a significant effect on residential amenity. However, the ‘expected’ figures indicate all 21 receptors to fall below these thresholds. Whilst the applicant suggests that the timing of the potential shadow flicker could help mitigate the significance of the phenomenon. For example, when people are generally away from home (working hours), or early in the morning when people may still be asleep, this alone is not adequate mitigation and would not prevent undue harm to residential amenity. As such, if Members are minded to approve the development, this is a matter which could be appropriately addressed by a condition. However, again there has to be a balance made between the significance of the effect on residential amenity and the benefits of the proposal. It does not seem reasonable to require the turbine to be shut down at all the possible times at all properties where the phenomenon could occur where the figures provided indicate it would be below the suggested thresholds, however, the level of objections received would warrant specific control and the thresholds suggested may me too high – even a small amount of flicker could be regarded a nuisance. As such condition requiring a scheme for the avoidance of shadowflicker for properties within ten times the rotor diameter seems an accepted approach. Such a scheme would effectively require a control system to be employed as part of the wind turbine control system to calculate whether shadow flicker may affect a property. This is something the applicants are prepared to accept as part of any permission.
7.37 Concerns regarding light reflection can be adequately mitigated by conditioning the final colour and finish of the turbine to ensure it has an anti-reflective matt finish.
7.38 Noise Due to the proximity of the development to nearby residential properties, the issue of noise is a serious consideration. Members may recall this was a significant concern at the time of assessing the previous scheme and as such the Council appointed an independent environmental noise consultant (Martec) to verify the submitted acoustic information. Martec drew the following conclusions:
ETSU-R-97 [1] is the de-facto standard for assessing the noise impact of proposed wind farms. The developers have broadly followed the techniques and methodology of this standard. Although not checked in detail, the developer’s prediction methodology appears appropriate. A comparison of sample calculations yielded the same result from the developer as our own prediction model. The monitoring undertaken by Martec of background noise at two of the same locations used by the developer, tends to confirm their results. The developer’s predictions indicate wind turbine noise levels within the limits that ETSU-R- 97 would set for this location. With regard to low frequency noise/infrasound emissions, it is considered that this would not be a significant issue.
The submitted proposal is for a single turbine only in the same location has the northern turbine proposed under planning application 10/00039/FUL. As such the assessment undertaken as part of the current submission and the advice provided by the Councils consultant previously is accepted.
7.39 In accordance with PPS22, the submitted noise assessment carried out by the applicant has had regard to the methodology and guidance in ETSU-R-97. Whilst the document is ten years old, it remains the de-facto standard for assessing potential noise impacts from wind farms and as such is appropriate in this case. This is disputed by nearby residents who have brought an appeal decision (APP/W4705/A/09/2114165 - Bradford) to the Council's attention where the Inspector was not convinced noise from the turbines would be adequately within the levels considered acceptable under ETSU-R-97 to prevent undue harm to nearby residents. The Inspector of this case also felt that the use of a condition to mitigation from such an impact would be unsatisfactory where predicated margins were tight and as such a condition would be unreasonable. Whilst the points raised in this appeal are clearly valid, in this case (the proposed scheme) the noise figures predicted relative to background noise levels have been accepted and are not disputed by Officers. It is also worth noting that there have been more recent appeals where turbines have been in close proximity to dwellings and ETSU-R-97 has been the accepted guidance used to assess noise impact in determining planning applications for wind turbines. Similarly, Inspectors have accepted the use of conditions to control noise where necessary. As one Inspector as said: “ETSU-R-97 advises that conditions controlling wind farm noise at the nearest noise-sensitive locations represent the most appropriate approach. If the appellants had deliberately put a gloss on their noise predictions they would achieve nothing” (Eagland Hill, David Pinner APP/U2370/A/10/2129772 )”.
7.40 In addition to resident objections, a letter has been submitted from an acoustic consultant acting on behalf of one of the neighbours. This consultant questions the data used in the submitted noise assessment, and particularly criticises background noise levels and the wind data. Irrespective of this, he concludes: “Notwithstanding the problems with the background noise levels and the turbine calculations, I have little doubt that the noise in the area is dominated by road traffic noise during the quiet day period and that turbine noise will rarely exceed the road traffic noise at any time during the day or evening ……..” “On balance it does seem likely that turbine noise will not exceed 5dB above the average background noise from traffic at night. The main problem at night is that, unlike day, the background noise level from road traffic varies considerably over the period of the whole night”.
7.41 PPS22 Companion guide requires that turbines should be located so that increases in ambient noise around noise-sensitive developments are kept to acceptable levels, in comparison with background noise levels. This technical guidance goes on that state that ‘ this would normally be achieved through good design of the turbines and through allowing sufficient distance between the turbines and any existing noise-sensitive development so that noise levels will not normally be significant ’.
7.42 It is acknowledged that the proposed development is located within very close proximity to one residential dwelling in particular (within 260m of the turbine) and that many residents and consultees have referred to separation distances applied in Europe, Wales and Scotland and those suggested by the World Health Organisation. Some have also indicated that PPS22 states turbines should be sited 350m away from noise-sensitive properties. Whilst this may be accepted as best practice and would seem a sensible approach where constraints allow – as a good separation is clearly the most effective means of protection, the policy does not explicitly state this; it provides indicative noise levels of a wind farm at 350m and compares this to other every-day activities. This technical guidance refers to a ‘sufficient distance’.
7.43 ETSU-R-97 suggests that noise from wind energy developments in terms of 10 minute LA90 index should be limited to 5dB above prevailing background noise levels during the day (07.00h – 23.00h) and during the night, and during the night 43dB (LA90) or 5dB above night-time prevailing background noise.
7.45 The data collected to provide an assessment of potential noise impacts indicates quite high background noise levels. Whilst it may appear surprising to many given the predominately rural character of the area, the motorway noise is clearly the main contributor to this. The consultants acting on behalf of the Council under the previous proposal verified the applicant’s data and from their own measurements they had no reason to differ from the developer’s description of the noise environment or the predictions made in ES. Despite the comments received from neighbours and another expert in the field, there is no reason to dispute the figures proposed for this application, and even if noise levels were slightly higher as the neighbours consultant claims, he too indicates it is unlikely that the turbine would exceed above the ETSU-R-97 limits (5dB above background noise level). Subsequently, despite the close proximity of the development it appears that all nearby properties fall within the range prescribed by ETSU-R-97 and as such it is unlikely that the proposed development would have significant adverse impact on nearby residents in terms of noise disturbance. Conditions can be imposed to ensure noise levels do not exceed the accepted limits. This would safeguard the residents of nearby dwellings in terms of noise. The submitted ES indicates that a condition limiting aggregate turbine noise to 5dB above prevailing background noise curve should be applied. As such, on the basis that the applicant is prepared to accept a noise restriction condition which allies with ETSU-R-97, the local planning authority do not believe such a condition would be unreasonable in this instance. The Council’s Environmental Health Service, despite their reservations about the proximity of the turbine to the dwelling at Valley View Kennels, (known as Andalucía) have not objected to the development and agree a condition could be imposed to adequately protect neighbours from noise nuisance.
7.46 Noise from modern wind turbines, particular the RePower types (or similar) as indicated in the application, will be associated with aerodynamic noise only. Tonal noise from mechanical components has virtually been eliminated from modern machines. Concerns regarding Ultra Low Frequency Sound (ULF) or infrasound are unlikely to be substantiated. The technical guidance for PPS22 indicates that there is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise from wind turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health. The Council’s noise consultant previously considered this potential concern and concluded that there is no evidence that ground transmitted ULF sound from wind turbines is at sufficient levels to be above perception levels within residential properties [let alone be harmful to human health], nor that ETSU-R-97 is deficient in this respect.
7.47 With regards to the construction and decommission stages of development there will inevitably be a period of increased noise and disturbance to nearby residents, as a consequence of additional traffic movements, site preparation and construction works. It is, however, common practice for most developments to restrict the hours of construction to normal working hours. This would apply to this development, although it is anticipated that this would exclude the delivery of the turbine towers and blades, as these consist abnormal loads that would normally be transported at off-peaks times to prevent traffic disruption. An appropriately worded condition would adequately deal with this matter.
7.48 Visual Impact - Living Conditions Due to the proximity of the turbines to nearby residential dwellings it is understandable that local residents have stressed significant concern. Unlike Scotland and Wales, there are no statutory limits (at present) or policy separation distances for wind turbines in relation to nearby dwellings set for England. It is also clear from a number of recent appeal decisions (Gargreave, Sillfield, Carlisle and Eagland Hill) that Inspectors are paying greater regard to the effects of wind turbine development on the living conditions of nearby properties, particularly within c650m from wind turbine development. With due consideration to these decisions, and by judging the submitted application on its own merits, the development is considered to have a significant impact on several nearby properties. This impact of the development on living conditions was the reason for the previous refusal of planning permission. In the previous case, the southern turbine caused the greatest level of concern as there were six properties all virtually within 350m of the turbine, with the nearest property only 255m away directly facing the whole turbine. This concern was exacerbated by the removal of a significant proportion of woodland which would dramatically alter the overall outlook from some of these properties and therefore appear extremely overbearing. The omission of the southern turbine previously proposed does not in itself indicate that the propose development is now acceptable. This case has been considered on its own merits in light of the information provided. The case officer has visited the properties most affected by the development to assess the impact on residential amenity and has taken on board the objections and concerns raised.
7.49 The application has been submitted with a detailed LVIA and a further residential amenity survey, which has assessed four properties the developers and the local planning authority previously agreed were most affected by the development. The ES also provides a list of residential receptors and indicates their proximity to the scheme. The applicants have also assessed wider settlements as part of the landscape assessment, including as Bailrigg. Notwithstanding this, there has been strong opposition to the development on the grounds of residential amenity and quite profound criticism of the proposed residential amenity work undertaken. Like the landscape assessment, the residential amenity assessment has been carried out by experts in this field and in accordance with best practice. This includes the production of accurate computer generated visualisation to illustrate the proposed development and its relationship to four specific dwellings. Concerns that the visualisations are not accurate must be given little weight. It is anticipated that the applicant will provide further comments with regards to these concerns before the planning committee. Members will be verbally updated.
7.50 Moving on to our assessment of the proposal, clearly safeguarding living conditions and considering the impact of development on residential amenity is a material planning consideration and one which carries significant weight in the determination of the application, particularly given the close proximity of the development to a number of properties. The significance of potential harm to living conditions is important, although it is a matter which needs to be carefully considered and weighed in the balance of pros and cons of the proposal.
7.51 There are a number of properties within 1km of the proposed turbine which will be affected by the development, although the application focuses on four particular properties which are considered most sensitive to the development. These individual properties will be assessed in more detail below, along with properties at Bailrigg. With regards to properties previously considered most affected (under the previous scheme), the removal of the southern turbine from the University’s proposal would, in Officer's opinion, reduce the impact of the development considerably, particularly on Eastrigg. This property is approximately 500m south - south east of the proposed turbine, located on the east side of Hazelrigg Lane with a west-east orientation. This property will however have clear sight of the proposed access and the first section of the access track, although this would not unduly affect their living conditions or outlook. There would be no direct view of the turbine from principal windows or the garden and as such the development is not regarded significant and overbearing.
7.52 1 and 2 Hazelrigg Barns are located 450m south of the proposed turbine, with an east-west orientation. The barns are positioned fronting Hazelrigg Lane with their principle elevations overlooking the landscape towards the AONB (east) and a mature area of woodland to the west (rear) now protected by a TPO. When looking north over existing intervening structures (adjacent buildings and trees) the turbine, in part, may be visible from the rear gardens of these properties, but would not appear overbearing or dominant to significantly affect residential amenity, particularly in terms of outlook.
7.53 Barrow Greaves Farmhouse and bungalow are located to the south of the application site access beyond Hazelrigg Lane. These two properties are situated in the valley bottom facing up towards Langthwaite Ridge where the turbine is proposed to be sited. These properties are located in approximately 1km of the turbine. Despite having clear sight of the turbine, which is also situated on higher land, the direct effect of the development on their residential amenity and the general enjoyment of their dwelling would not be adversely affected. Although it is noted that the visual effects of the development on the landscape from this dwelling would be significant (as is the case for many immediate properties). This is a matter connected with landscape impact and not necessarily residential amenity. The Inspector of the recent appeal in Wyre (Eagland Hill , APP/U2370/A/10/2129772) points out there is no right to a view and that long distance views should perhaps be regarded as a luxury rather than an essential component of good living conditions. This is quite a strong statement but in the spirit of assessing residential amenity it is correct. Changes to views or more clearly impact on visual amenity is a matter already addressed under landscape and visual impact.
7.54 Hazelrigg House is located approximately 431m south of the proposed turbine at c75m AOD. The dwelling is situated within a relatively large curtilage with a garage block and stable building to the west of the dwelling. The grounds are laid with to lawn and mature planting to the north, including evergreen shrubs and mature deciduous trees. Beyond the stable building to the west the dwelling and garden overlooks a large area of woodland. The windows of the principal living space predominately face south, away from the turbine, or east towards the AONB. There are only two first floor bedrooms windows on the northern elevation of the dwelling which would face the turbine. However, the existing trees to this side of the dwelling would heavily filter direct views of the turbine. From the curtilage, residents will experience a greater presence of the turbine particularly from the small section of garden to the east of the property. Other parts of the garden will vary from no view to relatively unrestricted views, however the presence of intervening landscaping and mature trees along the northern boundary of the site will, at ground level, filter views. The existing stable building and landscaping will help minimise the impact of the development from the garden to the west of the dwelling. Whilst the assessment concludes a major effect, the orientation of the property, the position of habitable windows, existing landscaping and the overall extent of the curtilage, it is considered on balance that the turbine would not result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity on the basis that the overbearing effects of the development would not be experienced constantly to severely damage living conditions for residents at this property.
7.55 Blea Tarn Farmhouse is one of a number of residential dwellings located at this site. The farmhouse is situated approximately 574m from the proposed turbine at c105m AOD and is currently occupied by student tenants, although the owners of this property have indicated that they intend to restore the building for family members. The building at present provides maisonette accommodation. Notwithstanding who occupies the property, the building is located in close proximity of the proposed turbine facing directly towards it but on slightly elevated land. The curtilage of this property is relatively tight up to the dwelling between the property and the southern and western boundaries. Primary views of the turbine will be available from the southern elevation of the property and garden, and whilst there are relatively low hedgerows which would filter views at ground floor level, views from first floor windows would experience direct views. In view of this, Officers conclude that there is a significant effect. However, as shown on the submitted visualisations, which will be presented at committee, residents of this property would not be unduly affected by the development when the turbine is considered in context with its surroundings. In particular, a large transmission pylon is situated in much closer proximity to the dwelling than the proposed turbine, together with transmission lines crossing the field in front of the dwelling. This structure would be the most dominant vertical feature in view and would prevent the turbine appearing overbearing or intimidating, despite the fact the proposed structure would be moving. Subsequently, the impact on residential amenity is not regarded unacceptable as the overbearing effect of the development is mitigated by existing intervening features within the landscape. To remind Members, the main concerns associated with the previous scheme at this property was the effects of the two turbines located a considerable distance apart and on different levels, resulting in a ‘stacking’ effect which would be visually distracting and uncomfortable to the eye when the turbines were in motion.
7.56 To the rear of Blea Tarn Farmhouse there are two converted barns with a bungalow located to the east of the main building. The principle windows of the converted barns have restricted views of the turbine, other than a large window on the western barn which faces south. This is a single storey building with floor levels set lower than ground levels at Blea Tarn Farmhouse. As such whilst the turbine will be visible from this location, there are boundary trees which would protect intervening screening to the extent that the harm would not be significant. Beachcroft (the bungalow) is orientated west-east and as such has the benefit of primary views to the east towards the AONB. Whilst the turbine would be visible from the access track and gardens of this bungalow the nature of surrounding boundary treatment, the presence of other large manmade structures in the immediate vicinity and the orientation of the dwelling, which provides alternative uninterrupted views of the rural landscape, it is unlikely the turbine would cause significant undue harm to residential amenity to this bungalow of the barns.
7.57 Blea Tarn Bungalow is a small single storey cottage located over 920m fro m the proposed turbine. This property was selected to be assessed as it has clear unrestricted views of the development to the rear where small living room and dining room windows face the site, together with a small garden area. This aspect offers the primary views of the surrounding countryside and as such is regarded quite important. The turbine would be in direct view, opposed to being in the receptors (residents) peripheral vision, when viewed from the garden and rooms within the dwelling facing south. Equally, there is little in the way of intervening features or structures in close proximity which would filter views of the proposed turbine and as such the effect is considered major/moderate. However, at a distance of over 920m from the turbine with the pylon and lines also located a considerable distance from this dwelling, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity and would not result in overbearing effects. Simply from a visual point of view, at this location the turbine appears a similar height to the pylon (relative to the distance where it is viewed) and as such does not look overly out of scale.
7.58 Andalucía (a dwelling associated and occupied by the owners of Valley View Kennels) is located approximately 260m from the proposed turbine. This is the closest dwelling to the development located at appropriately 82m AOD – it sits on approximately the same contour as the proposed turbine, although there is land mass between the two sites rising steeply to over 90m AOD at the top of the kennels site up towards Hazelrigg Lane. Either side of the access down to the dwelling is built up with buildings and kennels with relatively dense landscaping to the perimeter boundaries of the whole site. The dwelling has the benefit of garden to the south east facing over the valley towards the AONB and a small section of amenity space facing south/south west. The primary living accommodation has windows facing south west, including a kitchen window and a conservatory/porch which adjoins the living room. The living room has no other window openings. The area of garden used by the current residents is the small section of land opposite the south western elevation of the dwelling adjacent to existing kennels. The occupants of this property choose to utilise this area of garden and occupy the dwelling in its current layout because of the nature of their business and for security. This is understandable in the circumstances, although many people would choose to occupy the rooms of this dwelling and garden with the ‘best views’ facing over the valley. This resident informed Officers that all other rooms were bedrooms; these rooms all have windows facing away from the turbine. Notwithstanding this, the impacts of the development when viewed from the areas/rooms the residents occupy and consider most important have been considered.
7.59 It is clear from the visualisation submitted, that the blades of the turbine would be partially visible from this property in the areas utilised most by the residents (the primary living accommodation) and the motion of the turbine blades would be apparent. The views of the turbine from these rooms and garden areas are not however direct views. Views of the turbine would generally be peripheral due to the gradient of the site, the orientation of the property in relation to the position of the turbine and the presence of a number of existing buildings/kennels which step up the hill towards Hazelrigg Lane, together with some perimeter planting. These site specific circumstances help reduce the overbearing impact of the turbine and filter the direct views of the development. Views of the turbine from inside the dwelling would be at an oblique angle and restricted to the far end of the room (towards the garden to the southwest). Notwithstanding this, it is anticipated that in this restricted area of the sitting room (not the entire room) and also the conservatory/porch, that the motion of the turbine blades would be visible (more noticeable in the conservatory facing up the site) and in the peripheral vision from inside the dwelling (the sitting area). Whilst this may be considered a significant effect and is clearly a concern to residents, it must be noted that the direct line of sight out of these rooms is immediately directed south west down towards Hazelrigg Barns (although are not easily visible) and the kennel building on site built up along the boundary. The turbine is located at an oblique angle from the part of the dwelling most affected, although clearly being in such close proximity creates the feeling that the turbine is on top of them. They will not, however, see the whole turbine, but admittedly the most intrusive part being the moving blades – the photomontage clearly shows the turbine at its maximum height with only one blade visible and static.
7.60 Officers are aware that the residents of this property feel that the quality of their lives will be significantly harmed by the development, not only in respect of residential amenity but because some members of the family work on site also, meaning they will be under the turbine and will experience the effects of the development constantly. Residents of this property have referred to the Gargrave appeal, which was a proposal for five turbines. This was dismissed on the grounds of residents living and working at Ash Tree Farm; a working farm located within 150m of one of the turbines, would have little respite from the presence of the turbines and as such the proposal would have a severe effect on residential amenity which would last for a generation. Whilst this is an interesting and relevant appeal decision, Officers feel there are mitigating factors in this case which would make the proposed development materially different to the circumstances of the Gargrave case. Drawing to a conclusion, given the very built up nature of the site as a whole (including the dwelling), the topography of the site, the orientation of the dwelling, which would allow other parts of the dwelling and curtilage to be utilised which would not experience the visual effects of the turbine and existing landscaping; when considered in context, whilst the effects are regarded significant it is felt on balance, and with due regard to the concerns received, that the proposed turbine would not result in a constant overbearing effect from both the dwelling or from working at the kennels.
7.61 Finally, Stainforth Cottage in Bailrigg. This property is located around 720m from the proposed turbine. Out of all the properties in Bailrigg this particular property is most affected because of its orientation facing south with the main garden area looking across the fields up towards the application site. The impact is more profound because of the different in land levels. This property is located at approximately 55m AOD. The turbine is situated on the top of the ridge and as such appears very visible in the landscape. An assessment of Bailrigg has been undertaken as part of the landscape assessment which clearly shows the scale of the turbine in relation to the landform which it sits on. Whilst this property will experience direct views of the turbine and the effect of the views would be significant, again, there are significant intervening, man-made structures and developments which minimise the overbearing effect, in particular the M6 and large pylons also in close proximity to the settlement. Other properties in the village will also have views of the turbine, including properties known as Downings and North Lodge Cottage. The latter of these properties has the benefit of large mature trees along their rear boundary which would filter direct views of the turbine from the rear of this property at both ground floor and first floor and as such the effect is moderate. It is also located in excess of c680m from the turbine. Downings has primary windows facing north and south and as such it is only the garden where the turbine will be visually dominant. Like Stainforth Cottage, from this garden area there are clear views of surroundings pylons and the M6 motorway. This property is situated around 740m from the turbine and as such the impact of overbearingness is less of a concern. Other dwellings within Bailrigg Farm have primary windows either looking directly into the former farm complex or have views facing away from the turbine. As such the impact on residential amenity (in terms of visual impact) is not considered is significant problem.
7.62 In addition to the above properties, there are many others that will have clear views of the wind turbines, which is inevitable in an urban fringe location such as this. However the majority of these properties are over 800m from the site and generally enjoy other views from main windows and garden areas. It is acknowledged, that the turbine is not just a large vertical structure, but a structure that has a moving element with a diameter of 82m which is significant. It is also accepted that the moving element of the turbine will cause viewers (in this case residents) to be visually drawn to this feature rather than other features in the landscape, however, a careful balance of all the site specific circumstances experienced at each of the properties have been considered and whilst it could be argued the development causes significant visual effects to a number of close dwellings, the balance of pros and cons must be weight against each other.
7.63 Impact on Biodiversity One of the key aspects of the proposal is the impact the development as a whole will have on the biodiversity of the area having regard to the relevant legislation and policy. The proposed site comprises agricultural land dominated by grassland, which is intersected by hedgerows and partly bound by mature woodland. There is also a small stream running down the eastern boundary of the site and small on-site ponds located in the woodland areas. The site therefore provides a diverse array of habitats for both flora and fauna. Whilst the application site falls outside any specific designation such as a SSSI (site of special scientific interest), SPA (special protection area) or BHS (biological heritage site), the impact of the development on protected species and their habitats is a material consideration in the determination of a planning application. In order to comply with planning policy and other relevant legislation, the development proposal needs to demonstrate that the development has been located and designed in a way that would avoid ecological impacts and that mitigation/compensation measures are sufficient to fully off-set all unavoidable ecological impacts and deliver enhanced quantity and quality of biodiversity and habitat. It should also be demonstrated that habitat connectivity would be maintained and enhanced. PPS9 clearly states that the applicant must demonstrate where harm or damage is unavoidable, mitigation and compensation for the harm or loss must be commensurate.
7.64 The impacts of the development in relation to biodiversity do not just relate to the installation of the turbine and the direct effects of the turbine in motion. Impacts will arise from all the other works necessary to facilitate the development, including the creation of the access, the new track, ground disturbance and excavation, areas of hardstanding and underground cabling routes. To deliver this, the proposal results in the loss of 690m of hedgerow and 50m of culverting. Hedgerows are proposed to be removed within the blade sweep areas of the turbine and across the site access in order to achieve the required visibility spays at the junction with Hazelrigg Lane. A small section of culverting is required at the northern part of the site to allow the access track to reach the proposed turbine location. Whilst this is clearly not an ideal situation, it is necessary and as such compensatory measures have been proposed. Access can not be made to the turbine site at the access to the existing metrological centre on the east side of Hazelrigg Lane (opposite Valley View Kennels) due to highway implications associated with transporting the turbine. Neither the County Ecologist nor the Environment Agency (EA) have objected to this section of culverting, provided appropriate conditions relating to mitigation are imposed and a separate licence sought from the EA.
In order to assess the impacts of local biodiversity a range of habitat and species specific surveys have been carried out. Despite some objections, the range and methodology of the surveys carried out to date have not been disputed by Officers, the County Ecologist or Natural England and as such seem acceptable for the purposes of this proposal. The application has also been submitted with a thorough mitigation strategy which proposes 0.42 hectares of planted woodland, 737m of hedgerow and 41 hedgerow trees are proposed. The mitigation proposals have been designed to protect and enhance existing habitats, provide new habitats in locations far enough away from the turbines, in particular avoid the blade sweep of the turbines, and to improve habitat connectivity. All of the proposals identified have been accepted by the County Ecologist and the Councils Tree Protection Officer.
7.65 Whilst there will be an initial residual impact as a consequence of the development upon bats, breeding birds and overwintering birds, the mitigation measures proposed appear to be commensurate to the impact proposed. In fact it could be argued to a certain extent that the habitat mitigation and landscaping proposals will provide long terms enhancements to biodiversity (by encouraging species to use other parts of the site – away from the turbine) and help sustain the existing woodland areas on and around the site. Notwithstanding this, it is accepted that the magnitude of impact can not be fully quantified as future behaviour of birds and bats can not reliably be predicted. As such conditions are required relating to bird and bat monitoring post construction to assess the effectiveness of mitigation, together with a series of other conditions requested by the County Ecologist and the Councils Tree Protection Officer relating to the implementation of mitigation, survey work, tree protection and landscaping.
7.66 In comparison with the previous scheme, it has to be said, that the impacts of the development upon biodiversity is far less than what was proposed by the previous scheme for two turbines principally because the large section of woodland to the south of the ridge, adjacent to Hazelrigg Barns, is now retained and the extent of culverting has been significantly reduced. In this case, whilst there is a modest loss of habitat (mainly in the form of hedgerows), the applicant has proposed an extensive mitigation strategy which is welcomed and fully supported. On this note, the proposal adequately complies with the ecological/biodiversity policies listed in section 6.0 of this report.
7.67 Impact on Aviation and Electromagnetic, TV Reception and Radio Interference With regards to aviation interference, the application is considered acceptable with no objections received from the Ministry of Defence, the National Air Traffic Service, the Civil Aviation Authority or Blackpool Airport.
7.68 Joint Radio Company (JRC) analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry and the Water Industry in North-West England. This is to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements.
7.65 In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios based on the data provided. However, if any details of the wind farm change, particularly the disposition or scale of any turbine(s), it will be necessary to re- evaluate the proposal. This is because the use of the spectrum is dynamic, and the use of the band is changing on an ongoing basis. Consequently, developers are advised to seek re-coordination prior to considering any design changes. In terms of assessing the proposal, JRC has cleared the development provided the scheme is as indicated on the submitted plans. This clearly minimises the potential for any micrositing.
7.67 Some objectors have raised concerns about being located within such close proximity to the development and the potential health effects caused by the electromagnetic production the wind turbine generates. Wind turbines produce electromagnetic radiation however PPS22 advises that the level of this is very low and presents no greater risk to human health than most other domestic appliances. In the absence of any conclusive evidence to indicate otherwise this issue is not regarded a significant planning problem, despite opposition on these grounds.
7.68 With regards to television interference, the local planning authority has received a considerable amount of objection on the grounds of loss of television and radio reception. The initial submission in relation to this potential problem has been updated to address some of the concerns raised, including issues such as discrepancies in the data to model the impact. There remain, however, concerns about the quality of the revised assessment and the assumptions drawn.
7.69 The assessment has considered the impact of the development on the Lancaster and Winter Hill broadcast transmitters which have been identified as providing service to the Lancaster area. The assessment indicates that interference is generally caused by refection and scattering. It is understood that the scattering effect can extent up to 200m around the turbine, but the forward scattering effect, caused by moving blades cutting into the signal, can extend much further. If the ratio between the reflected/scattered signal strength and the direct signal strength is above the required minimum threshold (referred to as the CI threshold or protection ratio) the turbine will not affect any TV receiver. The assessments undertaken identify areas around the turbine where TV broadcast customers may suffer from TV interference. The assessment of Winter Hill suggests that the majority of this area is rural. This does not mitigate in its own right the impact of TV interference to residents in the rural area that may suffer degradation to their reception as a consequence of the development. The original submission suggested that the Winter Hill transmitter would not be adversely affected by the development and as such would not pose a significant problem. The revised submission however indicates that Winter Hill will be affected. The assessments undertaken also indicate that the Lancaster transmitter will be affected.
7.70 The submission clearly identifies possible impacts to TV reception but indicates that there would be technical solutions to militate against the effects. Mitigation includes switching antennas from one transmitter to the other (where possible); using directional antennas with a high antenna gain to increase the C/I ratio; using higher antenna location for a better broadcast transmitter; and provision of satellite or cable service to affected households. It is general practice for such matters to be adequately controlled by condition or by way of legal agreement. As part of such a condition, the University would have to undertake a baseline survey in the area to identify how many households use terrestrial antenna for TV. A survey would have to then be carried out post-construction to assess how many and the extent of properties affected. In the event properties are adversely affected mitigation would have to be agreed. The applicant indicates satellite would not be affected by the development. This seems a reasonable approach. However, given the level of objections received relating to TV interference, further information has been requested to attempt to resolve this issue more conclusively. In the event this issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, Officers are of the opinion that mitigation should be dealt with via a legal agreement. The outcomes of further information provided and correspondence between Officers and the developers in this respect will be verbally presented at the committee meeting. It should be noted however that PPS22 clearly states that when scattering of TV and radio reception occurs, it is of a predictable nature and can generally be alleviated by the installation or modification of a local repeater station of cable connection.
Having addressed the five critical issues noted at the head of this section of this report, a number of other matters will now be discussed.
7.71 Other Matters – Highways And Access Highway implications associated with wind turbine development are concentrated over three phases; construction; operation and maintenance and; decommissioning.
7.72 The submitted highway/traffic chapter within the ES considers all three phases. The site is situated on the eastern side of the M6 motorway, adjoining Hazelrigg Lane approximately 1.7 miles north of Junction 33 of the motorway. The access remains the same as that previously proposed for two turbines.
7.73 The primary highway considerations relating to wind turbine development focus on the transportation of the turbines to and from the site during construction and decommissioning stages. In this case, the route shall be run from a port likely to be on the east coast via the strategic road network and the M6, along the A6 through Galgate to the hazelrigg/A6 junction at the southern end of the University campus. This was considered the most appropriate route – leaving the M6 at junction 34 has been discounted due on inaccessible points through the centre of the city.
7.74 Highway and transportation issues are principally associated with abnormal loads; the blades come in one piece and as such require vehicles which can accommodate 41m blades. The turbine mast generally transports in three tower sections. Swept path analysis has been carried as part of the proposal to demonstrate ease or adaptation required to existing road networks to deliver the turbine parts to the site. As part of the route analysis the route from the M6 has been broken down into 9 legs. The route from the M6 to Skew Bridge (Galgate) is relatively straight forward, other than the transport vehicle overrunning opposite lanes or preventing vehicles taking-over. At Skew Bridge (West Coast main Line Masonry Arch) abnormal loads will overrun both lanes and the pedestrian kerb line. Due to the width of the road and the dimensions of the abnormal load vehicles, vehicles travelling in the opposite direction will be forced to slow down and give way for this vehicle. There is no physical impact on the network at this point, other than a street light on the western side of the road needing to be temporarily relocated and on-street parking to be regulated during transportation stages. There are no physical alterations proposed to the highway through Galgate village. At the junction of the A6 and Hazelrigg Lane, signals, bollards, signs and pedestrian guards will all need to be removed to allow the vehicle to overrun when manoeuvring and turning right into Hazelrigg Lane over the central traffic island. Once on Hazelrigg Lane, the abnormal loads will predominantly extend across both lanes until the vehicles have entered the site. It will not therefore be possible for bidirectional movements to be in operation on Hazelrigg Lane during these movements due to the load requiring the use of both carriageways.
7.75 The formation of the site access is located 180m north east of the M6 underpass. It shall utilise an existing field access but will involve significant alterations, including widening, earthworks and the formation of visibility slays (as noted in the proposal section of this report). The main issue associated with this is the impact this has on the character and appearance of the landscape. This has been noted in the section on landscape impact. County Highways has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to relevant conditions ensuring that the effects on the highway network during transportation is minimised and carefully managed. This will require the applicant to agree a Transport Management Plan with the local planning authority.
7.76 The traffic generation associated with component transport equates to:
• 4 abnormal load vehicles for the transportation of the tower sections; • 3 abnormal load vehicles for the transportation of the turbine blades; • Maximum of 3 abnormal load vehicles for the transportation of the nacelle, rotor hub and drive train; • 4 HGV vehicles for miscellaneous internal and external equipment.
7.77 There will be an allowance of 20 additional HGV’s associated with connection equipment into the national grid and inevitably additional vehicles associated with site preparation, installation and at a later date decommissioning. Once operational there are very few traffic movements associated with the development other than periodic checks and maintenance.
7.78 With regards to drainage, the application has considered the impact of the development (all three stages) in terms of surface water drainage and pollution prevention. The drainage of the site will be a matter that can be controlled by condition, in the form of a Construction Management Plan. In terms of flood risk, the Environmental Agency has assessed the proposal and have raised no objections to the proposed development in respect of flood risk. The construction of the turbines and associated work is anticipated to take 5 months and as such, whilst there will inevitably be some disruption to the local road networks and neighbouring properties, this would be in the short term.
7.79 Operational effects mainly relate to the impact of the turbines on drivers, in particular driver distraction. PPS22 Companion Guide states in paragraph 54 covers this issues and states: ‘At all times drivers are required to take reasonable care to ensure their own and others’ safety. Wind turbines should therefore not be treated any differently from other distractions a driver must face and should not be considered particularly hazardous’ . Consequently, the issue of driver distraction, in the absence of objections from the relevant authorities would not prove problematic in this case. The proposed turbine has been positioned to adhere to the required set-back distances from the motorway and from Hazelrigg Lane and as such raise no highway objections.
7.80 The decommissioning of the wind farm once the 25 year lifespan has been reached will take place over an estimated 3 months and will in part be a reverse of the commissioning stages of development.
7.81 Other Matters - Socio-Economic Implications There have been a number of concerns raised regarding the impact of the development on nearby businesses, tourism and the local economy. The submitted ES has provided a thorough assessment of likely socio-economic impacts, including the impact on the local economy, recreation and tourism and nearby land uses (local businesses), concluding that any effects would occur at the local and regional level and are deemed to be minor and short term; therefore not significant. There will be clear employment opportunities associated with the development (construction, supply chain and indirect and direct financial savings it offers to the University). It is also thought that the development would contribute positively towards improvements towards the socio-economic profile of the area. There is no reason therefore to believe that wind turbine development will adversely affect the local economy. Indeed the reverse may be the case.
7.82 The impact of the development in relation to adjacent land uses and businesses is of particular concern to the owners of Valley View Kennels. The submitted ES has considered the impact of the development on Valley View Kennels and the adjacent Forest Hills golf and leisure com plex. Concerns regarding the impact of wind farms on animals have been raised by nearby residents, in particular Valley View Kennels and local residents with horses. Unforutnately there is no legislation or guidance regarding this matter to comment. However, it is noted in the submitted ES that the high frequency tonal noise associated with turbines, which may affect animals, is unlikely to occur in this case as noted in the noise section of this report. Notwithstanding this, the residents of Valley View Kennels have explicitly stated that the development would, in their opinion, adversely affect their business in so much as customers may choose not to bring their animals to the site potentially jeopardising their business and potentially their long term future at the site. The owner of this business has indicated that some animals (dogs in particular) would be afraid of the turbines and as such the ‘recovery’ element of the business could also be put at risk. Officers have visited this business and accept that the turbine is situated in very close proximity to the Kennels and that from the dog walking area the turbine will be noticeable particularly at the highest part of the site (north west), however, the same dog walking area has principal views east towards Clougha Fell and the surrounding landscape, despite the presence of large pylons and the turbines at Caton in the distance. Within the Kennel site itself (at ground level) the turbine will not be a visually dominant due to the presence of perimeter landscaping and a number of intervening existing buildings and kennels which are located on a steeply sloping part of the site. It is acknowledged, however, that simply knowing the turbine is in the location proposed and in such close proximity it will be subconsciously felt by the owners and employees on the site which could cause some distress. However, the overall impact of the turbine on this ‘animal-care’ business despite being in such close proximity, is difficult to quantify and evaluate on the grounds of little policy guidance available in this respect and the unpredictable behaviour of animals - some animals may be affected others may not. Equally, peoples’ perception to turbines is also unpredictable. The owner of this business suggests customers will not longer use the kennels. On the other hand, there is nothing to say otherwise that some people may be attracted to the site/business because of the turbine. The impact on employees and the owners is significant, but due to the intervening nature of the buildings and landscaping around them, they would not visually see the turbine constantly throughout the day. In terms of noise the noise from dogs barking would minimise any noise from the turbine, especially during the day.
7.83 Concerns have also been expressed by some residents that the proposal will adversely affect horses close by and other recreational activities undertaken in the area. Renewable UK (formerly BWEA) states that wind farming is popular with farmers in particular, because their land can continue to be used for growing crops or grazing livestock. Sheep, cows and horses are not considered to be disturbed by wind turbines; however there is little conclusive evidence available to assess this. Notwithstanding this, there are many examples across the country where turbines are located within the countryside and therefore close to livestock, horses and associate equestrian activities, illustrating the two can co-exist. In the case of horses and possibly other animals for that matter, allsorts of things (structures/activities/traffic/climatic conditions) have the potential to upset them or startle them – wind turbines are possibly no different. Consequently, in most cases horses and other animals will quickly become accustomed to unfamiliar things in the environment, and in this respect wind turbines are no different. The effects of the development on equestrian activities in particular, would not be regarded major in this case.
7.84 With regards to recreation and tourism, there are no public rights of way affected by the development, other than those footpaths identified to experience visual effects within certain ranges of the development which have been assessed under the landscape and visual impact section of the report. The proposed golf course sits immediately adjacent to the site where the turbines will be visible. The effects of the turbines on recreation and tourism uses in the area depend on the attitude of the individual (receptor). The information provided in the ES indicates, through studies undertaken, that the majority of the public are in favour of generating energy from renewable sources. In Officers' opinion it is highly unlikely that the presence of the turbine in the landscape would adversely affect people’ enjoyment of the adjacent golf and leisure complex. Public perception to these structures is difficult to predict, although some residents/objectors to the scheme (not necessarily those closest to the turbine or those who have strong views against wind turbines per se) may feel their initial concerns of the turbine are allied once the turbine becomes operational and the turbine has had time to ‘settle in’. The Local Planning Authority has received comments from residents in Garstang that support this view (we have equally received comments from Garstang residents opposing the scheme). Over time the landscape has adapted in response to the need to develop important infrastructure. In this location, the most significant manmade influences are the M6 motorway and pylons and transmission lines. At the time of their construction and installation, it is highly likely that there was strong opposition to such proposals and over time we have accepted these features in the landscape, although this assumption does not outweigh the other materials considerations that have been assessed as part of this proposal, namely the impact on nearby residents.
In conclusion, the impact of the development on the local economy, recreation and tourism and adjacent land uses (local businesses) is not considered adversely negative and would not be a reason to refuse planning permission.
7.85 Other Matters - Miscellaneous issues With regards to icing, ice throw is a phenomenon that occurs, again, under certain climatic conditions and is the consequence of ice forming on the rotor blades under very cold climatic conditions. When temperatures rise and the ice melts there is the potential for the phenomenon to occur. Due to the generally temperate climate of the UK, it is considered that suitable weather conditions for this to occur will be potentially less then seven days per year. Despite this, the turbine will be fitted with vibration sensors which detect any imbalance such as that caused by icing. This together with the topel distance appears to adequately address the potential from this to occur.
7.86 The issue of structural failure and safety could apply to any form of development, although it is an issue often raised in relation to wind turbines, in particular blade failure. PPS22 states that ‘experience indicates that properly installed and maintained wind turbines are a safe technology’. Here the local planning authority has to reply on the development and machine being satisfactorily constructed, monitoring and maintained by the applicant and their contractors. Notwithstanding this, the scheme has been designed to ensure a safe topel distance is provided.
7.87 On a separate note, the applicants have indicated in the submission the need 50m micrositing for the development. Given the very complex nature of the proposal and the overly constrained nature of the site, Officers do not feel micrositing is appropriate in this instance.
7.88 Other Matters - Archaeology/Historic Environment The submitted ES has appropriately quantified the impact of the development on the historic environment, looking specifically at archaeology and utilising information gathered by Oxford Archaeology North. The archaeological desk-based assessment and geophysical survey have indicated that there is a potential for archaeological deposits to be encountered by the development, but that they are likely to be considered to be only of local or regional significance. As such remains would not be considered to be worthy of preservation in situ. The County Archaeologist does not therefore consider that the proposed evaluation works to be necessary, but rather that any surviving archaeological deposits would be better dealt with by means of a 'strip, map and sample' methodology applied to all areas of the site requiring excavation. This could be appropriately controlled by condition.
7.89 In accordance with PPS5, the applicants have also assessed the impact of the development on nearby statutory heritages assets, mainly listed buildings and their settings within 1km of the application site. Officers have considered the impact of the development on nearby listed buildings, Schedule Monuments, Registered Historic Parks and Conservation Areas and consider the setting of Bailrigg Farm most affected from a visual impact perspective only. Equally there will be some viewpoints where the turbine will be visible in relation to Ashton Memorial; the most elevated and significant landmark feature of the City. The viewpoint submitted taken from Torrisholme illustrates the scale between the two structures. However in the latter case, there is a substantial distance between the turbine and Ashton Memorial which, in Officers' opinion, would mitigate any significant adverse impact to the setting of the Memorial or the historic core of the city. As for the first case, the Listed farmhouse and barn complex sits on the opposite site of the M6 surrounding by other manmade features. In which case, whilst the significance of the heritage asset is in some ways reduced as a consequence of the development it would not a substantial heritage reason for refusal.
7.90 Community Benefit On a separate matter and unrelated to the planning considerations in the determination of the application, Lancaster University propose to provide a Community Benefits Package. This is not a planning material consideration and provides no weight whatsoever in Officers' recommendation. The Local Planning Authority has not been party to any discussions in this respect; it is a matter for the developer to arrange with the local community.
8.0 The Balancing Exercise and Conclusions
8.1 National and regional planning policies, together with local planning policy seek to promote and encourage proposals of renewable energy development. PPS22 clearly states that the wider environmental, social and economic benefits of such proposals should be given significant weight in the determination of planning applications. However, all other material considerations must be considered and balanced against the benefits of the proposal.
8.2 There is no doubt that the proposal offers significant benefits and would wholly comply with national and regional policy with regards to its contribution towards meeting the UK’s government targets. Having regard to the submitted Environmental Statement, planning policy and the consultation responses both statutory, non-statutory and neighbouring representations, the main issues to be weighed against the proposal are:
• Landscape and Visual Impact • Residential Amenity (visual impact, shadow flicker, noise and loss of TV interference)
8.3 One of the key principles of PPS22 requires that proposals should demonstrate how environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures. Similarly, national, regional and local policies seek to ensure the District's environmental assets are protected and enhanced and where appropriate mitigated.
8.4 The University’s application site is clearly constrained by a number of factors, such as habitat buffer zones and highway set-back distances, resulting in the proposed locations being virtually fixed. Having undergone thorough consultation through the planning process, it is clear landscape impact and the impact of the development on the effects on living conditions of nearby residents is a significant consideration in the determination of this decision. It is also clear that it is a grave concern to some immediate residents. One of the difficulties in undertaking a balancing assessment of the proposal is that the negative effects of the development are site specific, whereas the social, environmental and economic advantages of the scheme tend to be much more general. It is equally difficult to explain that the disadvantages of perceived by people who live close by could be outweighed by the wider benefits of the proposal. Notwithstanding this, Officers have carefully assessed the proposal in respect of the impact of the development on individual sites through considering and consultation responses the representations received, from speaking to and visiting the individual sites and most importantly assessing planning considerations and policy.
8.5 The impacts on residential amenity are considered significant in all the cases assessed by the applicant and the additional properties considered by Officers. There are some properties which could be affected by shadowflicker and to a lesser degree by noise. Shadow flicker can be adequately mitigated as noted earlier in the report. With regards to noise, despite serious objections to this issue, the noise assessments and data produced indicate that the development can operate within close proximity to dwellings and keep within the limits set by ETSU-R-97, which remains the current guidance to assess the impact of noise generated by wind turbine developments. Noise can be reasonably controlled by condition to mitigate any potential impacts. The condition will relate to the limits set by ETSU-R-97. With regards to visual impact, there have been a number of relatively recent appeal decisions that have concentrated on residential amenity impacts (visual impact) of wind farms generally within 650m of properties. In most cases the impacts have been regarded unacceptable. There are, however, appeal cases where wind turbines have been approved close to dwellings, such as the Dewlay Turbine in Garstang and the recent appeal allowed at Eagland Hill. There will clearly be cases where turbines will be accepted in close proximity to residential properties and others that will not, and in the absence of any specific guidance in legislation each case will have to be judged on their own merits. The proposed wind turbines are located unusually close to nearby residential dwellings and the effects of the development would be significant. However, there are a number of site specific circumstances which would diminish the intimidating and overbearing effects of the development, although no doubt there will be some aspects from each of the dwellings where this effects are more noticeable. This issue here is that most of these properties, despite being affected in some way or another will not experience the harmful effects of the development constantly. There is mitigation for shadow flicker and noise and in terms of visual impact all of the dwellings considered have either significant intervening structures or features which would filter any direct views; or by virtue of the nature of the surrounding landscape and topography and the orientation of the dwellings would experience only oblique/peripheral views of the turbine.
8.6 In terms of landscape impact there is no doubt that the proposed turbines will appear out of proportion with the landscape and would have a harmful effect on the open, rural character of the area. Subsequently the proposal would be regarded contrary to national and local planning policy in respect of protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside. However, with pressure to preserve and protect designated areas there is inevitably going to be ever increasing pressure to develop landscapes such as this. The presence of the motorway, electricity pylons and the university campus already have an urbanising effect on this rural landscape which already have a profound affect on the landscape quality. Whilst the County Landscape Officer has raised concerns, the overall landscape character would not be unduly affected to the extent a refusal of planning permission could be substantiated. It is also noted that under the previous proposal for two turbines, both the County Landscape Officer and Natural England suggested that the site could accommodate one turbine rather than two in order to alleviate the bulk of the landscape objections. Furthermore, a significant factor to be considered is the fact that the turbines have a lifespan of 25 years and after that it likely the land will be reinstated to its former condition within reason. A recent appeal Inspector comments that ‘ twenty-five years is a tiny proportion of the history of the landscape…and if landscape is to survive in the long-term future then consideration must be given to accepting shot- term harm to its character ’. This is a valid point, and as such it is recommended that the short-term adverse effects on this landscape, which is already interrupted with other man-made features, is limited to a relatively small localised area and located outside any special designated area, and is therefore outweighed by the long-term environmental benefits of the proposal.
8.7 It is clear from the above discussions that there are potential adverse affects on landscape and on neighbouring residential amenity, however, the effects on living conditions are not of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the benefits of the proposal and warrant a refusal of planning permission. The proposed development would make a small but very important contribution towards the meeting the statutory targets set by Government to tackle climate change. It is very clear in planning policy that the need for renewable energy must therefore carry considerable weight and as such, after very careful consideration of all the potential impacts and effects, on balance, the benefits of the proposed turbine would outweigh both landscape and residential amenity concerns. Members are therefore advised that that the proposed development can be supported, subject to addressing outstanding matters noted in the report, including issues associated with TV interference which Officers believe can be mitigated and dealt by a legal agreement.
Recommendation
That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to a legal agreement to deal with TV and radio interference and necessary mitigation (details to be confirmed), and the following conditions: 1. Standard Time Limit 2. Development in accordance with the approved plans and submitted ES 3. Turbine and associated infrastructure shall be removed from site and land reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority before the expiry of 25 years from the turbine being operational. 4. If the turbine fails to produce electricity to the gird for a continuous period of 12 months, it and associated infrastructure shall be removed within a period of 6 months and the land reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority 5. No micrositing unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority 6. No development shall commence until a Traffic Management Pan has been submitted and agreed (this would include vehicle routing, timing, management of junctions, crossings, details of escorts of abnormal loads) 7. Implementation of a Traffic Management Plan 8. No development shall commence until an Construction Management Plan and Construction Method Statement has been submitted and agreed in writing with the local planning authority (this would include timing of construction works, construction method and surface treatment of all hard surfaces including sections of the proposed access track, details of site drainage, details of wheel washing facilities, control of pollution, disposal of means of surplus material, timing of cable trenching and foundation works, timing of and construction methods and management of site compound including parking arrangements; and details of the reinstatement of temporary working areas including the access). The CMP and CMS shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details 9. All cabling on the site shall be installed underground 10. Hours of Construction 11. Access to be provided in accordance with the approved plans before commencement of development 12. No development shall commencement until an Environment Management Plan has been provided and agreed in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such agreed details and implemented thereafter in accordance with the agreed timetables. (the Environment Management Plan would include requirement for additional survey, monitoring and mitigation work required by the County Ecologist (these would be precisely listed), the time of site preparation to avoid breeding bats and birds, the submission of an arboricultural method statement, a detailed planting and habitat management plan (maintenance for 10 years) and a scheme for stream enhancement.) 13. Tree protection condition 14. Implementation of landscape masterplan and planning proposals 15. Archaeology condition 16. No development shall commence until precise details of the semi-matt external finish and colour of the turbines have been submitted and approved by the local planning authority. The turbines shall not be illuminated, other than aviation lighting (in the form of infrared lighting), or display any name, sign, symbol or logo. 17. Noise condition restricting the turbine to the limits set by ETSU-R-97 18. Noise condition – in the event of a compliant received, on the request of the local planning authority, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the local planning authority, to assess the turbine noise levels at the complainant's property, and where noise levels exceed the ETSU-R-97 carry out necessary mitigation. 19. Before the wind turbine is brought into use, a scheme for the avoidance of shadowflicker for legally occupied buildings (dwellings and place of work, such as offices) within 10 rotor diameters of the wind turbine has been submitted agreed and operated in accordance with the agreed scheme. 20. The wind turbine shall not be brought into use until a scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to terrestrial and digital TV caused by the operation of the turbine. (Awaiting further information to confirm exact wording of this condition together with potential legal agreement).
Human Rights Act
This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.
Background Papers
None.