Allerdale Borough Council Planning Application 2/2012/0354 Reference No: 2/2012/0354 Received: 15 May 2012 Proposed Installation of a single wind turbine on a 24.6m hub-height tower Development: Location: Green Croft Oughterby Carlisle Applicant: Mr Scott Bertram Croft Engineering Drawing Numbers: 001 - Site Location Plan 002 - Site Plan 003 - Foundation Details 004 - Turbine Elevations 005 - Control Cabinet Details Constraints: MOD Safeguarding CAA Carlisle Airport Wind Turb Policies: Nation al Planning Policy Framework North West Regional spatial Strategy Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy E38 - Historic environment Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs Allerdale Local Plan Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved). Relevant Planning A screening opinion was issued by the Local Planning Authority in History: June 2012. This opinion stated that the proposal did not constitute EIA development. 2/2012/0218 – Installation of a single wind turbine on a 24.6m hub- height tower – withdrawn. Representations: Parish Council - Do not object. The additional distance that the turbine has been moved from the village compared to the original scheme means that the impact on the village will be reduced to that mainly of a visual one. Civil Aviation Authority - Consultations for wind energy related development is exceeding the resource available to respond within LPA timeframes. Should consult with NATS and MoD and relevant aerodromes. The CAA has no responsibility for safeguarding sites other than within its own property. NATS - No objection. MoD - No objection. If permission is granted, the MOD must be informed of the date construction commences, the maximum height and the latitude/longitude. Environment Agency – No objections. Informative requesting no interruption to existing drainage systems. County Council Highways No objection subject to conditions requiring the road to be kept clear of mud during the construction phase and that a Traffic Management Plan be submitted for approval. Natural England - No objections, refer to standing advice for protected species and to ensure that locally designated wildlife sites are considered. Second response confirms that the turbine is a sufficient distance from identified barn owl roosts within Oughterby not to trigger the need for further survey work. Environmental Health - No objection, condition recommended limiting noise levels for the nearest noise sensitive property. County Archaeologist – No objections. RSPB – No objections, 50m stand off for bats is sufficient in relation to barn owls also. Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle Airport – No objections following the receipt of an aviation assessment. Fire Officer – No comments received. Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No comments received. A call in request has been received for the proposal. The application has been advertised by site notice and neighbour letter. One letter of support has been received for the proposal on the basis that more people need to be considering renewable energy development. 50 letters of objection have been received to the proposal. The grounds of objection are based on the following: • Against situating turbines close to built up areas where they will have negative effects on those living around them. • Notes the Bill relating to proximity of turbines to residents being put forward in parliament, which suggests a minimum distance of 1000m from residential property, this proposal is only half that distance. • A better option is to continue to build them out at sea. • Inevitable impact on house prices. • Health problems of turbines, including sleep problems, headaches, nausea, exhaustion, anxiety, irritability, depression, tinnitus, eye problems. • Proximity to Eskdalemuir – Carlisle City Council recently rejected an application at Hallburn Farm based on MoD’s objection. Has the MoD been consulted? • Excessive visual impact on the village of Oughterby, alien presence. Affect on local people and visitors individually and cumulatively. • True beneficiaries are private interests. • Potential to affect wildlife in the area, bats, barn owls, red squirrels, roe deer and migrating birds (particularly swans and geese connected to the Solway Coast SAC/SPA). Specifically, barn owls are nesting in buildings within the village at Oughterby. • Sited on higher ground than the village (47m compared to 40m) with no natural screening. • Cumulative harm to the character of the landscape. Second turbine within half a mile as well as the six turbines at Great Orton. • No proper noise studies. Information is contradictory relating to tonal noise. There would be tonal noise and amplitude modulation noise. • Overshadow/dominate the village. • Solar panels could be used at Croft Engineering. • Turbines should not be erected singularly and haphazardly in areas of outstanding natural beauty. • Not a small turbine. • Impact on Solway Coast AONB not properly considered. • The proximity of the proposed wind turbines to a roman enclosure and settlement should require an archaeological survey. • Inaccuracies and contradictions with the planning application including confusion over the access route, two different routes are put forward by the applicant, and that the cabling could impact on a watercourse, screening or no wind barriers?, close to a built up area or not? • There is no proof that the business needs a turbine of this size. • Inefficiency of such structures, requiring constant maintenance and an energy back up. • Consider that the proposal should be EIA development. • Who measures the degree of residential impact? • More noise potential from prevailing wind and shadow flicker potential from the positioning to the south of Oughterby. • Screening is deciduous and therefore will not screen the development for half of the year. • Planting will not screen the blades, the most annoying part. • Regional Spatial Strategy is out of date as is the Cumbria SPD, the moderate capacity has been surpassed and the level of sensitivity is being abused. • Need for renewable energy should not always outweigh landscape harm – Court decision quoted. • Contrary to policy R44. • Quote Broughton Lodge appeal and refers to tipping he balance from a landscape with turbines to a wind turbine landscape. • Wind turbine development and Nature Conservation document of BWEA, English Heritage and RSPB quoted by the applicant is clearly out of date (2001). • Allerdale has done disproportionately more than any other part of Cumbria. • The harm to appearance and character of the area clearly outweighs the benefits. • Detrimental Effect on tourism and linked retail businesses in the area. • Could open the door for more turbines in the locality. • Too close to a village walk used by many local people. • Residents will suffer financially whilst the applicant gains. • If this gets the go ahead, how much longer will Allerdale BC be able to claim that this is ‘a great place to live, work and visit’. • The description should refer to the maximum height to blade tip and not the hub height. • Landscapes are being incrementally changed by approvals of both large and small scale developments without regard to the progressive cumulative effect. • The application does not comply with policy as stated by the applicant. • The high point of the turbine would be 80m on a ridge above the Hadirans path and cycle route. • A full set of photomontages in accordance with GLVIA guidelines is surely necessary. • Note other sites which also need taken into account within the locality at carious stages in the planning process. • The application does not contain a ZTV/ZVI, which play an important role in assessing the impacts and effects of a development. • A full LVIA should be required. • The NPPF specifies that applications should only be approved when the impacts are or can be made acceptable. • Question government policy towards turbines when tidal or even solar solutions are more effective. • Should be on industrial estates not in the middle of small rural communities. Report Proposal The proposal is for a single turbine (50Kw), approx. 24.6m to hub height and 34.2m to tip height with 3 blades. The turbine base would be approx. 6.0m², with a small control box cabinet. The application has been supported by an aviation assessment, design and access statement, noise report, photomontages, and supporting statement. The supporting documents indicate that the purpose of the proposal is to provide electricity to supply Croft Engineering, an engineering business located within Oughterby, as well as two related residential properties Green Croft and West View, which currently relies on oil fired heating. Any excess electricity will be connected to the national grid. The application indicates that the installation will take no longer than two months and delivery will be via two standard lorries,