Secretary of State
for Communities and
Local Government - Berrier Hill Wind Farm application
| Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government - Berrier Hill Wind Farm application |
|
The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
GTN 1371 8000
by Andrew Pykett BSc(Hons) PhD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government
Date 9 April 2010
File Ref: APP/H0928/A/09/2093290
The application Ref: 3/07/0636 is dated 3 August 2007.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT
EDEN DISTRICT COUNCIL
APPEAL BY
BERRIER HILL WIND ENERGY LIMITED
Land at Berrier Hill, Greystoke Estate, Greystoke, nr Penrith, Cumbria
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for
planning permission.
The appeal is made by Berrier Hill Wind Energy Ltd against Eden District Council.
The development proposed is the construction of a wind farm comprising 9 turbines,
substation, access tracks and ancillary development.
The inquiry sat for 8 days on 8-10, 16 September 2009, 26-28 January, and 23 February
2010. Accompanied site visits took place on 11 September 2009 and 29 January 2010,
and unaccompanied visits on 14, 15 and 17 September 2009, and 22 February 2010.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed and planning
permission refused.
Procedural Matters
1. At the inquiry an application was made by Eden District Council for an award of
costs against Berrier Hill Wind Energy Ltd1. This application is the subject of a
separate Report.
2. Although not recorded on the application form, the appellant confirmed at the
inquiry that planning permission is sought for a temporary period of 25 years.
The application was accompanied by a number of photographs and a typical wind
turbine detail. The parties agreed that the details submitted were inadequate for
the grant of planning permission, but that the matter could be resolved by an
appropriately worded condition. The appellant also confirmed at the inquiry that
there are no agricultural tenants on the land, and that the correct agricultural
holdings certificate is that included on the appeal form. The parties agreed at the
inquiry that no prejudice could have resulted from the contents of the certificate
included on the application form. I have therefore taken these points into
account in my consideration of the appeal.
3. During the inquiry it became evident that the necessary notice of the complete
inquiry arrangements had not been served. However, as is evident from the
sitting days recorded above, the inquiry was adjourned for a significant period
between September and January. Although the adjournment was for a separate
reason, it was possible to take advantage of the circumstances and a second
notice was served on 14 January 20102. The inquiry was well attended, and, in
the circumstances, I consider no party has been prejudiced by the course of
events.
4. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) prepared
under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Volume 1 of the ES consists of 12
chapters covering a range of relevant matters. Volume 2 contains appendices,
and Volume 3 includes maps and figures to support the contents of Volumes 1
1 Document 44a
2 Document 38
and 2. A Non-technical Summary was also prepared3. Further Environmental
Information (FEI) was published by the appellant in June 2009 concerning
matters which had arisen during the processing of the application and the
appeal4. It too was accompanied by a Non-technical Summary. I have taken the
contents of the ES and of the FEI into account.
5. The appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State for his own determination on
3 February 2009 for the reason that the scheme involves proposals of major
significance for the delivery of the Government’s climate change programme and
energy policies. The matters about which the Secretary of State particularly
wishes to be informed are as follows:
(a) the extent to which the proposed development would be in accordance
with the development plan for the area;
(b) the extent to which the proposed development would be consistent with
the objectives of Government policy on energy as set out in Planning
Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy; the wider social, economic and
environmental benefits of the development; and the extent to which any
adverse impact has been minimised through careful consideration of
location, scale, design and other measures;
(c) the extent to which the proposed development would be consistent with
the Government’s policy on energy as set out in particular in the Energy
White Paper Meeting the Energy Challenge (Cm 7124 May 2007);
(d) the impact on archaeological remains;
(e) the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development, including
any impact on the Lake District National Park;
(f) noise generated by the proposed development and its impact on
residential properties;
(g) the impact of the proposed development on electromagnetic equipment
and potential interference, including any impact on aviation interests, in
particular the air traffic control radar at Great Dunn Fell;
(h) the impact on health caused by shadow flicker/flashing;
(i) whether any permission granted for the proposed development should
be subject to conditions and, if so, the form these should take; and
(j) any other matters that the Inspector considers relevant.
6. By a resolution dated 19 February 2009 the Development Control Committee of
the council advised that, had it had jurisdiction, it would have refused planning
permission for the following reason:
The proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and
quality of the landscape both in the near and middle view generally, and
consequently upon its setting, it would have an unacceptable visual impact, by
reason of the introduction of significant vertical elements, on the character of
3 Document CD A3
4 Document CD A4
the relationship between the local landscape and the adjacent Lake District
National Park. The development would be conspicuous in the local landscape
and is located as such that the effects on the National Park could not be
mitigated. The development is situated in close proximity to residential
property and small centres of population where the relationship between the
two would have adverse amenity consequences that cannot be mitigated. The
development is therefore contrary to retained Local Plan Policies NE1 and NE3,
Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document 2007, RSS Policy
EM17, retained Policies R44, E34 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District
Joint Structure Plan.
7. I held a pre-inquiry meeting (PIM) in respect of the appeal on 23 June 2009. In
addition to the appellant and the council, representatives of a number of
interested parties were present. It was established at that meeting that the
concern which gave rise to paragraph 5(g) above was likely to be resolved
following direct contact between the appellant and NATS (EN Route) Plc5. At the
inquiry I heard no evidence on the subject other than in the form of an agreed
draft condition. Although I received proofs of evidence from the appellant
concerning the impact of the scheme on ecological interests6, tourism7, and
possible noise disturbance8, these were not matters challenged by the other
principal parties. I have listed the proofs as submitted documents. Three other
organisations represented at the PIM took a full part in the inquiry as Rule 6
parties. These are: the Lake District National Park (LDNP); the Friends of the
Lake District (FLD); and the Berrier Wind Farm Opposition Group (BWFOG). At
the inquiry the council and the LDNP were jointly represented, as were the FLD
and BWFOG.
5 Document 57
6 Document 19
7 Document 22
8 Document 26
9 Document 3
8. A Statement of Common Ground9 was agreed between the appellant and the
council during the inquiry. It includes: the procedural history of the proposal; a
description of the development and of the appeal site; an agreement that the
inquiry is not an appropriate forum for debating the merits of national energy
policy; relevant planning policy including the North West of England Plan (RSS),
the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016, the Eden Local
Plan, and the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
The two parties agree that the principal issue is the assessment of the scheme in
relation to landscape character and visual effects within a 30kms radius study
area. A number of matters are noted as not being in dispute including aviation
issues, cultural heritage, impact on tourism, noise, and human rights. The
Statement also includes a list of agreed conditions.
The Site and Surroundings
9. The appeal site is approximately equidistant (about 8kms) between Penrith to the
east and the summit of Blencathra to the south-west. The M6 motorway follows
a north/south route just under 8kms to the east, and the A66 trunk road passes
on an east/west axis about 2.5kms to the south. It provides the principal means
of vehicular access between junction 40 of the M6 and the northern part of the
10 CD D1
Lake District leading to Cockermouth and Workington on the coast. At its closest
the settlement of Berrier is about 1km to the south-west. The western extremity
of Greystoke is about 1.75kms to the east.
10. The turbines themselves would be sited on land rising from about 267m AOD to
the south-east to 357m AOD towards the north-west; close to the top of Berrier
Hill. The site is currently in use as rough agricultural grazing land. The proposed
development area is underlain by drift deposits of Glacial Till and Alluvium, but
the underlying Carboniferous limestone and sandstone breaks through quite
extensively both on the site and in the surrounding area. The slopes on which
the site lies are comparatively gentle, with more notable outcrops at
Summerground Crags and Naddles Crags to the north-east and south-west
respectively. These outcrops rise respectively to 360m AOD and 345m AOD, and
they are therefore comparable in terms of their altitude to Berrier Hill.
11. The appeal site forms part of the Greystoke Estate which covers an extensive
area to the north-west, west and south-west of the village of Greystoke.
Greystoke Castle lies immediately to the west of the village, but the managed
landscape surrounding the Castle gives way to rougher grazing land towards the
higher parts of the estate. Greystoke Forest is a substantial area of forestry lying
to the north-west of the appeal site, but the forested area also extends to the
west, south-west and south of the site.
12. Although the appeal site therefore occupies elevated ground in comparison with
much of the landscape between it and the M6 motorway, to the west the
surroundings are dominated by the much more steeply rising and elevated land
of the higher Lake District. Here the agricultural landscape gives way to a
moorland and mountain landscape dominated by Blencathra (868m AOD),
Bowscale Fell (702m AOD), and Carrock Fell (649m AOD). The break of slope
between the agricultural land to the east and the mountain land to the west is
particularly sharp and notable. At its closest it lies about 4kms to the west of the
appeal site following a north/south axis. The small settlements of Mungrisdale,
Bowscale and Mosedale sit at the foot of the slope.
13. To the south of the appeal site the settlements of Motherby and Penruddock
occupy hilly ground rather below the level of the proposed wind farm. They are
bypassed by the A66 trunk road, while the area of the Lake District to its south
has a different character to the mountain area to the west. It is an area of
gentler landscapes occupied by farms, small areas of woodland, and a network of
lanes leading into Matterdale and then to the lower reaches of Ullswater.
Notwithstanding the difference in the appearance of this area, Great Mell Fell
(537m AOD) and Little Mell Fell (505m AOD) are conical hills which rise from the
general level of their surroundings. They too are distinctive components of the
surroundings to the appeal site.
Planning Policy
14. The development plan comprises the North West of England Plan10 (RSS)
adopted in September 2008, together with saved parts of the Cumbria and Lake
11 CD D2
12 CD D3
District Joint Structure Plan 2001-201611 adopted in 2006, and the Eden Local
Plan12 adopted in 1996.
15. At the regional level RSS Policy EM 17 – included in the Environment, Minerals,
Waste and Energy chapter – is the most directly relevant policy. It includes
targets for the supply of electricity from renewable energy sources of at least
10% by 2010, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. The targets are further refined
by reference to area and technology. In Cumbria the targets for on-shore wind
energy is a capacity of 210 MW by 2010 in 13-18 schemes, and 247.5 MW by
2015 and 2020 in 15-21 schemes.
16. Policy EM 17 also makes provision for a further geographical refinement of the
sub-regional targets and the encouragement of the use of renewable energy
resources. The policy includes a list of criteria to be taken into account including:
the anticipated effects of schemes on local amenity; their visual and landscape
character effects; their effect on nationally designated areas and their settings;
and the need for prospective developers to engage with local communities at an
early stage.
17. Chapter 9 also includes Policy EM 1. This provides for the identification,
protection, enhancement and management of the region’s environmental assets.
Policy EM1(A) is specifically concerned with landscape. It stresses the
importance of detailed landscape character assessments and strategies, together
with the special qualities of nationally designated area – including the Lake
District National Park and its setting.
18. Of more general applicability are the spatial principles of the plan included in
Chapter 4. Amongst other matters Policy DP 1 seeks to both promote
environmental quality and reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. The
promotion of environmental quality is further defined in Policy DP 7. It includes
understanding and respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and
landscapes, and maintaining and enhancing the tranquillity of the open
countryside and rural areas. The need to reduce emissions and adapt to climate
change are the subjects of further explanation in Policy DP 9. This records the
urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, by, for example, increasing renewable
energy capacity.
19. Structure plan Policy R44 has been saved and is directly relevant to the appeal
scheme. It seeks to regulate renewable energy scheme outside the Lake District
National Park and the Cumbrian AONBs. It is favourably disposed towards such
projects, but its stance is subject to there being no significant adverse effect on
landscape character or local amenity. As far as wind energy is concerned the
policy also provides for the removal of structures in the event of redundancy.
20. Structure plan Policy E37 is also saved. It records that development and land
use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features
of the Cumbrian landscape. Amongst other matters, proposals will be assessed
in relation to their visual intrusion or impact, their scale in relation to the
landscape and features, and their effect on openness, remoteness and
tranquillity.
13 CD G10 and Document 42
14 See CD G11, Part 2, paragraph 2.27
15 See Document 55
16 CD G8 and Document 43
21. The local plan is now rather old, but Policies NE1 and NE3 have been saved.
Policy NE1 is generally restrictive of development in the countryside except to
meet a local infrastructure need or where a need is established at a specific
location sufficient to outweigh any environmental costs. Policy NE3 refers to
landscapes of county importance. Within such areas proposals will be expected
to have due regard for the distinctive character of the landscape concerned.
There are a number of criteria to be satisfied. The limestone foothills between
Greystoke and the national park boundary are identified as one such area.
However, the landscapes of county importance were defined in a previous version
of the structure plan, and, although they are referred to Policy E36 of the current
structure plan, this policy has not been saved. The status of Policy NE3 is
therefore severely diminished and I have been able to afford it only limited
weight in this appeal.
22. The most directly relevant source of national policy in relation to wind energy
development is included in PPS22: Renewable Energy and its companion guide
Planning for Renewable Energy. PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and
supplement Planning and Climate Change set out the overarching planning
policies for the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.
Amongst other matters, PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas refers to
the status of designated areas.
23. Within the context of the landscape and visual effects of renewable energy
developments, PPS22 refers to the assessment of projects using objective
descriptive material and analysis. Further advice is included in the companion
guide including reference to the contribution which can be made by landscape
character assessment and the Landscape Institute’s Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA). However, paragraphs 4.17 to 4.20 of the
companion guide also describe the critical role which supplementary planning
documents (SPD) can make. The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning
Document has been prepared to supplement the development plan policies to
which I have referred13. It was the subject of public consultation in 2006 and
was adopted by both the council and the Lake District National Park Authority in
October 2007. Part 1 of the SPD essentially comprises a series of guidelines and
policies in respect of wind energy development which are tailored to the local
circumstances in Cumbria.
24. Much of the content of Part 2 of the SPD is based on the Cumbria Landscape
Classification published in 199514. This identifies 13 landscape types (LCTs) and
37 sub-types outside the national parks; the appeal site falls within sub-type 12c
(Limestone Foothills) of LCT 12 (Higher Limestone)15. In the Lake District
National Park the equivalent document is the Landscape Character Assessment
and Guidelines published in 200816. This records that, at the largest scale, the
appeal site falls within Joint Character Area 8 (Cumbria High Fells) of the
Character of England map – a classification which extends across the national
park boundary to include the Greystoke Estate. Although outside the designated
area, the appeal site is identified as falling within LCT I (Upland Limestone
Farmland) – an area which includes land on both sides of the national park
17 See CD G8, paragraph 3.5.1
18 The application plans are cited in Document 58, and the plans are as included in Volume 3
of the ES (CD A3). The need for precise plans is recognised in the draft conditions.
boundary. South-west of the appeal site however, and coincident with the
national park boundary, the classification changes to LCT J (High Fell Fringe) and
thence to LCT G (Rugged/Angular Slate High Fell). In a further refinement the
park is also sub-divided into 71 areas of distinctive character (ADCs) – defined as
being individual geographical areas with a unique composition, character and
identity which is locally distinctive with a strong sense of place17. The appeal site
adjoins ADC 4 (Mungrisdale and Caldbeck) with ADC 3 (Skiddaw and Blencathra)
above and to the west.
The Proposals
25. I have referred in paragraph 10 above to the siting of the proposed turbines.
The 9 turbines would extend in a general north-west/south-east direction. They
would be three-bladed machines with a maximum height to the blade tip of 102m
above ground level. The turbines would be mounted on cylindrical steel towers,
with a maximum hub height of 67m above ground level. The blades would rotate
at a speed of approximately 11-19 rpm. Although a specific turbine has not yet
been selected, it is recognised that the different makes are of similar appearance.
For the purposes of the application a turbine with a capacity of 2.5 MW has been
used, providing a maximum potential output of 22.5 MW. It is intended the
turbines would be finished in a semi matt light grey or off-white colour as they
would therefore blend with an average sky background thus reducing their
potential impact.
26. The scheme includes the erection of a permanent anemometer mast. It would
take the form of a tapering lattice structure 60m in height. There would be a
small substation building and a temporary working compound towards the lower,
south-east end of the site. Vehicular access to the site would be obtained from
the south through the Greystoke Moor Plantation, with an enlarged access onto
the minor road between Greystoke and Berrier. Access to each turbine site
would be obtained via access tracks which would generally be 5m in width with
some widening for bends, gradients, junctions and turning places. Details of the
necessary grid connection are not yet available. I understand however there is a
single circuit 33KV line running between Penrith and Keswick, and the appellant
would prefer the wind farm to be linked via underground cables.
27. It is anticipated the construction programme for the development would last 6
months. On the cessation of the use all major equipment and structures would
be removed in a 2 month period. All underground cables and most of the turbine
foundations would however be left in the ground. Unless otherwise requested by
the owner of the land, the on-site access tracks would be removed and the
surface reinstated. Access to the site entrance has been agreed with the Area
Engineer of the local highway authority following consideration of a report
prepared by heavy and exceptional load transport specialists18.
The Case for the Appellant
19 Document 60
20 Documents 22-24
21 Documents 26, 27
22 Documents 19, 20
23 Document 59
I have reported the case on the basis of the advocate’s closing submissions19 with
additional references to the evidence submitted before and during the inquiry. The
material points are:
28. Although a number of interested persons have referred to the possible adverse
effects of the proposed windfarm on tourism, the appellant’s evidence submitted
in respect of this matter20 has not been challenged. Nor has there been any
debate on the basis of the appellant’s evidence21 in respect of anticipated noise
generation. The possibility of shadow flicker can be resolved by the imposition of
an appropriate condition, and the appellant’s evidence22 in relation to birds is
unchallenged.
29. The appellant has considered the concerns expressed by the Inspector about the
compatibility of the proposed micro-siting condition with the test of precision in
Circular 11/95. A revised condition is suggested23. The appellant believes this
condition complies with the tests because it sets out what can be micro-sited; the
extent of the micro-siting; it defines reference points from which to judge the
extent; and it provides for the final positions of the turbines and access tracks.
It would thus enable enforcement action to be taken if necessary. Such
conditions are commonplace in windfarm decisions.
30. The RSS addresses renewable energy and climate change issues in a number of
policies. Policies DP 1, DP 7 and DP 9 set out spatial principles, while the
objective of Policy EM 17 is renewable energy. It is the key policy and it sets
targets for electricity deployment. It should be given greater weight than other
policies. Structure plan Policy R44 addresses renewable energy matters outside
the nationally designated landscapes, but it is not possible to plan a windfarm
which would not give rise to some significant landscape character and visual
effects.
31. It is common ground that the wind energy target for Cumbria for 2010 will be
missed by a considerable margin. The 2015 target represents a considerable
challenge. Although Policy EM 17 refers to local environmental criteria these
should not rule out or place constraints on all or specific technologies. In
accordance with paragraph 14 of PPS22, it advises against the creation of buffer
zones around designated areas.
32. Attention should also focus on RSS Policy EM1(A). It expresses an ambitious
level for the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the landscape, as
informed by landscape character assessment, and the special qualities of
designated areas and their settings. Such an approach is difficult to apply to
specific schemes. The approach to structure plan Policy E37 should be cautious
and set against RSS Policy EM 17. The local plan predates both PPS22 and the
RSS, and Policy NE1 is of very little help. Similarly, Policy NE3 should attract
little or no weight. It is inconsistent with the national approach to local
designations included in PPS7, and the original structure plan policy from which it
is derived has not been saved. The 2007 SPD is directly relevant to the proposed
24 CD B7
25 CD B6
26 See Document 30
27 Documents 7, 8
development, but its policies do not add significant value. The contents of Part 2
on landscape capacity assessment are of more interest.
33. Of particular importance in the national guidance are the Renewable Energy
Directive24 and the Renewable Energy Strategy25. Both post-date the RSS. The
latter advises of: the likely need for about 30% of our electricity to be from
renewable energy sources by 2020; the substantial contribution to be made by
onshore wind; and the milestone reporting to the European Commission every 2
years. On this basis the 2015 Cumbria target for wind energy will need to be
reviewed upwards.
34. Key principle (viii) of PPS22 advises that development proposals should
demonstrate how local environmental effects have been minimised. The turbines
in this case would be 102m in height, but others now reach 125m. The scale of
the turbines would not be unacceptable, especially if targets are to be fulfilled. If
turbines are not permitted here, larger ones will have to be erected elsewhere in
Cumbria.
35. The right approach to making the decision is important. It is incorrect to
consider the benefits and targets, but then conclude these are outweighed by the
harm. The correct approach is to assess the harm and then pay proper attention
to the benefits and need.
36. For funding reasons the landscape and visual impact evidence submitted by
BWFOG26 was not the subject of cross-examination. Caution should therefore be
exercised in relation to this evidence. In relation to the council’s landscape
evidence27, a number of matters are questionable. The witness had not visited
three of the viewpoints – including that at Blencathra. Given the subsequent
reliance on the claimed unacceptable effects of the scheme from this location,
this is a serious omission. There are many other inconsistencies and corrections
which must cast doubt on the reliability of the assessment. There is no analysis
of the impacts on landscape character between 6 and 12kms from the appeal
site.
37. The methodology adopted overstates the extent of effects. Additional weighting
is applied to both the sensitivity and magnitude of change for landscapes lying
within the national park, but this amounts to double counting leading to an over-
statement of the effects. The aggregation of landscape character types does not
illuminate how the key characteristics of each might be affected. Historic LCTs
are used rather than those included in the latest assessment. The averaging of
the significance of effects leads to some improbable conclusions – including major
effects on all villages and recreational users where the turbines would be visible
within 30kms, and significant effects on landscape character up to 12kms from
the site. Different thresholds of significance are used for cumulative and solus
effects. Using the methodology adopted by the council’s witness would render all
commercial scale windfarms unacceptable.
38. The appellant does not rely on the landscape and visual assessment included in
the ES. The impact of the scheme was reassessed by the appellant’s landscape
28 Documents 14-17
witness for the inquiry28. He used the widely accepted best practice methodology
included in the GLVIA. It is accepted that this does not accord with that used in
the SPD, but the SPD should not be allocated greater weight than the established
best practice. In respect of the valency debate, the appellant adopts a
precautionary approach and does not rely on a positive disposition towards wind
turbines.
39. The appellant assesses landscape effects by reference to the host and other
LCTs. A clear distinction is therefore drawn between landscape effects and visual
amenity effects. There cannot be landscape character effects outside the host
LCT unless views towards the host LCT are one of the key characteristics.
Significant effects on landscape character are acknowledged within 3-4kms of the
turbines – a relatively localised area. The effects would be contained in some
directions by existing features such as Greystoke Forest and intervening
topography. Within 800m of the turbines a windfarm landscape would arise. The
significant effects would be restricted to the host LCT and parts of the
Intermediate Land, the Upland Limestone Farmland, and the High Fell Fringe.
40. The Lake District National Park boundary lies within 1 km of the nearest turbine.
The North Pennines AONB would be over 20kms away, and the Solway Coast
AONB over 28kms. The site is located in a former landscape of county
importance (LOCI). However, to ascribe any weight to the location of the site in
a LOCI amounts to double counting. The North Pennines AONB is too far away to
experience any significant effects. The landscape witnesses agree there would be
effects on the national park, but they differ as the extent of the effects and the
conclusions to be drawn.
41. There would be no direct effects on the landscape fabric of the national park, nor
interruption to any of the activities undertaken. The setting of the park is not
defined, and, although it is agreed that the site lies within the setting, the
statutory objectives of the designation are maintained. There is a stark contrast
between the landscape character inside and outside the park such that the
proposals would not be seen within the context of the park’s landscape. From
the key viewpoints within the park the turbines would occupy a small portion of
the view against the background of the landscape behind rather than the
skyscape. Any views into the park from outside should not properly be
considered to constitute as an impact on the park itself.
42. As far as the special qualities of the park are concerned, there would be no
impact on the combination of the spectacular natural features and the farmed
landscape within the park. There would be no impact on the opportunities for
quiet enjoyment within the park, nor would the diversity of landscape within the
park be affected. The open nature of the fells and the freedom to enjoy them
would not be affected, and, other than small parts of large panoramas, there
would be no interruption to the impressive open views from the fells. As far as
the 3-4kms radius referred to in paragraph 39 above is concerned, the impact
within the national park would be confined to the vicinity of Naddles Crags and
Penruddock. From within the park there would be no impact on key views
towards Blencathra and the Fells.
29 See CD J12, paragraph 66
43. The landscape capacity study included in the SPD supports the proposed
development. It concludes that large groups of turbines would be appropriate
within the blander fringes of the Higher Limestone LCT where there are fewer
limestone features, and especially if visually linked to large scale field patterns
and forestry blocks. The site is within such an area. The design of the proposed
development would be related to both the landform and landscape elements, to
create a balanced and coherent layout. The design has taken advantage of
natural screening by vegetation and topography in order to minimise impacts.
There is no need on the appellant to demonstrate that a scheme of smaller,
fewer, or differently distributed turbines would not have a lesser impact in order
to demonstrate minimisation. In PPS22 terms any harm would have been
minimised if it was outweighed by the benefits.
44. It is inevitable that wind energy developments of whatever scale will give rise to
locally significant visual effects. Wherever there are clear views in this case
significant effects are likely to be found up to 8.5kms from the site. There is
general agreement between the landscape witnesses. The real differences
concern the acceptability of effects in relation to policy and the need for a
balanced decision.
45. A comprehensive survey of the impact of the scheme on residential amenity was
carried out on behalf of the appellant. It is estimated that 110 of the 900
properties within 6kms of the site would experience significant effects. However,
such a finding is the inevitable consequence of the construction of a windfarm
unless the site is located in a wilderness. Such effects could rarely be a sufficient
factor to tilt the balance against a project. The position might be different if the
effect would be overbearing or oppressive or if the residential amenity of the
dwellings was materially diminished. Having applied ‘the Lavender test’29 it is
concluded in this case that there would be no such impacts. The calibration of
effects has little to do with the quality of the original surroundings. Acceptability
is derived from a judgement as to whether the development would be
overbearing, overwhelming or oppressive. None of the dwellings would be within
1km of the turbines.
46. There would be significant effects on the recreational users of permissive paths
within the Greystoke Estate, on open access land, and from summits within the
national park. There is no evidence however that such recreational users would
actually dislike the development, or seek to avoid the area, or not be able to
enjoy the full experience of visiting the national park.
47. There would also be effects on the visual amenity of local road users – on the
A66, the B5288, and minor roads within 5kms. Travelling west on the A66 the
site would not be visible until passing Stainton. The views would be intermittent
and oblique, and filtered by trees along the central reservation of the dual
carriageway. From the A66 near Dacre views towards the windfarm would be
oblique and would not interrupt the prospect of either Blencathra or the adjacent
fells. Travelling in the opposite direction, potential visibility would be limited to
glimpsed views and restricted to blade tips. There would be no significant effects
on users of the A66 as a whole.
30 Document 44
48. The council claims that adverse cumulative effects would be experienced in the
event of the approval and implementation of both the current case and the
proposed development at Grise. This would arise as a result of inter-visibility,
combined visibility and sequential visibility from both the Lake District National
Park and the North Pennines. But there is no evidence in relation to the North
Pennines. As far as the national park is concerned, the council’s landscape
witness accepted that inter-visibility would not be a factor along the ridge
between Carrock Fell, Bowscale Fell and Mungrisedale Common; there would be
no combined visibility from the North Eastern High Fells or at the southern end of
High Street; but where combined visual impacts are noted these are considered
to fall below the threshold of significance. There is no reason to doubt the
appellant’s evidence that significant cumulative effects would be limited in extent
due to the separation distance between the two sites.
49. In summary, the appellant concludes the scheme accords with the approach
adopted in Policy EM 17. As to Policy E37, the project is compatible with the
distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape in the sense that
there would be no undue conflict with these characteristics, and against the
background that no wind energy development could be said to be wholly
compatible with rural landscape characteristics. Planning permission for the
scheme should therefore be granted unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.
50. The other material considerations pull in the same direction. The EU Directive
requires that 15% of the UK’s gross energy consumption should come from
renewable sources by 2020. The Renewable Energy Strategy establishes a lead
scenario to meet this obligation. There needs to be a 7-fold increase in the share
of renewables in scarcely more than a decade. The scheme can make its own
contribution towards these proportions which are in any event greater than those
included in the RSS, and it should be noted that there is not an inexhaustible
potential for projects to fill the supply gaps. Too often the view appears to be
adopted that the need for new renewable energy capacity is a consideration of no
obviously greater weight than local environmental effects. Such an approach
fails to grapple with the message of Government policy. Rejection of a scheme
should follow only if there is something quite fundamentally and obviously wrong
with a proposal. There are no such fundamental problems here.
The Case for the Local Planning Authority and the Lake District National Park
I have reported the case on the basis of the advocate’s closing submissions30 with
additional references to the evidence submitted before and during the inquiry. The
material points are:
51. The proposal is ill-advised. It is comprehensively opposed, and it is surprising
that, notwithstanding this, the appellant did not at any stage review the location.
There are two primary issues – the policy context and the landscape and visual
impact.
52. The council acknowledges there is a strategic need for the development of
renewable energy projects, as expressed in PPS1, the Climate Change
Supplement, PPS22, its Companion Guide, and PPS7. But national policy itself
31 See CD J5
32 See CD J6
recognises the importance of preventing significant effects on the environment –
especially those parts of the landscape which have national significance. Each
document refers to the requirement that account is taken of environmental
interests, but the appellant’s position is that significant impacts can justifiably
result from windfarm development without conflict with national policy. This
amounts to a misunderstanding of the Government’s approach.
53. Criteria-based policies which prevent development that would cause significant
landscape, visual or other impacts are the sort of policy the Government is
seeking to encourage. This must be even more the case where nationally
designated areas are involved, especially when taking account of the statutory
duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural
beauty of the national park. The broad requirement to prevent significant effects
does not mean that national designations are given equal protection with non-
designated landscapes; the threshold of significance will be lower in the context
of a designated landscape.
54. RSS Policies DP 1 and DP 7 are protective in relation to the environmental
consequences of development. Policies EM 1 and EM1(A) are similarly protective
in relation to the natural environment. Policy EM 17 falls to be considered in the
light of this context. It has been approved and must be expected to comply with
national policy. It is a framework policy which is written in general terms.
Structure plan Policy R44 sets down requirements that there are no significant
adverse effects on landscape character. Its saving requires the two policies to be
consistently read. Policy EM 17 does not alter the approach set out in
Government policy. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD has been produced under the
aegis of the structure plan, and there is no suggestion by any party that it should
attract only limited weight. It was accepted by the appellant’s planning policy
witness that if the area of the appeal site could not be regarded as bland, the
development would be contrary to the SPD guidance.
55. The general approach taken by Inspectors on appeal recognises the importance
of landscape and visual effects. Where they are considered significant, planning
permission has been refused; but where the impact has been judged
insignificant, appeals have been allowed. The council has no predisposition in its
area to refuse windfarm applications. Whinash was the subject of objection by
the authority and refused following an inquiry31. Hoff Moor was refused and
dismissed on appeal32. Lamonby was withdrawn, and Grise is currently with the
Secretary of State. The council’s decisions have not been found to be incorrect
by either the Inspectorate or the Secretary of State. Nor does the national park
authority object to all such proposed development – it has not objected to the
Grise scheme for example.
56. Both the council’s and the national park’s landscape witnesses consider there
would be significant negative impacts on views both away from and towards the
national park. The criticism of details of the council’s evidence did not affect the
overall conclusions reached. The written evidence submitted on behalf of BWFOG
also concludes there would be significant negative landscape impacts.
Furthermore, it was accepted by the appellant’s landscape witness that where he
identified significant effects these should be regarded as significant adverse
33 CD G8
34 CD G2, page 102, paragraph 8.16
35 CD G10, Part 2, Appendix 2.4
36 CD G11, pages 57, 59, and 60
impacts. It follows that he must now accept the impacts would be harmful. The
difference between the parties is therefore much reduced.
57. It is unusual for the landscape witness of an appellant to acknowledge the
inadequacy of the relevant section of the ES. This part of the ES was effectively
abandoned, but the analysis must now be regarded as an after-the-event
justification. In contrast to the council’s approach, the appellant did not follow
the methodology adopted in the SPD, and no attempt was therefore made to
assess the impact of the scheme against the key characteristics of the landscape.
It was not possible to understand the significance of the impacts which had been
identified. Nor were the proposals assessed against the required magnitude of
scale set out in the SDP.
58. In relation to the national park little account was taken of the latest landscape
character assessment undertaken by Chris Blandford Associates33. The particular
sensitivities of the various types to windfarm development were not identified.
The conclusions reached were inconsistent. Where significant effects were
identified, the assessment was made against the area as a whole. Thus, the
overall scale of the impact was diluted, irrespective of the degree of impact from
a particular location. The same criticism applies to the assessment of impacts
derived from the photomontages. In addition, all were depicted in summer
conditions, contrary to the advice included in the GLVIA34. The appellant
estimates that there would be no significant impacts on views beyond 4kms.
This underestimation of the significance of effects contrasts with the SPD which
refers to prominent and conspicuous effects up to 12kms35.
59. The parties agreed however about the considerable sensitivity of the area. It is
within 1km of the national park and a number of the interested persons gave it
an international perspective. The effect of the scheme on LCT 12 would be
pervasive and wholly damaging. Even the appellant acknowledges that a
windfarm landscape would be created within 800m of the site. Beyond this a
windfarm landscape sub-type would result 3-4kms to the north; 1km to the east;
and into the national park near Penruddock to the south.
60. The distinctions within LCT 12 were lost on the appellant. Sub-type 12c is
described in the SPD as unusual, but it would be almost completely eradicated by
the development and replaced by a windfarm landscape. Moreover, and for a
number of reasons, it does not constitute part of the blander fringe of LCT 12.
The area around the appeal site is unspoiled and remote; it is intervisible with
other areas with distinctive landmark skylines. The development is likely to be
widely visible. In contrast with other parts of LCT 12 it is close to the national
park. It falls within the sensitivities cited in the SPD – including the views around
Greystoke and key views towards the national park from the A66. Within the
Cumbria Landscape Classification36 area 12c is described as ‘simple, balanced,
calm and beautiful’, in comparison with sub-types 12b and 12d, which are
described in part as ‘bland’. There is no evidence provided by the appellant that
the area can be validly described as bland.
37 See Lake District National Park: Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines (CD G8)
38 Document 56, paragraph 44
61. As far as the design of the proposed windfarm is concerned, the scheme would
contravene the objective of avoiding the partial view of turbines above the
horizon – including from viewpoints within the national park. It was suggested
by the appellant’s planning policy witness that the original designation of the
boundary included the setting of the park. However, the designation was made
on the basis of natural beauty criteria, and areas which did not qualify would not
be designated. The latter approach was acknowledged by the appellant’s
landscape witness, and it was agreed that there had been no proposals which
have been permitted as close as the current case to a national park.
62. Within the national park, Types I (Upland Limestone Farmland) and J (High Fell
Fringe)37 would be significantly affected in the vicinity of Penruddock and Naddles
Crags respectively – falling within Areas 3 (Skiddaw and Blencathra), 4
(Mungrisdale and Caldbeck) and 19 (Great Mell and Little Mell Valleys) of the 71
ADCs. Although the appellant agrees there would be significant impacts, this is
described as being only moderate. Reference is also made in the document to
the sensitivities of the area, including the need to avoid tall vertical structures –
including in Type G (Rugged/Angular Slate High Fell). One result of the visibility
of turbines from high land is that backclothing against vegetation can be more
damaging than the effect of skylining. There would also be significant effects
from gateway locations into the national park, including from the A66. In
summary, there would be wide-ranging significant impacts from numerous
locations up to 8kms from the site both within and outside the national park.
63. Just as the ES underestimates the landscape impact of the proposed
development, so it also underestimates the visual impact. On the basis of the
proofs submitted to the inquiry however there is a level of agreement between
those giving evidence. There would be significant adverse visual impacts from
many settlements, including Berrier, Penruddock, Greystoke, Sparket,
Thackthwaite, Hutton Roof and Troutbeck. Significant impacts would also be
experienced on residents within these settlements. It is estimated on the
appellant’s behalf that 20% of the population living within 4kms of the site would
experience significant impacts – no small proportion. There would also be effects
on hill walkers on the Northern Fells, cyclists on C2C, those on lower level paths,
and open access land in and around Greystoke, and those travelling on the A66
and the B5228.
64. As far as residents are concerned the ‘Lavender test’ was discussed. However, it
was wrongly characterised by the appellant. It is evident from the Hempnall
decision38 that the test is whether the dwelling concerned becomes unattractive
to live in, and not just whether the turbines would be overbearing. Considered
on this basis, numerous properties would become unattractive places in which to
live. The judgement should be the response of a person living in a house, not
simply the effect on a view from a principal room. The opinions held by local
residents corroborate the council’s position.
65. Although in its report to committee the council’s planning officer considered the
cumulative impact of the appeal scheme and the Grise project would be limited,
the landscape witnesses for both the council and the appellant consider there
would be a harmful effect. The appellant’s witness refers specifically to elevated
39 CD G10, Part 2, paragraph 1.30
40 See CD B6, paragraph 4.62
41 CD B5
42 Document 64
locations within the national park, to the A66, and to the C2C cycle route. The
separation between the two resultant landscape character sub-types would be
about 1 km. However, in recognition of the advice included in the SPD39, the
area of the Grise sub-type should be taken to include the aerials of the Skelton
Transmitting Station.
66. Taking account of the extent of the harm in this case, the contribution to
renewable energy benefits cannot assist the appellant. The strategic need cannot
be regarded as being overriding. Paragraph 16 of the Climate Change
Supplement to PPS1 records that such targets are not to be tested against
individual applications. In any event, targets are always receding, and they
cannot always be overriding. Nor does the Renewable Energy Strategy alter the
situation. It records that the lead scenario may change and that it should not be
used as a sector or technology target. Nor has it shifted the weight to be given
to environmental protection or nationally recognised designations40. A similar
approach was taken in the Energy White Paper41. It does not set down
independent or separate guidance on planning matters. The lack of other
objections – such as noise, ecology or radio interference – is irrelevant. The
landscape and visual issues arising from the scheme are significant and sufficient
to justify refusal in this case. The apparent benefits of the scheme cannot mask
the substantial and unacceptable scale of the development. These render the
scheme contrary to national policy, regional policy and supplementary guidance.
The Case for the Berrier Wind Farm Opposition Group and the Friends of the
Lake District
I have reported the case on the basis of the advocate’s closing submissions42 with
additional references to the evidence submitted before and during the inquiry. The
material points are:
67. Both the FLD and the BWFOG recognise the urgent need for renewable energy
and they acknowledge that compromises will have to be made. The natural
beauty of parts of the British countryside will necessarily be altered. However, in
this case there is a coincidence in the objections to the scheme between local
residents and the proper planning balance on a larger scale. It is the practice of
neither the FLD nor of the national park authority to habitually object to
windfarm proposals in and around the Lake District. But in this case the scheme
would have a very serious impact upon a landscape which is locally, regionally
and nationally precious. The parties are in agreement that the proposals would
have a significant adverse effect on the national park and on its setting, and the
precautionary assumption should therefore apply.
68. Whilst recognising the attraction of locations where the wind resource makes
such renewable energy proposals viable, the planning system is a long way from
presuming in favour of wind turbines wherever they are sited. At both national
and local levels a balanced decision is necessary. Unacceptable impacts cannot
be rendered acceptable by reason of national need. Although the national and
regional targets are material considerations, there is no suggestion that a less
43 CD J3, paragraph 25
44 In particular the minimisation of environmental impacts through careful consideration of
location, scale and design.
critical eye should be brought to bear on individual projects. The approach in
relation to wind energy has been to establish a criteria-based policy framework
together with an emphasis on landscape capacity and sensitivity studies. The
identification of individual sites is then left to the market.
69. Although the policy base is sometimes confused, in Cumbria there are two
reliable elements of policy. The recently issued RSS is consistent with PPS22;
and the SPD provides a detailed analysis of how to assess proposals within the
county but outside the national park. In contrast, the Renewable Energy
Strategy is of less relevance to individual development control decisions – it does
not add to the need case. Policy EM 17 of the RSS is the starting point. It
recognises the need for balanced decisions, and that different sites can result in
different outcomes. Both RSS Policy EM1(A) and structure plan Policy E37
require development to be compatible with its environmental context. However,
the appellant’s landscape witness recognises that a new landscape character
would be created.
70. Different methodologies exist for the assessment of the landscape and visual
impact of development. What counts however is the conclusions that are
reached. Two matters are noted. First, it is worth recording that what may be
‘significant’ in terms of the EIA Regulations is not the test of a material
consideration in planning terms. Thus, although a moderate impact may not be
significant, it nevertheless remains a material consideration. Second, the theory
of valency holds that because some people welcome wind turbines, it is
impossible to ascribe either a positive or a negative value to their assessment.
The point is not accepted. It cannot be that there must be a legitimately held
positive view at every location. In any event, at Hellrigg43 the Inspector held
(following the same point) that the impact must be assumed to be adverse in
order to properly weigh them in a planning balance, whilst recognising that
people are differently disposed towards the technology. This was agreed by the
parties in the current case.
71. There are a number of simple points on which the inquiry turns.
i. First, the landscape and visual appraisal included in the ES is of poor
quality. But it is this work which has led to the site selection, and to the
layout and design of the project. A flawed appraisal results in a
requirement for the greatest circumspection in other respects. No
evidence has been submitted for example to demonstrate compliance with
the eighth key principle of PPS2244.
ii. Second, the appeal site is within 800m of one of the country’s foremost
national parks. The appellant’s landscape witness acknowledges that a
windfarm landscape sub-area would be created. Furthermore, the
windfarm would be a key characteristic at a distance of 3-4 kms – the
effect would thus be inside the park. The FLD in particular considers the
appellant has severely underestimated the impact of the turbines on the
45 Document 32, paragraphs 5.3 and 5.11
46 CD G10, Part 1, paragraph 3.18
47 Document 35
48 Document 36 records the impact of the scheme on a dwelling in Berrier.
49 CD J12, paragraph 66
50 CD G8 Lake District National Park: Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines
national park, especially in relation to prospects to the east from
Blencathra and the associated fells45.
iii. Third, the site is a location which would render the turbines highly visible
from one of the principal gateways into the park – a matter specifically
cited in the SPD46. Paragraph 14 of PPS22 draws attention to the
importance of the setting of nationally designated landscapes. The first
view of Blencathra from the A66 announces the arrival of the traveller in
the Northern Fells. The setting of the park comprises the lower ground
and the foothills to the mountains. The land includes the appeal site, and
the turbines would be in the same field of view; they would diminish the
experience of arrival. The site lies within LCT 12c, but there is a link to
LCT I within the park. There would be a clear adverse impact on the
setting of the park. In addition, the proposal would damage the prospect
of the Northern Fells from the higher parts of Penrith47.
iv. The scheme would be visible to thousands of people who come to this part
of England to avoid large man-made intrusions into the environment. In
the opposite direction, walkers on the fells would perceive the turbines as
alien in character and colour. Blencathra is a popular climb and was one of
Wainwright’s favourites, and landscape interest does not end at the park
boundary.
v. For residents of Berrier the impact would be substantial48. It is not
suggested in the Dover case that the test of a material impact on amenity
requires that turbines should be so overbearing as to render the property
uninhabitable49. There are many man-made industrial features in the
Dover area, but in Berrier the environment is radically different. Its
unspoiled beauty is a treasured characteristic. At Berrier and other nearby
settlements the turbines would be an all pervasive element in the daily
lives and the total experiences of residents. Although this may not in itself
be sufficient in itself to justify the dismissal of the appeal, it adds to the
weight against the scheme.
72. The work by Chris Blandford Associates50 does not help the appellant. It cautions
against the impact of vertical structures on the park’s landscape and refers to the
relationship between the land to the north adjacent to LCT I (Upland Limestone
Farmland). The SPD indicates why the area of LCT 12c (Limestone Foothills) has
particular sensitivities. The appellant’s landscape witness draws attention to size
of the fields and the area of forestry adjoining the appeal site, but this is confined
to the blander fringes of LCT 12 (Higher Limestone). The appeal site is not in
such a bland fringe, which in any event are confined to LCT 12b (Rolling Fringe)
and 12d (Moorland and Commons). The site enjoys the backdrop of the national
park, but it is also close to an ancient monument with an exposed limestone crag
running through it. It is partly open access land and forms part of the beautiful
51 Document 34 refers to the open access land and to prospects across the appeal site to
Blencathra and the Northern Fells. The routes of permissive paths on the Greystoke Estate
are shown in Document 62.
Greystoke Estate51. The SPD includes repeated references indicting that the
scheme is in conflict with the terms of its advice.
73. The proposed development would diminish the quality of one of the finest corners
of England, and the Secretary of State is robustly invited to dismiss the appeal.
The Cases of Interested Persons
Supporters
74. Mr Neville Howard is the owner of Greystoke Castle and a trustee of the
Greystoke Estate – which includes the appeal site. He considers that Cumbria’s
target for the production of renewable energy is as important in coming to a
balanced decision as the visual impact of the proposed development. The ability
of the planet to support the conditions necessary to sustain human life is dying.
There is no longer any ignorance of the consequences of global warming – the
evidence is widespread, and the effects are starting to be felt in Cumbria also.
The time available to counter the effects is reducing, and delay will lead to
failure. Rising sea levels will be a threat to our coastal towns and villages, and to
coastal nuclear power stations. This in turn could result in a surge of population
movements into more upland areas such as Cumbria, causing substantial
problems for future generations. The harnessing of wind energy is a means of
confronting the threat.
75. Mr D J H Brammer understands that the main objection to the scheme would be
its visibility from Blencathra. But much is visible from the top of Blencathra, and,
in any event, the visual impact of proposed development is essentially a
subjective matter. It is a matter of opinion. Life goes on beyond the National
Park – there are TV masts, factories, the A66 road, and other windfarms. Any
lighting of the turbines would be only around its periphery and it would not be
obtrusive. Any flicker effect would only be experienced downwind of the
turbines. As far as the possibility of a precedent is concerned, this has already
happened and wind energy will not go away. There is no authoritative conclusion
as far as noise disturbance is concerned. It is recognised that it is a difficult
subject and that some people are more sensitive than others. But the noise
created by turbines is not obtrusive, and there is no threat of seismic vibration or
infrasound. Wind turbine syndrome is not a recognised condition in peer-
reviewed journals. The threat to birds is minimal. There is no statistical
evidence that windfarms affect tourism – indeed, evidence from Swaffham is to
the contrary. But there is a clear threat of rising sea level to Bangladesh, and
time is running out for effective action. In any event the turbines could be
replaced within 25 years. For the time-being there is no alternative option.
Objectors
76. Mr Doug Scott has lived in the area since 1982. He favours progress but
considers the fells should be protected. The views and prospects of the Pennines
and the Lake District are an uplifting experience, and areas such as the Lake
District are important to us all. The approach to the area is as important as
being within the National Park, indeed, he is now inspired more by looking at
mountains from a distance – especially the iconic view from the east. The
turbines would diminish a world-renowned location and result in the encirclement
of the Lake District.
77. For the past 26 years the local Member of Parliament has been the Rt Hon
David Maclean. He is totally supportive of wind energy and was responsible
when an Environment Minister in 1991/2 for opening the first windfarm in
Cumbria, at Haverigg, and the second, at Orton. However, he is opposed to
inappropriately sited land-based windfarms, such as the appeal scheme. In
addition, the turbines are now very much larger, and the future lies in insulation,
small-scale hydro, nuclear, and off-shore wind. The emphasis of Government
policy in relation to wind energy is now on off-shore schemes, and the potential
contribution of the project to the national and Cumbria targets would be tiny. No
coal or gas fired power stations would close even if 50,000 turbines were erected,
since they work for only 28% of the time. The scheme is opposed by every
democratic governmental organisation in Cumbria. Other wind energy decisions
in Cumbria are instructive. At Silloth the turbines were considered an intrusion,
but the landscape was not considered special enough to justify refusal. At
Whinash the damage to the landscape would have been too great and the
scheme was rejected. The landscape at Berrier Hill is even more precious – the
site is at the foot of one of our finest mountains and the landscape is too
sensitive. It is a landscape of national importance and the damage could not be
mitigated. The Lake District comprises England’s only mountain area, and there
is a danger it could become encircled by windfarms. If this scheme is successful
nowhere in Cumbria would be safe. If this and the scheme at Grise are approved
the adverse effect on tourism (and its jobs) would be greater than the economic
benefit of the turbines.
78. Sir Christopher Audland lives in South Lakeland and has a strong European
background. He was Director-General for Energy in the European Commission
from 1981 to 1986, and a former Executive President of Europa Nostra. The
latter organisation fully supports the drive for renewables, but insists that
turbines should be appropriately sited. Many European countries have focused
too heavily on wind energy – they have provided large incentives and relaxed
planning regimes. Each turbine constitutes a small power station, and areas of
beautiful landscape have become dominated by increasingly large turbines. This
is causing serious damage to the natural heritage. The Europa Nostra
Declaration on wind power of 2008 considers that – amongst others – landscape
impacts are being insufficiently addressed. At Berrier Hill the turbines would be
only 1km from the boundary of the Lake District National Park – an area of
extraordinary beauty currently being considered for designation as a World
Heritage site. There is no doubt that his views would be shared by Beatrix
Potter, Canon Rawnsley, John Ruskin and William Wordsworth. The visual impact
of the scheme on one of the two principal means of access into the Lake District
– the A66 – would be massive. Instead of the striking natural beauty of
Blencathra, the eye would inevitably be drawn to the turbines, each nearly as
high as the spire of Salisbury Cathedral. The photomontages cannot create a
true image of the impact of the turbines because the blades do not move. On
the subject of the targets, the county council has consistently objected to the
figure of 247.5 MW on the grounds of the incapacity of the landscape to
accommodate further wind turbines. However, the targets are indicative, not
mandatory. The Inspector at the Whinash Inquiry recorded that the applicant’s
approach in that case relied on the national need for renewable energy, but
Government policy does not dictate renewable energy at any cost.
79. Cllr Bert Richardson was born in Caldbeck and is a member of both Cumbria
County Council and Eden District Council. He considers Blencathra to be ‘the
jewel on the crown’ of the Lake District – especially from the A66 looking
westwards. He is not totally opposed to additional wind turbines in Cumbria, but
fears that saturation point may have been reached. The scheme could be a
threat to tourism, especially in relation to the national cycle route through
Greystoke. Wind turbines themselves are inefficient, and it is evident that
nuclear power is going to be the way forward. Finally, the boundary of the
National Park is an artificial line.
80. Mr Robert Dauncey has a house in Greystoke and has had an affection for the
Lake District – especially the quieter northern area - for the past 28 years. He
considers Cumbria does play its part, but holds that only nuclear power will
supply the massive quantities of sustainable energy which are necessary. The
proposed scheme would have a huge and totally unacceptable visual impact on
the location. In addition, there would be adverse effects on the local limestone
pavements, on bird life, and on Greystoke Castle and its parkland. If the appeal
is successful and the windfarm is constructed the scheme makes no provision for
the removal of the turbines in the event of insolvency.
81. Cllr Roy Fisher has lived in Greystoke for 42 years. He is the Chairman of the
Parish Council and ward member for Eden District Council and is concerned about
the effect of the scheme on tourism. The wind farm would be visible from the
Hartside Café on top of the Pennines and the effect would be devastating. The
rotating blades would be a threat to bats and birdlife, and the power supplies
would be intermittent. Rivers would be a better source of energy, and the
Government’s promotion of wind energy is only cosmetic.
82. Mr Malcolm Emery fears that, if successful, the proposal could be the first of
many in an area of beautiful parkland. Access to the estate would be denied but
for the advent of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, and he wonders
whether access would be prevented if the turbines were erected. Although the
central core of the Lake District National Park is protected, far more people would
be affected around the edge. This area therefore needs more protection. The
Hobhouse Report established the purposes of the national parks in the late
1940s, including the need for their preservation for the benefit of future
generations.
83. Mrs Annie Swarbrick objects to the scheme on three grounds. First, she is
responsible for the establishment of the Cycle Café in Greystoke in 2005. It
provides for those following the 140 mile C2C cycle route from Workington to
Sunderland. The location is unique providing a vantage point of the landscape
and Greystoke Castle. The café also caters for those pursuing workshops, and
the prospect from the garden of the café is an essential part of the success of the
business. It is a lovely setting, which the turbines would render anachronistic.
Secondly, Greystoke village itself is a beautiful location with a complete range on
basic facilities. It is not a national park honey-pot, but that is part of its
attraction. The proposed turbines would desecrate the village, and although the
attraction of alternative forms of energy is recognised, this needs to be tempered
by common sense. The effect of the proposed development on the appearance
and impact of Blencathra is her third concern. It is a stunning mountain which
means much to those who follow the C2C route. She is fearful that
compromising its appearance would reduce the attraction of the route. This
would be a loss both to the café and Greystoke in general.
84. Mr Eric Robson is the Chairman of both the Wainwright Society and Cumbria
Tourism. The former has 11,000 members, and the latter 4,000. Both
organisations support the growth of renewable energy, but this is self-evidently a
world class landscape. Wainwright described Blencathra as one of the grandest
objects in Lakeland. It has a magnetic influence and acts as the gateway to the
Lake District. It is acknowledged that the planet needs to be cared for, but not
at the cost of a fragile landscape close to home. Even if the appreciation of the
landscape is a subjective matter, this does not render such an attitude invalid.
The mountain has an almost mystical quality which generates an emotional or
poetic engagement. A survey conducted on behalf of Cumbria Tourism in 2005
indicates that 68% of respondents felt the quality of the landscape was important
to them, and 7% would not return to a landscape where turbines had been
installed. Return visits are important to the Lake District. The loss of 7% would
equate to a loss of £70m per year and threaten 1,700 jobs.
85. The Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunedale Scenery (FELLS) were represented
by Dr M J Hall. It is recognised by FELLS that it is not always easy to strike the
right balance where there are conflicting and sometimes irreconcilable points of
view. Attention is drawn to four matters: the need for renewables; CO2 savings;
the variability of wind speeds; and regional targets and the Cumbrian landscape.
86. The ES was written before the Fourth Assessment report of the IPCC, and there is
now a marked change of emphasis. Although the maximum projected rise in sea
level by 2100 was 367cm in the 1990 report, this was reduced in the subsequent
reports (in 1995, 2001 and 2007) to 124cm, 77cm and 59cm respectively.
Similarly, although during the 1990s the British Wind Energy Association
favoured a CO2 saving of 0.86 t/MWh, this was reduced to 0.43 t/MWh following
complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. The Government now uses a
figure of 0.37 t/MWh, and these all affect the calculated CO2 saving over the 25
year life of the proposed windfarm.
87. A fundamental defect of wind energy is that it can provide neither base load nor
load following power and it is often not available when most needed, particularly
in cold anti-cyclonic conditions. The variability and unpredictability of the wind
make it impossible to enter into power supply contracts. The targets for the
installation of renewable energy facilities are indicative only and are the subject
of objection by Cumbria County Council. It is recognised that Cumbria has a high
wind resource, but it also the most scenic county in England with an exceptionally
large area of designated landscape. Within the region, Cheshire has twice the
greenhouse gas emissions of Cumbria but has a target of only 110 MW by 2010,
compared with Cumbria’s target of 210 MW. FELLS objects to the current
proposal because the target set for Cumbria is unattainable without unacceptable
damage to the setting of the Lake District National Park. The Higher Limestone
landscape of Berrier Hill is an undulating plain which provides magical views of
the foothills and mountains of Blencathra, and the development would intrude
massively into this setting. The danger of a wind farm at Grise, close to the
Skelton Transmitting Station would contribute to the creation of a cumulative
impact. The concept of the setting of a designated area or location is enshrined
in PPS22 and PPS1. PPS7 also recognises that there are areas which are not
nationally designated but which are particularly highly valued locally. Berrier Hill
both falls within the setting of the National Park and is highly valued locally.
88. Professor Richard Deakin and his wife are professional classical musicians who
live in Berrier. They chose to live there for both its inspirational setting and the
amenity of absolute quietness. They had a studio built in 1989 which is used for
both concerts (including those for charitable purposes) and teaching. The use of
the studio is time-sensitive, and the recording equipment is extremely sensitive.
The studio is about 1km from the appeal site, and the possibility of noise
interference – including that resulting from aerodynamic modulation – is a
particular concern.
89. Ms Lesley Smith is the Chairman of Mungrisdale Parish Council. The council
unanimously objects to the proposed development, and considers the offer by the
parent company of a £30,000 per year trust fund is immoral – verging on
bribery. The council is concerned about the adverse impact of noise generated
by the turbines, by road widening, and by the use of access land within areas of
limestone pavement. It draws attention to a 2004 appeal decision for a light
industrial unit at Greystoke Moor Plantation where the appeal failed because the
landscape should be protected for its own sake. Some residents of the parish are
subject to stringent planning controls in relation to changes to the appearance of
their properties – the same should apply to the iconic view of the Lakeland
peaks. The council also objects to the blighting of views from Blencathra,
Bowscale and Carrock across to the Eden valley.
90. Mrs Marjorie Emery lives in Matterdale near Little Mel Fell. She refers to the
contributions made to our appreciation of Lakeland by both Wordsworth and John
Dower. Both contributed to the establishment of National Parks, and to the
recognition of the need for the protection of the landscape both inside and
outside designated areas. The proposed development would be a great
imposition on the C2C cycle route – the most popular cycle route in the country.
The development could also be the cause of noise resulting in sleep disturbance,
and it is feared that conditions designed to minimise noise disturbance are
incapable of being enforced by local planning authorities.
91. Mrs Jean Pearson has lived in Berrier for 25 years. She has a prospect of
Blencathra and the Northern Fells from her back door, and the Pennines and
Great Dun Fell from the front. The turbines would have a severe and overbearing
effect, and the peace of her living room and garden would be lost. The views are
particularly memorable in winter when the fells are touched by snow. A favourite
viewpoint is from Forman’s View in Greystoke Forest – including High Street and
Great Mell Fell, Blencathra and the countryside around Caldbeck. It is far from
being the bland landscape described by the prospective developers.
92. Ms Sally Bohling has lived in Mungrisdale for 28 years, but first visited the Lake
District over 50 years ago. She has a particular regard for the tranquil beauty of
the Northern Fells. Cumberland was virtually the birthplace of the National Trust,
but the margins of the Lake District National Park are under threat by
applications for commercial windfarms. The scheme could jeopardise the current
application for World Heritage status. Views both into and out of the Park would
be compromised. The turbines would be visible locally, and from as far away as
the Pennines, and from the many tourists and travellers approaching the Park
along the A66. Wainwright records that Blencathra ‘is one of the grandest
objects in Lakeland… it is a mountain which compels attention… its influence is
magnetic… and to the dalesfolk it is the eternal background to their lives…’ John
Ruskin and, more latterly, Sarah Hall, are equally appreciative, and nothing
should be allowed to impinge on this iconic view. In 1840 Wordsworth suggested
the Lake District should be ‘a sort of national property’. The offer of money to
the local community was felt to be tantamount to bribery which could not
compensate for the loss of precious landscape. Five of the turbines would be
visible through the east window of the church, and the scheme would amount to
the desecration of an irreplaceable landscape.
93. Ms Angela Locke is a writer and local resident whose books have been set
mainly in the Lake District. Amongst its greatest qualities are its views, its scenic
beauty, and its sense of space and emptiness. Although it is a managed
landscape, it is harmonious and appeals to the human spirit. The turbines would
bring a sense of horrible intrusion when viewed from the high land to the west.
An individual turbine serving a small community would be acceptable, but it is
our responsibility to guard the National Park.
94. Mr Aidan Warlow lives in Berrier facing the appeal site. There are three
matters about which he is particularly concerned. He understands that lights
would be necessary for aviation safety. They would be visible for miles and
constitute a gross intrusion. Second, the turbines would be too close to the
village; they would be overbearing and overpowering. In Scotland and France
there is a minimum recommended distance of 2kms. Third, 14 properties would
suffer serious noise disturbance. Houses would become uninhabitable and lives
intolerable.
95. Mr Roger Savage lives in Berrier. He fears the occupancy of his two holiday
cottages would be adversely affected by the proposed windfarm. But his main
point is that the turbines would constitute an incongruous industrial development
alongside the northern gateway to the Lake District – almost in the shadow of the
iconic view of Blencathra. It is a precious landscape and the scheme would
destroy the natural beauty of the place.
96. Mr Harold Edwards lives in Hutton Roof and has been a resident of Cumbria
since 1968. He is a qualified International Mountain Guide. He refers to the
quality of the landscape inside and out of the National Park; to the scale and
importance of physical recreation being undertaken in the area; and to the
inappropriateness with the location and its incompatibility with recreational
interests. The fells to the west of the appeal site lend themselves to circular
ridge walks, from which the turbines would be visible at both middle and upper
levels. The wind farm would be continuously visible on the eastwards descent
from Bowscale Fell – it would be distracting and depressing. For some hill
walkers the activity is a spiritual, cathartic experience which is inextricably linked
to the natural visual spectacle. From the closest fells the turbines would fill more
than a small portion of the total panorama – the windfarm would be 2kms in
width. The ridges of the northern fells are popular. On one recent reasonably
fair day a total of 88 parked cars were counted in the vicinity of Threlkeld,
Mungrisdale, Mosedale and Caldbeck Commons; equivalent to 220 people in the
area. There are also 23 camping, caravan and lodge sites within 10kms of the
site. The recreational use of the area is growing rapidly, and walking is one of
the principal means of health promotion.
97. Sir Christian Bonington supports the need to find alternative reusable energy
supplies, but holds that each wind farm proposal should be considered on its
merits before a balanced decision is made. The site at Berrier is just over 1km
from the boundary of the National Park at the main gateway to its northern part.
It would be clearly visible from the Northern Fells and the Dodds. It would have
a huge and totally inappropriate visual impact on one of the most lovely and
cherished landscapes on the British Isles. The very existence of the national
parks is a recognition of the importance to our society of the preservation of
beautiful places. The main economic driver of the Lake District is tourism. Many
foreign visitors come to the area and a large and dominating windfarm at its
entrance would be totally inappropriate. The case against the proposed Berrier
Wind Farm is even stronger than that against the Whinash proposal.
98. Mr Max Redmayne lives in Kirkland about 15 miles from Berrier Hill. The
approach from the M6 Motorway along the A66 towards Blencathra is an exciting
and iconic passageway into the lakes. The turbines would also be visible from
Hartside on the A686 over 20 miles (32kms) away. We are the custodians of
such unique beauty, and we should leave it as we found it for future generations.
99. Mr Geoff Lightburn has lived and worked in the Eden Valley all his life.
Blencathra is the most distinctive feature of the Lake District when approached
from the east both on the A66 and on the many footpaths. It is the gateway to
the lakes. It is said that the windfarm would be well located and well planned
and compatible with the large scale field patterns and forestry. But the trees are
only about 40ft (12m) in height and the turbines would be 335ft (102m).
Although it is said the impact of the turbines would be insignificant at distances
over 6kms, the boundary of the National Park is much closer than this. In any
event, the wind blows intermittently. Hydro schemes or biomass projects would
avoid damage to a beautiful rural area and create local jobs.
100. Lord Inglewood is a local farmer and landowner; a one-time member of the
Lake District Special Planning Board; a former President of the Friends of the
Lake District; a former Member of the European Parliament for Cumbria and
Lancashire North; and was Minister of Tourism in the Department of Natural
Heritage. He is a supporter of renewable energy, but it is the exact location and
scale of projects which should be determinative. He objects to the proposed
development for two reasons – economic and environmental. Tourism is of
major importance to Cumbria and will become one of its economic foundations in
the years to come. The industry is founded on the outstanding landscape –
probably the finest in England – and the proposed windfarm would be visually
prominent both from within the National Park and from other locations. It would
degrade the landscape, and thus the tourist industry and the Cumbrian economy.
The site is on the edge of one of the main routes into and out of the Lake District
and is very conspicuous from many directions.
101. Sir Martin Holdgate lives in Cumbria and is a former Chief Scientific Adviser
in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport. He has
chaired the Government’s Renewable Energy Advisor Group and the Energy
Advisory Panel. He is currently Chairman of the Renewables Panel of Cumbria
Vision. He objects to the proposed development on scenic grounds. The scheme
would result in the insertion of a massive artificial structure into a landscape of
high scenic value, diminishing the magnificent view of Blencathra from the A66.
It would intrude into and dominate the eastward views from the Blencathra fells.
The proposals would have a negative impact on tourism and blight the landscape
over a wide area of Eden district. As at Whinash, these consequences of the
scheme would outweigh the benefits of the windfarm, rendering the proposed
development in conflict with Government policy. In this respect it would also be
in conflict with the draft National Policy Statement for Energy; with structure plan
Policy R44; with the thrust of paragraph 14 of PPS22; and with the county
council’s Wind Energy SPD. The scheme could affect the candidature of the Lake
District National Park for World Heritage status.
102. Mr David Kirkwood is a local resident who is both sceptical about the science
of climate change and considers the scenery which would be affected by the
project to be sacrosanct. In his opinion the financial encouragement offered to
the wind industry is a form of unnecessary taxation.
Written Representations
103. At the application stage the council received about 2000 written objections,
and some 500 letters of support. At the appeal stage there are 30 letters of
objection and 2 letters of support. Eleven of the letters of objection are from
those who either gave evidence on behalf of BWFOG or as interested persons,
and the representations raise many of the same matters reported in the cases of
the parties. Additional objections refer to an insufficient alternative site search;
low wind speeds on the appeal site; the adverse effect of turbine foundations on
peat; the impact of exceptional traffic; the relative landscape impact of nuclear
power stations compared with the number of wind turbines needed to generate
an equivalent quantity of power; the destination of excavated material; and the
risk of proliferation. The authors of the letters of support consider Blencathra is
already blighted by the A66; that nuclear power stations have a worse landscape
effect than wind turbines; that objections based on the protection of views lack
substance; and the locational characteristics of the site – especially wind speed –
should be the main consideration.
104. Included in the written objections is that from Cumbria County Council.
Amongst other matters, it concludes that national and regional policy is looking
to local authorities to support proposals for renewable energy which do not have
unacceptable impacts. Structure plan Policy R44 relates to renewable energy
schemes outside national landscape designations and supports favourable
consideration if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character,
built heritage, local amenity, highways and a range of other issues. It is
considered the proposal would have significant effects on the landscape and
visual character of an area which forms the setting of the Lake District National
Park. For the same reason it is also considered to be in conflict with structure
plan Policy E34. The proposal would also conflict with structure plan Policy E36
which seeks to protect the distinctive character of landscapes of county
importance; and with structure plan Policy E37 as it would have an adverse effect
on locally distinctive features and tranquillity by reason of visual intrusion.
105. Although represented at the PIM, Natural England decided not to seek Rule
6(6) status at the inquiry. Nevertheless, it continues to object to the proposed
development because of the likely significant adverse effects of the scheme on
the qualities and purposes for which the Lake District National Park was
designated. Attention is drawn to the pale colour of turbines and their movement
– both of which would render them conspicuous against a dark background. A
more recessive colour would greatly reduce their visibility in such circumstances,
but at the cost of increasing their visibility when seen against the sky. It is also
felt that the site is inappropriate because of the inherent sensitivity of the historic
52 Document 3, paragraph 10.1 and Appendix 5
53 Document 58
54 Its concern is that the rotating blades of the turbine would constitute a danger to bats
using the route of the wall.
55 Document 59
landscape at Greystoke Park. Finally, it is recommended that, in the interests of
bats, T7 should be relocated a further 10m from the adjacent wall.
Conditions
106. Draft conditions were the subject of discussion at the inquiry, and a list as
agreed between the appellant of the council is included in the Statement of
Common Ground52. I have considered these in the light both of the discussion
and the contents of DoE Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning
Permissions.
107. In relation to draft condition 1, the appellant has drawn attention to both the
need to agree the grid connection and the long lead times associated with wind
energy development. On this basis I agree with the appellant that a 5 year start
period would be necessary and reasonable.
108. I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to attach draft conditions 2, 3 and
4, concerned respectively with the operational life of the windfarm, the
restoration of the site, and the removal of turbines which fail to function, in order
to safeguard the character of the area.
109. The application in this case refers to the plans submitted as part of the ES. In
accordance with the advice included in Greater flexibility for planning permissions
the appellant has provided a schedule of submitted plans53. However, this
comprises simply a list of the figures in Volume 3, many of which do not
constitute application plans. The plans showing the proposed turbines and
associated development comprise figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Figure 2 is site
specific, but most of the other drawings are described as being typical. It is for
this reason that draft condition 5 requires both the submission of additional
details and places a specific limit on the height of the turbines. I have both
worded the condition accordingly in the annex at the end of this report, and, for
the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, I have
recommended a condition requiring compliance with the approved plans.
110. I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to attach draft condition 6
concerned both with the rotation and siting of the turbines and the service tracks.
Natural England however has drawn attention to the proximity of T7 to an
adjacent dry stone wall54, and as a result the appellant redrafted the condition55.
111. I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to attach draft conditions 7, 8 and
9, concerned respectively with underground cabling, the removal of temporary
construction works, and the proposed substation building, in order to safeguard
the character of the area.
112. I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to attach draft condition 10,
concerned with traffic management, save, in the interests of precision, for the
omission of the final phrase, and in the interests of the character of the area.
56 Documents 26 and 27
57 CD I11, as cited in paragraph 22 of PPS22.
58 Document 60, paragraph 6
113. Draft condition 11 is concerned with various matters to be included in a
construction method statement. I have amended it in the interests of simplicity
and precision, and to avoid duplication.
114. The purpose of draft condition 12 is to alleviate television interference
attributable to the turbines.
115. I raise no objection to draft conditions 13, 14, 15 and 16, concerned with
archaeology. They effectively resolve the matter raised under paragraph (d) of
the Secretary of State’s recovery letter.
116. The purpose of draft condition 17 is to secure the necessary modification of
the radar or its processing systems at Great Dunn Fell. It effectively resolves the
matter raised under paragraph (g) of the Secretary of State’s recovery letter.
117. The purpose of draft conditions 18, 19 and 20, together with their associated
notes and tables, is to provide a mechanism for the regulation of noise generated
by the turbines at nearby noise sensitive properties. The limits included in the
tables are derived from surveys and assessments carried out by acoustic
consultants and reported in Volume 1 of the ES, in the FEI, and in a proof of
evidence56. The assessment shows that at each location (Greenthwaite Hall;
Greystoke Cottage; the nearest property in Berrier derived from baseline
measurements at Bells Farm; and Berrier End) the noise generated by the
turbines would be within the limits set in ETSU-R-9757 – using a daytime lower
limit of 40 dB(A) LA90, 10min. The assessment and the conditions effectively resolve
the matter raised in paragraph (f) of the Secretary of State’s recovery letter.
118. I raise no objection to draft condition 21 concerned with the identification of a
nominated representative to act as a point of contact for local residents.
119. The appellant has referred to the possibility of shadow flicker and a regulating
condition58, but no condition has been suggested. I have therefore drafted a
condition which would largely overcome the matter raised in paragraph (h) of the
Secretary of State’s recovery letter.
59 CD G11
60 CD G8
61 CD G10
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on my report of the evidence submitted to and
heard at the inquiry, and my inspections of the site and its surroundings. The
numbers in square brackets refer to preceding paragraphs of the report.
120. The Secretary of State’s recovery letter records the matters about which he
particularly wishes to be informed. I refer to these individually at the end of
these conclusions. There are significant overlaps between some of the matters
identified, and with the issues raised by the parties during the processing of the
application and the appeal. An issue not raised by the Secretary of State but
referred to by both the council and a number of interested persons, is the effect
of the appearance of the scheme on living conditions at individual properties.
Taking account of all these matters I believe the main considerations in this case
are as follows:
(a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the surrounding area, taking account of its proximity to
the Lake District National Park;
(b) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of local
residents resulting from its visual impact; and
(c) whether, taking account of the relevant targets, any harm resulting
from the above considerations would be outweighed by the benefits of
renewable energy generation.
Character and appearance
121. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of PPS22 record that the landscape and visual effects of
renewable energy development will vary on a case by case basis, and that of all
the technologies, wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and
landscape effects. Although proposed developments should be assessed using
objective descriptive material and analysis wherever possible, it is recognised
that the final decision on such effects will be, to some extent, one made by
professional judgement.
122. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of Planning for Renewable Energy give further advice on
the contribution which can be made by landscape character assessment, and
paragraph 5.15 notes that where such an assessment has already been
undertaken the results are recommended as a basis for the consideration of
individual schemes. Cumbria has been the subject of a number of such studies
culminating in the Cumbria Landscape Classification, published in 199559, and the
Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines,
published in 200860. The former document provides the basis for the landscape
capacity assessments included in the jointly adopted SPD – Cumbria Wind
Energy, published in 200761. Paragraph 4.18-20 of the companion guide refers
to the critical role such documents can play. I have used this material as the
most directly relevant source documents for this part of the report. [32, 54, 72,
101]
62 The LCTs are most conveniently reproduced at Document 42 and Fig 15.2 of Document 15.
63 The relevant part of the national park boundary essentially follows the route of the A66
west of Penrith and the minor road between Berrier and Hesket Newmarket.
64 CD G11, pages 58 and 59
65 See Document 43, Fig 3.1 and Document 54
66 See Vol 1, paragraph 6.7.14
67 Document 14, paragraph 4.22
68 CD G10, Part 2, page 78
69 Document 14, paragraph 6.15
Landscape character
123. The appeal site falls within sub-type 12c (Limestone Foothills) of LCT 12
(Higher Limestone)62. LCT12 covers an extensive area to the east of the Lake
District with a narrower extension around its northern edge, but sub-type 12c is
confined to the area between Greystoke and the national park boundary63. The
Cumbria Landscape Classification records that the area is dominated by large
forestry plantations around Greystoke and Johnby, but it also contains a variety
of other land cover including unimproved land, ancient woodland, and parkland.
It has an undulating topography and its natural boundary to the west is probably
within the national park at Mungrisdale. The quality of the landscape is
considered to be generally high – particularly to the west and north where there
are impressive views of the Lake District fells. It is subjectively described as a
large scale, open landscape, which is unusual rather than rare. It is an
interesting and pleasant landscape which in parts (eg Greystoke Park) is
beautiful64. [60, 71, 72]
124. Greystoke Park is an area which surrounds Greystoke Castle and its associated
buildings immediately to the north-west of the village of Greystoke. I saw on my
visit that it includes a number of small woodlands separated by attractive areas
of open improved grassland, and the appellant’s landscape witness did not
disagree with its description as ‘beautiful’ in the Cumbria Landscape
Classification. To the west and north-west of this parkland area however the
landscape becomes significantly more open and unimproved, leading to rough
grazing land and exposed limestone. The large area of plantation which
comprises Greystoke Forest lies principally to the north-west of the appeal site,
but its size can only be generally appreciated from viewpoints on higher land
within the Northern Fells. I do not disagree with assessment that sub-type 12c
merges with the character of the land to the west inside the national park. I note
in this regard that both sides of the boundary are considered to fall within the
Cumbria High Fells in the, admittedly small scale, Character of England Map65.
[10, 11, 24, 39, 71, 72]
125. In both the ES66 and in the proof of the appellant’s landscape witness67 much
is made of the capacity statement included in the SPD68. The statement is made
in relation to the whole of LCT 12, and, amongst other matters, it records that
although core areas exhibit distinctive limestone features, there are some
blander fringes with fewer such features that would not be intimidated by
turbines, especially if they were visually linked to large scale field patterns or
forestry blocks. Notwithstanding the comfort which is derived from this extract
to the capacity statement, the appellant acknowledges that the proposed
development would give rise to the creation of a new LCT within about 800m of
the turbines – a windfarm landscape69. Within this area the turbines would be
70 Document 14, paragraph 6.70
71 See Document 43, Fig 3.3
72 Document 14, paragraph 6.71
73 See paragraph 3.31
74 CD G2, page 120
75 CD 10, Part 2, page 76
the principal determining element of the landscape character. Beyond this –
within a 3-4kms radius of the centre of the windfarm – a new landscape sub-type
would arise. The new landscape sub-type – Higher Limestone with Wind Farm70
– would represent a modification rather than a transformation of character. It
was acknowledged on behalf of the appellant that the new sub-type would
therefore extend into Greystoke Forest and Greystoke to the north and east
respectively. To the south and west the sub-type would extend beyond the
national park boundary and into LCT J (High Fell Fringe) – an area which virtually
surrounds the Lake District on its western, northern and north-eastern sides71.
The appellant concludes that the landscape would not be transformed by the
proposed development, and the broader underlying character of the Higher
Limestone LCT would not be compromised. It is considered the scale of the
landscape is sufficiently robust to accommodate the proposed windfarm without a
significant adverse effect when judged at the scale of the Cumbria LCTs72. [39,
43]
126. Planning for Renewable Energy provides a useful definition of landscape
character73. It is a distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occur
consistently in a particular type of landscape. Character makes each part of the
landscape distinct, where particular combinations of geology, landform, soils,
vegetation, land use, field patterns and human settlement contribute to a
particular sense of place. The GLVIA includes a similar definition74, although it
also refers to the way in which the components are perceived by people. The
SPD includes a rather more complex series of key characteristics75: scale and
enclosure; complexity and order; manmade influence; skyline; connections and
adjacent landscapes; and remoteness and tranquillity. To my mind one of the
effects of the use of the key characteristics of the SPD is to extend and enhance
the influence of surrounding LCTs on the perceived character of the particular
LCT into which the site falls. Furthermore, in locations where there are
significant changes in altitude over relatively modest distances, I believe there
are important consequences in landscape character terms in both directions.
127. I do not dispute the appellant’s assessment that a wind farm landscape would
be created within and around the proposed turbines, nor that a sub-type of
Higher Limestone with Wind Farm would also result. However, in my view the
combined effect of the number and height of the turbines (both above ground
level and AOD) and the proximity of steeply rising land to the west, would result
in the modification of the defined areas further in that direction to include the
east facing slopes of the Northern Fells. I recognise this effect would be
dissipated by distance beyond Carrock Fell to the north and Souther Fell to the
south. [39]
128. I have referred to the reliance placed by the appellant on the capacity
statement in the SPD. There is no doubt that the appeal site is close to a large
block of forestry or that the enclosures are also on a large scale. However, the
landscape has more of the character and appearance of open moorland than
76 CD G11, pages 57 and 60
77 CD C10, Part 2, page 78, fourth bullet point
78 CD G2, paragraph 2.13
enclosed fields – indeed, the four highest turbines would be located on a block of
open access land which abuts the south-eastern edge of the forest. The land
rises from south-east to north-west with a difference of about 80m between the
lowest and the highest turbine sites. I acknowledge the quantity of exposed
limestone within the appeal site is limited, but I do not consider the landscape
can be accurately described as bland. [10, 43, 60, 72, 91]
129. Within LCT 12 of the Cumbria Landscape Classification the adjective is
confined, as a result of farming practice, to sub-types 12b (Rolling Fringe) and
12d (Moorland and Commons)76, and I am doubtful that it was intended it should
be applied to sub-type 12c. Be that as it may, in my view the character and
appearance of the landscape of the appeal site is not uninteresting. The site
itself is characterised by changes of level with rock outcrops nearby and these
have their own attraction. [10, 11, 43, 60, 72]
130. Taking a rather larger area into account – especially in terms of the
connections and adjacent landscapes measure included in the SPD – the site
provides both a backdrop to the order and parkland of Greystoke Park, and an
essential supporting role to the dramatic change of character to the west, and,
though to a lesser extent, to the south. Greystoke Park falls within the area of
the same sub-type, and although the Northern Fells (in LCT J – Rugged/Angular
Slate High Fell) lie beyond LCT I (Upland Limestone Farmland), their height and
proximity have a direct bearing on the character of the sub-type. The connection
to the lakeland fells is specifically cited as one of the key characteristics of LCT
12, as well as being one of its particular sensitivities77. In my view any tendency
towards blandness displayed by the appeal site and the adjacent plantation is
more than outweighed by its surroundings both within and outside the area of
the sub-type. [12, 80]
131. The identification of landscape character sub-type 12c as ‘foothills’ implies
contingency. The sub-type obtains part of its name from its proximity to and
relationship with the Northern Fells to the west, and to my mind the area cannot
be considered in isolation. It derives much of its character from its status as the
foreground for the fells to the west, or, in the opposite direction, as their
essential complement. In contrast to the two areas to the north and north-west
– LCT 6 (Intermediate Land) and LCT 5 (Lowland) – it is also a relatively small
area, and I agree with the council that the creation of a new sub-type would
radically alter the landscape character of virtually the whole sub-type. I conclude
the alteration resulting from the installation of the proposed windfarm would
have a substantial impact on the character of the receiving landscape. [59, 60]
Visual impact
132. Paragraph 5.18 of Planning for Renewable Energy records how the landscape
and visual impacts of schemes are generally considered as separate exercises.
The GLVIA makes the same point, although it does acknowledge that the two
assessments are linked78. For although the visual effects of a scheme arise from
changes to the composition of views as perceived by observers, the impact of a
project on the character of the landscape inevitably involves the manner in which
79 Documents 15 and 46
80 Document 15, Fig 11.1b
81 The footpaths and part of the open access land are shown on Document 62, with
photomontages in Document 46 (Viewpoints F2b and F3).
82 Document 46, Viewpoints R14a and b, and R13a and b
83 Document 15, Figs 17.1b and 17.2b
84 Document 15. Fig 17.3b
that landscape is experienced. Under this heading the appellant’s plans showing
the zones of theoretical visibility (ZTV) and the viewpoint photomontages are
particularly useful79.
133. As is recorded on the ZTV figures, the plans do not take account of screening
provided by vegetation or buildings. In this case however, the appellant has
usefully provided a refined plan which takes account of the considerable areas of
woodland in the surrounding countryside80. The plan demonstrates the clearly
limited visual impact of the scheme in the quadrant between north-west and
north-east – other than from the permissive paths on Summerfield Crags81. The
potential visibility of the windfarm would also be curtailed by woodland from
locations within Greystoke, from much of Beacon Hill to the east of Penrith, from
the Greystoke to Berrier road, and from substantial areas to the south-west. I
saw during my site visits that trees would also virtually extinguish the visibility of
the proposed development from the stone circles at both Castlerigg and
Mayburgh82. Even if the trees were felled, the turbines would appear only as
relatively modest components of the whole scene. I believe the effect of the
proposed development on the archaeological and scenic qualities of these sites
would be insignificant. [46]
134. From within about 4kms of the proposed turbines there would also be
extensive areas from which their visibility would be curtailed by the topography.
In particular from the road leading to and through Johnby; for much of the
B5288 between Greystoke and Motherby; from Hutton to the south-east; from
much of the minor road between Berrier and Hutton Roof; and from much of the
land between Naddles Crags and the road through Mosedale and Mungrisdale to
its junction with the A66. In contrast, the turbines would be readily visible from
the B5288 between Bunkers Hill and Greystoke; from the A66 in the vicinity of
Highgate Farm; from Penruddock; and from Berrier itself. [47, 71]
135. In my view there would be notable variations in the visual impact of the
scheme from these locations. Although the windfarm would be at its closest as
seen from Berrier, there is a low ridge between the village and the appeal site,
together with a south-eastern extension of Greystoke Forest. As is evident from
the photomontages for Viewpoints 1 and 283, these aspects of the topography
would have the effect of hiding the lower parts of the turbines. In addition, I saw
on my visits that the main prospects from the village are the Northern Fells to
the west – principally Blencathra, Great Mell Fell to the south, and, at a
considerably greater distance, the Pennines across the Eden Valley to the east.
From Penruddock (Viewpoint 3) the turbines would seen across a more
complicated landscape of small fields, dry stone walls, trees, isolated buildings
and Motherby84. Notwithstanding the change to the character of the landscape
to which I have referred above, and the distraction occasioned by the rotation of
the blades, I believe the development as a whole would be sufficiently distant (at
just under 3kms) to result in only limited harm from this viewpoint. [44, 63]
85 See Document 46, Viewpoint R1
86 See Document 49, Viewpoint R8
87 Document 15, Fig 17.6b
136. I have come to different conclusions in relation to the two other viewpoints
within about 4kms. That on the A66 in the vicinity of Highgate Farm is critical.
Not that it is a location where many receptors congregate or live, but for
passengers in vehicles travelling west towards the Lake District, the road
facilitates one of the first uninterrupted middle-distance views of Blencathra and
the eastern side of the Northern Fells. Having climbed from Penrith and junction
40 on the M6 Motorway, visibility towards the mountains and fells is curtailed by
trees along the sides of the dual carriageway and in the central reservation, but
just to the east of Highgate Farm the road flattens out and then declines, and
there are few trees85. The west-bound carriageway is also separated from and
well above the level of the east-bound carriageway. As a result, a high quality
prospect is revealed to the west and north-west including Blencathra, Bowscale
Fell and Carrock Fell, and, at a rather lower level, Berrier Hill. The topography is
such that from this viewpoint at least some of the turbines would appear to
exceed the height of Carrock Fell, and I consider the appearance and role of the
foothills would be severely compromised. Berrier Hill and its turbines would
attract an added status in the composition of the landscape, but this would be at
the expense of Blencathra and the Northern Fells. In my view this effect is
evident from the photomontage, even without the additional effect which would
result from the rotation of the blades. [47, 63, 71, 76, 92, 95, 98, 99, 101]
137. In my opinion the harm occasioned to this panorama of the Northern Fells
would be heightened by the sensitivity of the receptors. Paragraph 7.32 of the
GLVIA refers to the most sensitive receptors as those including the users of
outdoor recreational facilities and public rights of way whose attention or interest
may be focussed on the landscape. In this respect the viewpoint has a particular
resonance. Many contributors to the inquiry referred to the location as the
principal gateway to the Lake District from much on the north of England, and
the specific objectives of many of the visitors to the area would be for that very
purpose. Some would be more energetic than others no doubt, but there can be
little dispute that the appreciation of the landscape would be foremost in their
minds. It is the reason why visits to the Lake District are so popular. The
appellant has referred to the oblique direction of the prospect from the A66 in the
vicinity of Highgate Farm, but although this may be accurate in relation to
drivers, it does not apply so rigidly to passengers. Indeed, passengers occupying
the off-side seats of coaches travelling west could do little else than look to the
north-west. The prospect comprises Blencathra, the Northern Fells, and, at the
lower level, Berrier Hill. In my opinion the scheme would have a major adverse
visual impact on the scene, resulting in significant harm. [47, 76, 79, 92, 95, 98,
99, 101]
138. Although significantly fewer visitors would approach the Lake District along the
B5288 between Penrith and Greystoke, there is to my mind an equivalent
location in the vicinity of Fort Putnam. It is at a rather lower altitude than
Highgate Farm – some 210m AOD as opposed to about 290m AOD – and the
prospect is affected by trees86. Fort Putnam comprises a residential development
including a number of dwellings with access off the B5288 via a short drive.
Viewpoint 687 shows the prospect towards the Northern Fells in photomontage
88 Document 15, Fig 17.9b
89 Document 46
90 Between about 8.7 and 11kms
91 Viewpoints 23, 24 and 25.
92 See Document 15, Fig 17.10b
form. The nearest turbine would be some 3½kms distant, and the windfarm
would stretch across more than half the extent of the Northern Fells. In my view
the development would severely mar the quality of the view across Greystoke
and Berrier Hill towards Blencathra and its associated fells. [63]
139. There are a number of settlements to the west and north-west of Penrith
which would be in excess of 4kms from the proposed turbines, but from where,
according to the ZVI plan, a number of turbine tips would be visible. These
include Newton Reigny, Catterlen, Laithes, Skelton, Unthank, Little Blencow and
Newbiggin. However, visibility to the west is frequently interrupted by buildings,
trees, or the topography, and I do not believe the visual impact of the scheme
from these locations would be significant. The M6 Motorway and the main
Manchester/Glasgow railway line pass just the west of Penrith, but visibility of the
appeal site from these major transport routes is curtailed by the topography.
140. Further to the east however, there is a sandstone ridge which extends north
from Penrith. Visibility of the windfarm would be available from the western side
of the ridge, especially from the higher ground to the north and north-east of the
urban area. The impact of the scheme from this general area is shown on
Viewpoint 988 and from Viewpoints R3, R4, R6 and R7a89. From these vantage
points the turbines would be seen against the background of Blencathra and the
Northern Fells, where they would extend to just under about half the width of the
massif. Notwithstanding the breadth of the prospect which is available from
these locations and the distance of the turbines90, the focus of attention is the
bulk of Blencathra – otherwise known as Saddleback because of its distinctive
profile from the east – and Carrock Fell. Although the tips of the turbines would
not break the skyline, I believe their appearance would nevertheless severely
harm a memorable and inspiring prospect. Although I did not visit any houses in
Penrith, a similar view is likely to be available from many dwellings on the higher
ground to the east of the town with west-facing windows. [71]
141. Volume 3 of the ES provides photographs from locations on the Pennines even
further to the east91. I visited Hartside Café on the A686 – the high point on the
main road between Alston and Penrith. The weather was clear and the viewpoint
provides an extensive panorama including the hills of Dumfries, the Solway Firth
and the Lake District. The turbines would be just over 25½kms distant.
Although they would be visible in just the weather conditions when visitors to the
countryside would be expecting to make the most of the scenery, I believe the
motion of the turbines would be almost indiscernible and their visual impact from
this distance would be minimal. [81]
142. There is a relatively large area to the south-east of the appeal site between
Penrith and Ullswater, and including the settlements of Stainton and Pooley
Bridge, from which the turbines would not be visible. Beyond this area the land
rises towards the north-eastern end of High Street and the windfarm would be
visible from the higher land92. From viewpoint 10 the turbines would be seen at
a distance of about 10kms within the same context as both the Northern Fells
93 See Document 15, Fig 17.11b
94 See Document 15, Fig 17.26b
95 See Document 15, Fig 17.15b
and the lower end of Ullswater. In this sense the prospect includes both the
essential scenic components of the Lake District – water and mountains, but to
my mind it would not seriously interfere with or diminish either. In contrast to
some of the views from lower land to the east, the windfarm would not rival the
bulk or appearance of either the fells or the lake, and I conclude from this
vantage point the effect would be limited.
143. Great Mell Fell and Little Mell Fell are closer to the appeal site; they are
prominent conical hills which mark the eastern gateway to Lakeland. From the
former, the nearest turbine would be just over 5kms distant93, and the windfarm
would be visible in its entirety to the north. Notwithstanding the height of the
turbines, the top of Great Mell Fell would still be some 85m above the level of the
highest, and they would be seen against the background of Greystoke Forest and
Summerground Crags. The Northern Fells would of course be visible to the
north-west, but I do not believe the turbines would significantly diminish their
presence. I note also that although both hills comprise open access land, the
turbines would not be visible from footpaths on their south sides. I believe it is
doubtful whether they attract substantial numbers of walkers.
144. The same cannot be said of the Northern Fells, and certainly not of Blencathra.
I saw on my visit that Blencathra is a popular climb providing extensive views in
all directions – both into the main body of the Lake District to the south and
south-west; across the Northern Fells and the Solway Firth to the north-west and
north; and over the Eden Valley to the Pennines to the east. The effect of the
proposed development as seen from Blencathra is shown at viewpoint 2694; that
from Carrock Fell is at viewpoint 1595. The views are similar except that from
Blencathra more of the fells between Mungrisdale and the peak are visible –
including Bowscale Fell, Southern Fell and Scales Fell. [36, 42, 71, 96, 101]
145. From the tops of the mountains and from other points on the fells the
windfarm would be well below the level of the observer and the turbines would be
seen against the background of the land behind. The views are extensive and
panoramic, but, in contrast to both the fells and the Pennines on the opposite
side of the Eden Valley, the prospect is one of an occupied landscape. The area
is scattered with settlements including Penrith, and in the distance to the north,
Carlisle. There are many farms together with a network of roads. The A66 and
its flow of traffic are clearly apparent from Blencathra. The windfarm would
certainly be readily visible in the view, but to my mind it would be but a
component, albeit a large one. Notwithstanding its size however, in my opinion it
would be insufficient to dominate the view. In this sense I consider the visual
impact of the windfarm on its setting would be considerably greater in the
prospects from the east looking towards the Northern Fells, than those in the
opposite direction. [75]
146. However, in contrast I also believe the visual impact of the proposed
development would be more significant from a number of locations at lower
altitudes. I am concerned in particular about: the descent off Bowscale Fell to
Mungrisdale via the valley of Bullfell Beck; the lower parts of the descent from
Bowscale Tarn to Bowscale on the south side of the valley of the River Caldew;
96 Document 16, Appendix 10
97 Document 15, Fig 11.1b
98 The location of the site is shown in Document 15, Fig 13.7a
and the north-west/south-east section of the Cumbrian Way further up the same
valley. The first two routes are cited in Wainwright’s Guide to the Northern
Fells96, and the third is clearly shown on the ZVI drawing97. In each case the
prospect down the valley is defined by steep valley sides, and most or some of
the turbines would be visible. At altitudes below about 450m AOD the tops of
the turbines would be above the level of the observer. At and below these levels
– on the eastern side of Souther Fell for example – I believe their scale and
presence would diminish the appearance and appreciation of the human
geography of the landscape. In contrast to the panoramic views from the tops of
the fells, I consider from these locations that the effect of the scheme would be
seriously harmful. [96]
147. I conclude in relation to this aspect of the first main consideration that the
proposed development would have a variety of effects. It is in the middle-
distance however that I believe these would be most harmful. I consider the
following locations are critical: looking west from about 3½kms on the B5288;
looking north-west from about 4kms on the A66; looking south-east and east
from about 4-6kms on the lower slopes and in the valleys of the Northern Fells;
and looking west from between 8½ and 11kms on the higher land within and
close to Penrith. Although in the latter locations the distances are quite large, I
consider the harm results from the elevation of the observer and the location of
the turbines directly in front of Blencathra and the Northern Fells. The effect on
the appearance of Blencathra is notable partly because of its proximity to the
edge of the Lake District. In contrast to some of the higher mountains closer to
the central core the Lake District, its qualities can therefore be more readily
appreciated from the lower ground to the east. Much of the evidence I have
received confirms the high regard – even affection – which is attached to its
appearance, and I am in no doubt that its setting (and hence that of the national
park) extends well to the east. [60, 63, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 87, 92,
95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101]
Cumulative Impact
148. Paragraph 21 of PPS22 records that account should be taken of the cumulative
impact of wind generation projects in particular areas. A number of contributors
to the inquiry referred to the adverse effect of windfarms surrounding the Lake
District. I recognise that from some of the highest vantage points it is possible to
see more than one windfarm, but there are no vantage points from which all the
surrounding land is simultaneously visible. I therefore attach little weight to
these objections. [77, 79]
149. During my visits to the surrounding area I saw the windfarm at Warrells Hill
near Bothel, together with others nearer the coast, and the single turbine near
Hesket Newmarket. In my view none of these are sufficiently close to the appeal
site to result in the current scheme having an adverse cumulative effect. I have
taken account however of the scheme at Grise for 9 turbines. The site at Grise is
to the north-east of the appeal site98, and it too is the subject of an inquiry to be
followed by a decision by the Secretary of State. I understand a decision has
now been issued and the Secretary of State may wish to take this into account in
99 Document 14, paragraph 8.35
100 CD G10, Part 1, paragraph 3.3
101 CD G10, Part 1, paragraph 3.18
102 See Document 15, Fig 17.11c
103 Document 15, Fig 17.15b and 17.15c (4 of 4)
104 CD G14, page 183, paragraph C8 records that a 45-60º range is often quoted as being
representative of the human field of view.
reaching a decision in this case. In terms of its landscape and visual effect the
site is notable as a result of its proximity to an array of tall radio masts at the
Skelton Transmitter Station. [48, 65, 87]
150. As with the proposal at Berrier Hill, the appellant predicts the Grise scheme
would give rise to a windfarm landscape in its own right within 800m of the
turbines, with a local landscape sub-type up to about 3kms from the windfarm99.
At their closest, the two windfarms would be about 8kms apart and the resultant
landscape character sub-types would be close to each other in the vicinity of
Lamonby. They would however be in opposite directions in this area, and the
visibility of Berrier Hill would be curtailed by both topography and woodland. The
appellant has nevertheless referred to significant cumulative visual effects arising
at a number of locations – along sections of the A66; on the higher parts of the
minor road south from Hesket Newmarket towards Mosedale; around Ellonby and
Skelton; parts of the C2C cycle route; and from east facing vantage points on the
Northern Fells – including Great and Little Mell Fells. [48]
151. The SPD refers to paragraph 21 of PPS22 in relation to the cumulative effects
of wind energy schemes100. In accordance with the guidance it avoids setting
arbitrary limits or separation distances, but it does refer to the interest from
developers in the areas fringing the north-eastern fells of the national park
around Greystoke and Inglewood101. The SPD considers there may be some
opportunity for wind energy development in the Inglewood area, but it considers
multiple developments on the more open and elevated foothills around Greystoke
would raise issues of visual clutter. [48]
152. I consider there would be important variations in the extent and characteristics
of the cumulative visual impacts of the two windfarms. They would be virtually in
line from the vantage point on Great Mell Fell looking north-east102. However,
the nearest turbine at Grise would be some 14kms away, and in my view the
impact of the windfarm would be limited at that distance. From this vantage
point I do not believe the cumulative effect of the two developments would result
in significant harm. Similarly, I do not consider the cumulative effects from the
A66 or from the C2C cycle route would be harmful. Nor do I consider there
would be an adverse cumulative impact at Ellonby or Skelton, for reasons to
which I have referred above. I am more concerned about the cumulative visual
impact of the two schemes from the higher land of the Northern Fells to the west.
153. The two windfarms would be visible from the vicinity of Quaker Hill (south-east
of Hesket Newmarket), and from Carrock Fell. The viewpoints are fairly close
together but the latter is at a significantly greater altitude103. From this vantage
point the nearest turbine at Berrier Hill would be just under 6½kms to the south-
east, while those at Grise would be just under 8½kms to the north-east. The two
windfarms would be about 60º apart, and, as I saw on my visit to Carrock Fell,
both sites are readily capable of simultaneous observation104. Although the lack
105 CD 15, paragraph 5.6.12 records phenomenon.
106 Document 14. paragraph 8.38
of movement and their construction renders the impact of the radio masts less
significant, and the guidance in PPS22 is confined to the cumulative impact of
multiple windfarms, I agree with the council that it would be unacceptable to
ignore their existence. In my view they make their own substantial contribution
to the baseline prospect from Carrock Fell; to which the proposed two windfarms
would constitute further additions. I saw on my visit that the rotation of the
smaller single turbine to the north-east of Hesket Newmarket was notably
conspicuous. [65]
154. I understand the proposed turbines at Grise would be 115m tall, but in terms
of both its proximity and elevation, I believe the Berrier Hill windfarm proposal
would have a greater impact. The tops of the turbines at Grise would be about
290m AOD while those at Berrier Hill would be between about 370 and 450m
AOD. An observer at the top of Carrock Fell (650m AOD) would therefore look
down on all parts of the turbines on both sites, and in both cases the
foreshortening of prospects with height would render the windfarms apparently
closer to the observer105. Nevertheless, in my view the differences between the
two sites – in terms of their respective heights and proximity – would be clearly
apparent. Although turbines at Grise would be at lower altitudes and further
away than those at Berrier Hill, I conclude that significant adverse cumulative
effects would result106. [48]
155. The appellant has referred to the effect of the two schemes on landscape
character, with the creation of sub-types around both sites. In these terms, I
consider it would be difficult at Grise to disaggregate the turbines and the
transmission masts. Particularly as seen from the east facing slopes of the
Northern Fells, the detail of the characterisation tends to be lost and the
boundaries between areas become less distinct. The component parts of the
scenery are seen on a consistently larger scale, and the impact of the substantial
contributors – including windfarms and transmission stations – is correspondingly
increased. In a flat or gentle landscape I think it is unlikely the proximity of the
two sites would give rise to adverse cumulative effects. In this case however, I
believe the height and proximity of the Northern Fells has the opposite effect.
Considered in association with the transmission station, the two locations would
be readily and obviously evident.
156. Taking all these matters into account, and notwithstanding the relatively
limited arc of the Berrier Hill proposal compared with that at Grise, I consider
that from Carrock Fell the two proposals would, by their number and prominence,
be of sufficient combined impact to substantially intrude into the prospect to the
east. It follows that I consider the cumulative visual effect of the implementation
of both schemes would add to the harm I have identified in relation to the Berrier
Hill scheme alone.
Landscape Policy
157. I have considered the harm identified in relation to the landscape policy
context, with especial reference to the proximity of the appeal site to the Lake
District National Park. In topographical terms the boundary between the lower
land of the Limestone Foothills and the steep eastern slope of the Northern Fells
107 CD G8, Section 4.0, page 41
108 CD G8, Section 4.0, page 60
109 CD G8, Section 4.0, page 61
110 CD G8, Section 4.0, pages 65 and 66
111 CD G8, Section 5.0, pages 12 and 16
between Caldbeck Common and Souther Fell could hardly be more obvious or
more tangible. However, the north-eastern boundary of the national park
actually follows a line defined by two roads and a river between Berrier and
Caldbeck some 2-3kms to the east of the steep eastern slope of the fells.
Nevertheless, I have no reason to presume on the basis of the evidence I have
received that the land between was designated for any reason other than its
landscape quality. Although it may be part of the setting of Blencathra and
Carrock Fell, it cannot form part of the setting of the national park.
158. In my view the setting of the park is a concept not liable to precise definition,
but in the case of a commercial windfarm proposal it must inevitably cover a
fairly extensive area dependent on views both out of and into the designated
area. In any event, in this case there is no dispute that the appeal site lies close
to the national park boundary, and paragraph 14 of PPS22 therefore applies – the
potential impact on the designated area is a material consideration. Paragraph
21 of PPS7 records the importance to be attached to the conservation of the
natural beauty of the landscape and countryside of the national parks. They
have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
I disagree with the appellant’s opinion that views into the park from outside
should not properly be considered to constitute an impact on the park itself.
Indeed, to my mind the setting of a large designated area is more likely to be
experienced as it approached rather than as it is left behind. The potential
impact inevitably becomes greater with both the proximity and the scale of the
proposed development, and, notwithstanding the location of the appeal site, I am
in no doubt there is nothing inappropriate in concluding that the scheme should
be construed as an impact on the park itself. [41, 71]
159. The Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines for the Lake District
National Park do not form part of the development plan, but the use of such
documents is recommended in PPS22 as an aid to decision-making. Amongst
other matters, it refers in relation to LCT G (Rugged/Angular Slate High Fell) to
the uplifting panoramic external views from the fell summits – including those of
the North Pennines from the Northern Fells107. In LCT I (Upland Limestone
Farmland), which includes the areas around Penruddock and Caldbeck Common,
attention is also drawn to the pressure to exploit renewable energy resources
leading to the erosion of valuable landscape quality108. It is suggested that the
skylines and key views to and from the area should be protected from tall and
vertical large-scale developments that may erode the open and undeveloped
character of the area109. A similarly protective stance is adopted in relation to
LCT J (High Fell Fringe)110. In the alternative sub-division of the national park
into areas of distinctive character, the need to protect the dramatic views of both
ADC 3 (Skiddaw and Blencathra) and ADC 4 (Mungrisdale and Caldbeck) from tall
vertical or large-scale developments is recorded111. In view of the conclusions
I have reached on the visual impact of the proposed development, it
follows that I further conclude the scheme would conflict with the advice
included in this document.
160. RSS Policy EM 1 refers to the priority which should be given to
conserving and enhancing areas of national landscape importance, and
Policy EM1(A) requires that schemes should be informed by both
detailed landscape character assessment and the special qualities of the
Lake District National Park and its setting. In view of the change to
landscape character and the harmful visual impact I have identified it
follows that the proposed development would conflict with both the
content and the general thrust of these policies. Policy EM1(A) effectively
establishes a link between the special qualities of the designated area and its
setting, but in my view most of the special qualities identified tend to be
introspective. However, under the heading of ‘the open nature of the fells and
the freedom to enjoy them’ reference is made to impressive views. I agree with
all those who contributed to the inquiry who stressed the importance they
attached to the prospect of Blencathra and the Northern Fells from both Penrith
and the A66 because of the sense of anticipation which it generates. [63, 71, 76,
92, 95, 98, 99, 101]
161. In part because of the suddenness with which it is experienced, the prospect
from the A66 east of Penruddock is particularly important. Even though the
turbines would be offset to the north-west, I believe they would seriously
compromise the quality of this important approach to the national park.
Compared with the panorama in the opposite direction (from the Northern Fells
looking to the east), it is a prospect of limited horizontal extent. But to my mind
that renders it all the more sensitive to change. From the summits of the fells
the observer, by way of contrast, would be well above the level of the turbines,
and the windfarm would be but one component of the composition. From most
viewpoints outside the national park however the observer would be below the
level of the turbines, and the lateral extent of the view is frequently curtailed by
topography, trees or buildings. In my opinion this results in many prospects
being more laterally defined, so emphasising the constituent parts of the more
limited view. At present, Berrier Hill plays a supporting role to the grander scale
of the landscape beyond. The installation of a windfarm would unacceptably
change this deferential relationship. I consider the proposal would also
therefore conflict with paragraphs 2, 3 and 8 of structure plan Policy
E37, and local plan Policy NE1. I agree with the appellant however that
local plan Policy NE3 can have little applicability. I conclude in respect
of the first main consideration that, taking account of its proximity to the
Lake District National Park, the scheme would seriously harm the
character and appearance of the surrounding area. [32]
162. As I have recorded above, the most specifically relevant policies to the
proposed development are RSS Policy EM 17 and structure plan Policy R44. Their
thrust and purpose is to promote the development of renewable energy schemes,
but both render such projects subject to their effect on landscape character and
their visual impact. The former policy also refers to the effects of schemes on
nationally designated areas and their settings. The structure of these policies is
such that a balanced judgement is required having taken account of the benefits
of the development proposed. I therefore consider them later in these
conclusions. Both policies also refer however to local amenity, and I therefore
turn to consider the project in relation to the second consideration. [15, 19]
112 Document 16
113 Eycott Bungalow, Bells Farm and Palmer House: P2, P3 and P10 in Document 16
114 Park View: P97 in Document 16
115 CD J12, paragraphs 66-71
116 Document 15, Figs 17.1b and 17.2b
Living Conditions
163. In its draft refusal reason the council makes specific reference to the proximity
of the proposal to residential property and small centres of population. It
considers that the relationship between the dwellings and the proposed windfarm
would have adverse amenity consequences which could not be successfully
mitigated. With the notable exception of the appellant’s residential receptors
survey112 this matter did not form the subject of a substantial volume of evidence
at the inquiry. Those who were particularly concerned with this matter were
residents of Berrier who would be closest to the proposed turbines. I visited
three dwellings in Berrier113, together with a fourth on the B5288 east of
Greystoke114. At the request of BWFOG I also visited St Kentigern’s Church in
Mungrisdale. Although this is not a dwelling, concern has been expressed at the
impact of the proposed turbines on the experience and appreciation of the
church. [71, 91, 92]
164. The circumstances which would be necessary before the presence of wind
turbines would have an unacceptable effect on living conditions were discussed at
the inquiry. My attention was drawn in this context to other appeal decisions,
including that of my colleague at a recent case near Dover115. The development
proposed in that case comprised 5 turbines to a maximum height of 120m. In
his decision my colleague draws attention to the distinction between private
views and the public interest. The same issue is addressed in The Planning
System: General Principles, published by the ODPM in 2005. Amongst other
matters, this records that it can be difficult to distinguish between public and
private interests. The basic question is not whether the owners or occupiers of
neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular
development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and
the existing use of land or buildings which ought to be protected in the public
interest. [45, 64, 71]
165. There can be no public interest objection to the existence of wind turbines per
se, but, as my colleague observes, where they are present in such numbers, size
and proximity that they become unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable in
the main views from a dwelling or its garden, there is every likelihood that the
property concerned would come to be regarded as an unattractive and thus
unsatisfactory place in which to live. Although the dwelling would not necessarily
be uninhabitable, it would not be in the public interest to create such living
conditions. I have considered the current case in the light of this analysis.
166. The closest dwellings to the turbines would be those on the north-east side of
the road in Berrier. At their closest, they would be about 1000m from T6 or T7;
the photomontages at viewpoints 1 and 2 are representative of the outlook to the
north-east from these dwellings116. The appellant’s plan identifies a total of 17
dwellings (including the farmhouse at Berrier End) in the settlement, of which 3
are either holiday lets or second homes. From its junction with the road to
Greystoke the land rises from about 290m AOD to about 335m AOD over a
117 Document 16, Fig 17.30b
distance of just over 1 km, but there is a shallow valley and a low ridge between
the dwellings and the appeal site. The foreground of the prospect to the north-
east comprises an attractive combination of fields, dry stone walls and hedgerow
trees, and from the higher dwellings, the south-eastern extension of Greystoke
Forest is also visible. The turbines would appear behind and above these
components, but in each case the lower parts of the towers would be hidden.
Although the turbines would therefore appear to be somewhat truncated, their
perceived height would also therefore be moderated.
167. At Eycott Bungalow I saw that the principal views from the dwelling are
towards the Eden Valley and the Pennines to the east and south-east. Although I
do not dispute the turbines would be readily visible to the north-east, I do not
believe they would be either unpleasantly overwhelming or unavoidable. At Bells
Farm the prospect is more directly towards the appeal site, but I agree with the
appellant that the view would be filtered by garden trees. Again, I do not
consider the visual impact of the turbines would be overwhelming. At Palmer
House the principal rooms of the dwelling face away from the road to the north-
east, but the moorland garden includes fewer trees. In my view the visual
impact of the turbines would be greater here, though ameliorated to a degree by
the additional distance – the nearest turbine would be some 1200m away. In the
event of the development proceeding I do not doubt that the presence of the
turbines would be substantial, but, taking account of the many other attractions
of Berrier – not least the prospects to Blencathra and the Northern Fells in the
opposite direction – I do not believe they would be overwhelming or unavoidable.
[91]
168. Park View lies to the east of Greystoke and the nearest turbine would be about
3.7kms away. The principal windows of the house would face the windfarm to
the west. I saw on my visit that T1 would be almost directly in line with
Bowscale Fell, and I would expect a significant proportion of the turbine would be
above the skyline. Although the composition of the view would thus be impaired,
the visual impact of the turbines would be diminished by both distance and trees.
In my opinion the turbines would be neither overwhelming nor unavoidable.
169. St Kentigern’s Church in Mungrisdale is a compact building with a small church
yard on its south side. The east window of the church would face the appeal site,
but only a small proportion of a few turbines would be visible. Viewpoint 30 is
close to the church and it shows that the bulk of the turbines would be hidden by
the higher land at the north-west end of Berrier and by Naddles Crags. The
photomontage indicates117 that only the blade tips of 4 turbines would be visible.
I recognise this may be the cause of some distraction through the east window,
but I do not believe it would seriously diminish either the prospect from or the
experience of the church. [92]
170. The appellant’s residential receptor’s survey concludes that the largest
concentration of dwellings that would be significantly affected by the proposals
would be in Berrier, with smaller numbers in Penruddock, Sparket, Thackthwaite,
Greystoke, Greystoke Gill and Troutbeck. I agree with the appellant however
that there is an important distinction to be drawn between the significant effects
identified in the survey, and the harmful consequences of overbearing or
overwhelming development. Paragraph 7.49 of the GLVIA discusses the
118 CD G2, page 95
119 CD G10, Part 2, paragraph 3.46
120 Document 16, paragraph 5.6
121 Document 30, document RT1
122 Assuming a 30% load factor and 860g CO2/kWh
123 ES Vol 1, paragraph 4.10.2
124 Document 70
, in my view none of these effects would be sufficiently serious to
amount to an overbearing or overwhelming impact which would render them
unattractive and unsatisfactory places in which to live. [45]
significance of effects on visual amenity. Amongst other matters, it records that
large-scale changes which introduce new, discordant or intrusive elements into
the view are more likely to be significant than small changes or changes involving
features already present in the view118. Similarly, the SPD refers119 to the
significance being determined by reference to the magnitude of effect and the
sensitivity of the receptor, in accordance the approach adopted in the EIA
Regulations. Notwithstanding the appellant’s conclusion that the occupants of
some 12% of dwellings within 6kms of the turbines would experience significant
visual effects120
171. I conclude in relation to this consideration that, although the significant effects
identified by the appellant would constitute an adverse impact in terms of the
visual amenities enjoyed by the occupants concerned, the resultant harm would
be limited. I do not consider it would be sufficient to result in serious harm to
living conditions. It follows from this that I see only limited conflict with
the relevant references to local amenity in RSS Policy EM 17 and in
paragraph 2 of structure plan Policy R44. In the terms of the second
main consideration, I do not believe the development would result in
unacceptable living conditions. [16, 19]
Harm, Benefits and Targets
172. RSS Policy EM 17 includes the targets for the supply of electricity from
renewable energy sources by 2010, 2015 and 2020. These are further refined in
the indicative capacity targets for specific technologies in the constituent counties
– 210 MW by 2010, and 247.5 MW by 2015 and 2020 – for on-shore wind in
Cumbria. At the inquiry it was agreed that the assessment of the current
position included in BWFOG’s evidence121 was correct. This records that the total
installed capacity currently amounts to 78.58 MW (in 16 schemes), with a further
42 MW (in 5 schemes) granted planning permission. The candidate turbines in
the current case would generate up to 2.5 MW each – a total of 22.5 MW. The
operational capacity of the total complement of turbines therefore amounts to
some 37% of the 2010 target, rising to about 57% if the permitted schemes are
constructed. If the appeal proposal is permitted the proportions would rise to
about 68% of the 2010 target, or 57% of the 2015 and 2020 targets. [16]
173. Using emission reduction calculations supplied by the British Wind Energy
Association (BWEA)122 it is estimated in the ES that the scheme would reduce
emissions of CO2 by 50,852 tonnes123. The calculation was disputed at the
inquiry by evidence submitted on behalf of the Friends of Eden, Lakeland and
Lunesdale Scenery124, and I understand the BWEA now advises the use of a lower
figure of 430g CO2/kWh. On this basis the CO2 emission saving would be half
that estimated in the ES. Be that as it may, the matter was not the subject of
125 CD B7
126 CD B6
significant debate at the inquiry, and there is no dispute amongst the principal
parties that the scheme would result in savings in emissions. Key principle 1(iv)
in PPS22 records the significant weight which should be afforded to the wider
environmental benefit of renewable energy projects, and similar references are
included in RSS Policy EM 17 and structure plan Policy R44. [30, 86]
174. The appellant has drawn attention to both the EU Directive125 and the
Renewable Energy Strategy126 which both post-date the RSS. I acknowledge that
these must add weight in favour of the appeal proposal. I note also that
paragraph 3 of PPS22 indicates that targets should be expressed as the minimum
amount of installed capacity for renewable energy in the region, and reaching a
target should not be used in itself as a reason for refusing planning permission
for further renewable energy projects. Nor do I dispute the appellant’s
observation that there are many constraints on selecting appropriate sites for
windfarm development. [33, 50]
175. There were few contributors to the inquiry who disputed the benefits – both
environmental and economic – which can accrue from the installation of
renewable energy schemes. It is evident that the 2010 target for installed
capacity will be missed, and, given the long lead times for such projects, the
achievement of the 2015 and 2020 targets is also questionable. However, at
least in terms of the numbers of schemes either constructed or approved, the
record is encouraging. Notwithstanding the significant constraints to which the
appellant has referred, this demonstrates that sites for windfarms can be
successfully pursued in Cumbria. [50]
176. There is essentially no dispute between the principal parties in this case that
the outcome depends on the weight to be attached to the main considerations
which arise. The appellant contends that it is not good enough to reject
proposals simply because of what are significant adverse landscape and visual
effects. The council and the national park authority state that the benefits of the
proposals cannot be allowed to mask the massive and unacceptable scale of the
development, and BWFOG and FLD argue that the scheme would diminish the
quality of one of the finest corners of England. [50, 66, 73]
177. One aspect of windfarm appeals is that supporters and opponents both express
themselves in environmental terms. The former stress the environmental benefit
which would result from the implementation of the scheme, while the latter
emphasise the environmental damage. I recognise that in rural or countryside
locations it is almost inevitable that such a proposal will necessitate the balancing
of these two conflicting pressures. Paragraph 19 of PPS22 acknowledges as
much because it recognises that the landscape and visual effects of such
development will vary on a case by case basis according to its location and
landscape setting. To my mind it is clearly within the terms of both national and
development plan policy that the landscape and visual effect of a scheme is
capable of outweighing its environmental and other benefits.
178. I have concluded in this case that the impact derived from the second main
consideration would be confined to a relatively modest number of dwellings, but,
more importantly, it would not be sufficiently serious to render them either
overwhelmed or unsatisfactory places in which to live. The extent of this
impact is such that it would be outweighed by the benefits of the
scheme. In my opinion the decision therefore turns on the balance between the
benefits of the project and the first main consideration.
179. I have considered the proposed development in relation to its effect on the
landscape character of the surrounding area and in respect of its visual and
cumulative impacts. The proximity of the appeal site to the Lake District National
Park is of paramount importance – in terms of both topography and policy.
180. The appellant acknowledges that a new landscape sub-type would be created.
In an area where the host LCTs are of greater geographical extent such an effect
would be more readily assimilated, but the existing sub-type 12c – the Limestone
Foothills – covers a relatively modest area. After the development and on the
basis of the appellant’s own assessment, only small parts of the original area
would remain unaffected to the north and the south-east. In my view this can
only be described as a radical alteration of the landscape character of the area as
a whole, and, although the appeal site does not lie within the designated area of
the national park, Berrier Hill is indisputably one of the foothills of the Lake
District.
181. The visual impact of the development would extend over a greater area.
Although the size and proximity of Greystoke Forest would limit this effect for
some distance to the north-west of the site, the location and height of the
Northern Fells ensures that the turbines would be readily visible above the forest
from the same direction. From Caldbeck Common in the north the fells increase
in height through Carrock Fell, Bowscale Fell and Bannerdale Crags, leading to
Blencathra in the south. The footpaths and tracks leading to and from these high
points provide a continuous series of vantage points over the Limestone Foothills
and the appeal site. From the highest point – Blencathra itself – I believe the
appearance and visual impact of the windfarm would be manageable. It would
constitute but one part of the human occupation of the landscape which
surrounds and penetrates the Lake District.
182. My concern in relation to views out of the national park derives mainly from
those which can be obtained at lower levels. From these vantage points the size
of the turbines in relation to their surroundings would become more evident and
to my mind more intrusive; especially where they would occupy the prospect
defined by steep valley sides. In my opinion this would be harmful to the
character and experience of the national park.
183. I have described the effect of the scheme on the approach to the national park
in earlier sections of this report. There was no dispute at the inquiry that the
A66 provides one of the two principal routes into the Park. It is a gateway to an
area renowned for its scenic beauty, and I agree with those who contributed to
the inquiry that the approach deserves the highest level of protection. Although
when travelling at speed the prospect from the A66 in the vicinity of Highgate
Farm may last only a few moments, it provides a splendid introduction to a
unique area of England.
184. There would be inevitable variations in the visual impact of the proposed
development on its surroundings. From some locations the difference in altitude
would be so great that any resultant harm would be limited, but at other
locations the harm would be severe. Taking account of the extent to which
the targets for renewable energy generation in Cumbria have been
fulfilled, in my view the harm I have identified is on a sufficiently
substantial scale to clearly outweigh the benefits of this proposal.
185. In accordance with the advice included in PPS22 and elsewhere, I have taken
account of the possible cumulative effects which would result in the event of the
implementation of both the current proposal and that at Grise. Although since
the close of this inquiry the Secretary of State has decided to dismiss the appeal
at Grise, I have nevertheless considered the evidence that was presented
concerning the cumulative impact of the two schemes. I have concluded
elsewhere that an adverse cumulative impact would result in addition to that
which I have found in relation to the appeal scheme in isolation. Taking
account of the existing array of aerials at the Skelton Transmitting
Station and the proximity of the two appeal sites, I consider there would
be some resultant harm from the number and size of vertical intrusions.
In the circumstances I have decided this would add to the weight of the
harm I have identified.
186. The policies most directly relevant to the proposed development in this case
are RSS Policy EM 17 and structure plan Policy R44. Although both seek to
promote the growth of renewable energy schemes, both also require that due
consideration is given to any adverse effects on landscape character, visual
effects and local amenity. In addition, Policy EM 17 makes specific reference to
national designations and their settings, and cumulative impacts.
187. The purpose of the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD is to provide guidance to
developers and others in relation to wind energy schemes, mainly in relation to
their impact on the landscape. Thus, it too seeks to resolve the potential
dilemma between wind energy schemes and their landscape impacts. Although it
is post-dated by the publication of the RSS, it was nevertheless adopted against
structure plan Policy R44 and it therefore enjoys significant weight in this appeal.
I recognise that its adoption preceded the submission of the application by only a
month, but its contents are directly relevant to the current case. In my opinion
the host landscape character sub-type 12c (Limestone Foothills) is far from bland
and the scheme conflicts with a number of the particular sensitivities listed in
relation to the setting of the national park. Specific reference is made in this
context to: the lightly settled limestone foothills which extend into the national
park; to the panoramic views across the foothills around Greystoke towards the
Vale of Eden from the Carrock and Bowscale Fells and from the Blencathra massif
within the national park, together with views back to the imposing eastern faces
of the fells; and the views from the A66. I conclude the scheme conflicts
with the advice included in the SPD. I therefore also conclude the
scheme is in conflict with both RSS Policy EM 17 and structure plan
Policy R44. [62]
188. The other policies to which I have referred are of general application to new
development. These are: RSS Policy EM 1 (Integrated Enhancement and
Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets) and EM1(A) (Landscape);
structure plan Policy E37 (Landscape character); and local plan Policy NE1
(Development in the Countryside). I have previously concluded the proposed
development is in conflict with the thrust and purposes of these development
plan policies. As far as RSS Policy DP 1 (Spatial Principles) is concerned,
while the project would have the effect of reducing emissions and
promoting sustainability, this would only be achieved at the cost of
significant harm to environmental quality. Although the scheme would
therefore conform with the content and purpose of Policy DP 9 (Reduce
Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change), it would conflict with Policy DP
7 (Promote Environmental Quality).
189. I have taken account of the considerations to which I have referred
above and all the relevant development plan and other policy matters
which have been cited, and concluded in the terms of the third main
consideration that the harm I have identified in this case would clearly
outweigh the benefits of renewable energy generation.
190. There are a number of matters about which the Secretary of State particularly
wished to be informed. These are listed in paragraph 5 above. I record below
the conclusions I have reached in respect of each matter.
(a) Although the proposed development complies with some policies
included in the development plan, these are outweighed by its
clear and substantial conflict with others. Most significantly, I
believe the scheme would breach the qualifications and provisos
included in the policies most directly relevant to wind energy
development – RSS Policy EM 17 and structure plan Policy R44.
(b) Similarly, although the scheme complies with the objectives of
Government policy included in PPS22 and the wider social,
economic and environmental benefits, the outcome of the
proposal would demonstrate that the other environmental
impacts have not been satisfactorily addressed. By reason of its
location, scale and design the scheme would seriously harm the
character and appearance of the surrounding area.
(c) The scheme would be consistent with the general thrust of the
Energy White Paper Meeting the Energy Challenge. However,
Box 5.3.3 (Renewables Statement of Need) refers to the need for
‘appropriately sited renewable projects’. For the reasons I have
given, in my view the current scheme is not appropriately sited.
(d) There was no dispute at the inquiry concerning the impact of the
scheme on archaeological remains. The issue in considered in
the ES. It is recommended that any permission granted should
be subject to appropriately worded conditions.
(e) For the reasons I have given I consider the scheme would be
seriously harmful in landscape and visual impact terms,
especially as a result of its proximity to the Lake District
National Park.
(f) There was little dispute at the inquiry concerning the impact on
residential properties of the noise which would be generated by
the turbines. The matter is considered in both the ES and in the
proof of evidence subsequently submitted on behalf of the
appellant. It is recommended that any permission granted
would be subject to appropriately worded conditions.
(g) There was no dispute at the inquiry concerning the impact of the
proposed development on electromagnetic equipment, including
127 Page 177
that affecting aviation interests and the air traffic control radar
at Great Dunn Fell. It is recommended that any permission
granted should be subject to an appropriately worded condition.
(h) There was no dispute at the inquiry concerning the impact of the
proposed development on health resulting from shadow
flicker/flashing. Nevertheless, I have suggested an
appropriately worded condition which takes account of shadow
flicker. Paragraph 78 of the wind technical annex to Planning for
Renewable Energy records that it is not possible to eliminate
flashing127, but it can be ameliorated by a careful choice of blade
colour and surface finish. This is covered in draft condition 6.
Recommendation
191. It is recommended that the appeal is dismissed and that planning permission
for the proposed development is refused. If the Secretary of State is minded to
disagree with my recommendation, a schedule of conditions which I consider
should be imposed on any permission granted is attached to the end of this
report.
Andrew Pykett
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
Mr Matthew Reed
He called:
Mr Andrew Fuller
BA(Hons) MRTPI
Mr David Bolt BA(Hons)
MLI
Mr Chris Greenwood BA
DipLA CMLI
FOR the LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY and the LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL
PARK:
of Counsel, jointly instructed by the Solicitor to
Eden District Council and the Solicitor to the Lake
District National Park Authority
Principal Planner, Urban Vision Partnership
(Capita Symonds Limited)
Urban and Landscape Design Manager, Capita
Symonds Limited
Landscape Architect, Lake District National Park
Authority
Mr Marcus Trinick and
Mr Paul Maile
Partner, Eversheds LLP, 1 Callaghan Square,
Cardiff CF10 5BT
They called:
Mr Iain Michie MRTPI
MRICS
Mr Kenneth Halliday BSc
(Hons) MPhil MLI
FOR the APPELLANT:
Associate, Eversheds LLP
Partner, Montague Evans
Director of Landscape Planning, Stephenson
Halliday
Mr Paul Tucker
He called:
Mr Robert Taylor DipTP
MRTPI
Mr Richard Pearse BSc
(Hons) MA PgDip MRTPI
Mr Andrew Carter
Mr Ian Forrest
Mr Mark Richards
Mr Ian Freestone
FOR the FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT and the BERRIER WIND FARM
OPPOSITION GROUP:
of Counsel, instructed by Burnetts Solicitors, 6
Victoria Place, Carlisle CA1 1ES
Director, Taylor Hardy Ltd
Friends of the Lake District and Cumbria CPRE
Local Resident
Local Resident
Outdoor Writer and Artist
Local resident
Supporters
Mr Neville Howard
Mr David Brammer
Opponents
Mr Doug Scott
Rt Hon David Maclean MP
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Greystoke Estates
Local Resident
Local Resident
Member of Parliament for Penrith and the Border
Sir Christopher Audland KCMG
DL
Cllr Bert Richardson
Mr Robert Dauncey
Cllr Roy Fisher
Mr Malcolm Emery
Mrs Annie Swarbrick
Mr Eric Robson
Dr M J Hall
Prof Richard Deakin
Ms Lesley Smith
Mrs Marjory Emery
Ms Jean Pearson
Ms Sally Bohling
Ms Angela Locke
Mr Aidan Warlow
Mr David Stables
Mr Roger Savage
Mr Harold Evans
Sir Christian Bonington CBE DL
Mr Max Redmayne
Mr Geoff Lightburn
Lord Inglewood
Sir Martin Holdgate
Mr David Kirkwood
Honorary President, Europa Nostra
Member of Cumbria County Council and Eden
District Council
Local Resident
Chairman, Greystoke Parish Council and ward
member for Eden District Council
Local Resident
Local Resident
Chairman The Wainwright Society and Cumbria
Tourism
Vice-Chairman, Friends of Eden, Lakeland and
Lunesdale Scenery
Local Resident
Chairman, Mungrisdale Parish Council
Local Resident
Local Resident
Local Resident
Local Resident (read by Ms Bohling)
Local Resident
Chairman Hutton Parish Council (read by Mr
Savage)
Local Resident
Local Resident
Local Resident
Local Resident
Local Resident
Local Resident (read by Ms Barbara Smallwood)
Local Resident
Local Resident
DOCUMENTS
Council’s Notice of Inquiry and circulation list
Letters of representation
Statement of Common Ground
Proofs of Evidence, Appendices and Summaries
For the council and LDNP
Mr Fuller’s Summary
Mr Fuller’s Proof
Mr Bolt’s Summary
Mr Bolt’s Proof
Mr Bolt’s Appendices A, B, C, D and E
Mr Greenwood’s Summary
Mr Greenwood’s Proof and Annex
For the appellant
Mr Michie’s Summary
Mr Michie’s Proof
Mr Halliday’s Summary
Mr Halliday’s Proof
Mr Halliday’s Appendix 01
Mr Halliday’s Appendix 02
Mr Halliday’s Appendices 03-11
Mr Lowther’s Summary
Mr Lowther’s Proof
Mr Lowther’s Appendices
Mr Blackett’s Summary
Mr Blackett’s Proof
Mr Blackett’s Appendices Volume 1
Mr Blackett’s Appendices Volume 2
Dr McKenzie’s Summary
Dr McKenzie’s Proof
Dr McKenzie’s Appendices
For BWFOG and FLD
Mr Taylor’s Summary
Mr Taylor’s Proof
Mr Taylor’s Appendices, including a report by Mr R D Wollerton on
Landscape and Visual Amenity
Mr Pearse’s Summary
Mr Pearse’s Proof
Mr Carter’s Proof
Mr Forrest’s Proof and Appendices
Mr Richards’ Proof and Appendices
Mr Freestone’s Proof
Documents submitted by the council and the Lake District National Park
Authority
Opening Statements
Notices on Inquiry and circulation lists dated 12 January 2009
and 14 January 2010.
Secretary of State’s Decisions and Inspector’s Report dated 20
January 2010 in respect of 3 appeals: APP/P2935/A/08/2078347,
2079520 and 2077474.
Appeal Decision dated 18 November 2009: APP/R6830/A/08/
2074921.
Errata Sheet submitted by Mr Bolt
Map 7 and Map 8 from the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD (CD G10)
Figures 3.1 to 3.5 from Lake District National Park: Landscape
Character Assessment & Guidelines (CD G8)
Closing Statement
Costs Application
Documents submitted by the appellant
Opening Statement
Mr Halliday’s Supplementary Visualisations
Proposed schedule of conditions for Berrier Hill Wind Farm
Note by Mr Halliday regarding Supplementary Visualisations
Secretary of State’s Decision and Inspector’s Report dated 3
December 2009: APP/F2415/A/09/2096369
Responding to the impacts of climate change on the natural
environment: The Cumbria High Fells published by Natural
England (2009)
Summary of the above
Sheets 2, 3 and 7 from the Cumbria Landscape Classification
Appeal Decision dated 8 December 2009: APP/L2630/A/08/
2084443
Email and attachment dated 4 August 2009 constituting a
Statement of Common Ground between the appellant and NATS
(En Route) PLC.
Berrier Hill Wind Farm – ES Volume 3: Figures
Alternative draft condition 6
Closing Statement
Documents submitted by BWFOG and FLD
Opening Submissions
Permissive Access, Greystoke Estate
Plans and Photographs submitted by Mr Freestone
Closing Submissions
Documents submitted by interested persons
Statement by Mr Neville Howard
Letter by Mr D J H & Mrs V Brammer
Statement by Rt Hon David Maclean MP
Statement by Sir Christopher Audland
Summary Proof by Dr M J Hall
Proof by Dr M J Hall
Statement by Professor Richard Deakin
Statement by Ms Lesley Smith
Statement by Ms Marjorie Emery
Statement by Ms Jean Pearson
Statement by Ms Sally Bohling
Statement by Ms Angela Locke
Statement by Mr Aidan Warlow
Statement by Mr Roger Savage
Statement by Mr Harold Evans
Statement by Sir Christian Bonington
Statement by Mr Max Redmayne
Statement by Mr Geoff Lightburn
Statement by Lord Inglewood
Proof of Evidence by Sir Martin Holdgate
BERRIER HILL WIND FARM
LIST OF CORE DOCUMENTS
VOLUME 1
A APPLICATION DOCUMENTS
A1 Scoping Opinion/Report
A2 The Application as Submitted to Council on 3 August 2007
A3 The Environmental Statement:
• Planning Application
• Volume 1 - Written Text
• Volume 2 - Technical Appendices
• Volume 3 - Figures; and
• Non-Technical Summary
A4 Further Environmental Information Submitted in Support of Application
A5 Eden District Council Planning Applications Committee Report - 19th February 2009
B RENEWABLE ENERGY BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
B1 Energy Review Report - The Energy Challenge 2006, July 2006. DTI
B2 Stern Review Report - The Economics of Climate Change, November 2006. HM Treasury
B3 Energy White Paper - Meeting the Energy Challenge, May 2007. DTI
B4 N/A
VOLUME 2
B5 Planning White Paper - Planning for a Sustainable Future, May 2007. CLG
B6 UK Renewable Energy Strategy, July 2009. BERR
B7 Directive 2009/28 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and
amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC
B8 Commentary on National Energy Policy to include above documents plus Climate Change
Act 2008, Energy Act 2008 and Planning Act 2008
B9 Climate Change Act 2008, November 2008. UK Government
B10 Energy Act 2008, November 2008. UK Government
VOLUME 3
B11 Planning Act 2008, November 2008. UK Government
C NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
C1 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 Delivering Sustainable Development, January 2005.
DCLG
C2 Supplement to PPS 1 Planning Policy and Climate Change, December 2007. DCLG
C3 PPS 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, August 2004. DCLG
C4 PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, August 2005. DCLG
C5 PPS22 Renewable Energy, August 2004. DCLG
C6 PPS22 Companion Guide Planning for Renewable Energy, December 2004. DCLG
C7 Energy Review Report - The Energy Challenge, Annex D Statement of Need as a material
consideration, July 2006. DTI
C8 N/A
D DEVELOPMENT PLAN
D1 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of England - adopted September 2008
D2 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 - adopted April 2006
VOLUME 4
D3 Eden District Council Local Plan 1996
D4 SEE G10
D5 N/A
E EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PLAN
E1 Eden District Council Local Development Framework - February 2009
E2 Eden District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Submission Document
F OTHER REGIONAL DOCUMENTS
F1 Northwest Regional Economic Strategy 2006 - Northwest Regional Development Agency
F2 Climate Change Action Plan for the Northwest 2007-09 - Rising to the Challenge - Nov
2008. Northwest Regional Development Agency
F3 North West Sustainable Energy Strategy - July 2006. NWRA
F4 N/A
F5 Climate Change in the Northwest and its Impacts; a Summary Document - March 2005.
The Northwest Climate Group
F6 Cumbria County Council Sustainability Strategy - May 2006
F7 Natural England Climate Change Policy NE97 - June 2008
F8 N/A
F9 Technical Paper 6 Planning for Renewable Energy Development in Cumbria (Cumbria and
Lake District Joint Structure Plan)
F10 Technical Paper 5: Landscape Character (Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan)
VOLUME 5
F11 Lake District NPA Local Development Framework
F12 N/A
F13 Lake District NP Local Plan - adopted 5 May 1998
G LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
G1 The Countryside Agency “Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and
Scotland” (2002)
G2 The Landscape Institute, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002,
“Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment”, Second Edition COPY
AVAILABLE
G3 Countryside Commission “Countryside Character Volume 2: North West” (1998)
G4 Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, “Landscape Character Assessment
Series: Topic Paper 6 – Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity”
(2003)
G5 Scottish Natural Heritage, Cumulative Effects of Windfarms Version 2 (2005)
G6 N/A
G7 Scottish Natural Heritage/ The Countryside Agency Topic Paper 9 Climate Change and
Natural Forces - The Consequences For Landscape Character
VOLUME 6
G8 Lake District National Park: Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines, September
2008 prepared by Chris Blandford Associates
G9 Capita Symonds Independent Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment for
Eden District Council
G10 Cumbria Wind Energy, Supplementary Planning Document Parts 1 and 2 (July 2007
Adopted), Cumbria County Council
G11 Cumbria Landscape Classification, Cumbria County Council, October 1995
VOLUME 7
G12 Cumbria Wind Energy, Supplementary Planning Document Parts 1 and 2 (August 2006,
Consultation Draft), Cumbria County Council
G13 Designing windfarms in the landscape - consultation September 2008
G14 Visual Representation of Windfarms - Good Practice Guidance, SNH, 2006
G15 University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment of Windfarms Best Practice, Scottish
Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A.
G16 “Green on Green”: Public Perceptions, Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland, Charles R
Warren, Carolyn Lumsden, Simone O’Dowd and Richard V Birnie (2005)
G17 MORI Scotland Research, “Public Attitudes to Windfarms, Results of a study
commissioned by the Scottish Executive” (August 2003)
G18 Robertson Bell Associates Research, “Lambrigg Wind farm - Public Attitude Survey”,
RBA/NWP (April 2002)
G19 Dudleston, A., (System Three Social Research), “Public Attitudes towards Wind Farms in
Scotland”, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (August 2000) plus Report
commenting on applicability of Dudleston in “Planning” (13 December)
G20 RSPB Survey (Public Attitudes to Wind Farm Development)
VOLUME 8
G21 Robertson Bell Associates, Novar - Public Opinion Survey, RBA for National Wind Power
(1998)
G22 Revie, C., & Stein, G., “Planning for Renewables”, Friends of the Earth of Scotland (1997)
G23 SNH Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Windfarms and Small Scale
Hydroelectric schemes (2001)
G24 SEE G9
H AVIATION
I NOISE
I1 ETSU - R - 97
I2 BS 4142, 1997
I3 IEC – BS EN61400-11, 2002
I4 IOA Bulletin Volume 34 (2) Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise
I5 Wind Shear Corrected Noise Impact Assessment May 2009
I6 Berrier Wind Farm - Comments on the Noise Section of the Environmental Statement -
17th March 2008 - Dick Bowdler , New Acoustics on behalf of Berrier Wind Farm
Opposition Group
VOLUME 9
J APPEAL DECISIONS
J1 Middlemoor Wind Farm
J2 Kelburn Wind Farm
J3 Hellrigg Wind Farm
J4 Kiln Pit Hill Wind Farm,
J5 Whinash Wind Farm
J6 Hoff Moor
J7 Yelland
J8 Kirby Moor
J9 Drigg
J10 Carsington Pastures
J11 Wharrel’s Hill
J12 North Dover
J13 Armistead Wind Farm
J14 Hilltop Farm, Brocklebank, Wigton
J15 Den Brook Wind Farm 220307
K OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
K1 Lord Justice Carnwath Judgement
K2 Mr Justice Mitting Judgement
Annex
Schedule of conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than five years from
the date of this decision.
2 This permission shall expire no later than 25 years from the date that
electricity from the development is first exported to the grid. Written
confirmation of the first export date shall be provided to the local planning
authority within 1 month of the first export date.
3 Not later than 12 months before the end of the period of this permission a
decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme (which
shall be implemented as approved) shall include details of the management
and timing of any works and a Traffic Management Plan to address any
access issues.
4 If any of the turbines hereby permitted ceases to export electricity to the
grid for a continuous period of 12 months it shall be dismantled and
removed from the site in accordance with a scheme which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and
which shall provide for the removal of the relevant wind turbine and
associated above ground works approved under this permission and the
wind turbine foundation to a depth of 1 metre below the wind turbine
ground level.
5 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 included in Volume 3
of the Environmental Statement dated July 2007.
6 No development shall take place until details of the dimensions, design,
external appearance, colour and finish of the turbines have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
The blade tip height of the wind turbines should not exceed 102m above
ground level.
7 The turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction. The turbines and
access tracks relating to them shall be located in the positions shown on
Figure 2 of the ES Volume 3 ("the Plan") or within 30 metres from the base
of the column position and track location shown on the Plan, provided that
turbine 7 is no closer to the residential properties nor to the field boundary
to the north-west, as shown on the Plan. Details of the positions of the
turbines and access tracks shall be submitted in writing to the local
planning authority prior to the commencement of development and the
turbines and tracks shall be sited as approved.
8 All cabling on the site shall be placed underground and shall be installed in
accordance with details that have been previously submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority.
9 The temporary construction compound and other temporary construction
works as set out in the submitted application details shall be removed no
later than one year from the date that electricity from the development is
first exported to the grid from the turbines and the ground restored to its
previous condition within six months of such removal.
10 No development shall take place until the external appearance and external
materials to be used in the construction of the substation building have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The building shall be built in accordance with the approved details and
retained as such thereafter.
11 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Traffic
Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The Traffic Management Plan shall include details of all
roadways (temporary or otherwise), and appropriate signage, to be used
for the conveyance of construction materials, plant and equipment and
shall include appropriate measures for the minimisation of noise from the
site by construction vehicles. The Traffic Management Plan shall also
include a road condition survey of the roadways to be used for the
conveyance of construction materials, both pre and post construction. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Traffic
Management Plan.
12 Prior to the commencement of any works, a Construction Method
Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. This shall include details relating to:
• The prevention of silt-laden run off;
• The treatment of sediment-laden water;
• Site lighting;
• The location of contractors’ compounds and the parking and storage of
related vehicles and machinery;
• Fuel, oil and chemical storage;
• Surface water drainage;
• The protection of private water supplies;
• The means of construction of any watercourse crossings;
• Staff facilities and drainage;
• The prevention of mud and debris being tracked onto the highway;
• Dust management;
• Works to the public highway;
• Details of the re-instatement of the ground, post construction.
The development shall be carried out in compliance with the approved
Construction Method Statement. The reinstatement of the site shall take
place no later than one year from the date that electricity from the
development is first exported to the grid.
13 No wind turbine shall be erected until a scheme providing for the alleviation
of any interference with television reception as a result of the operation of
the wind turbines has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The scheme (which shall be implemented as
approved) shall provide for the alleviation of any interference with
television reception caused by the operation of the wind farm which is
notified to the developer within 6 months of the date of first export of
electricity to the grid from all of the wind turbines.
14 No development shall commence until the applicant has fenced off a 30
metre buffer zone around the archaeological earth work remains that are
numbered 1, 2, 2a, 5 and 8 in the Archaeological Survey Report undertaken
by RSK Group Ltd in June 2008.
15 No disturbance shall occur within the 30 metre fenced buffer zone around
the archaeological earthwork remains that are numbered 1, 2, 2a, 5 and 8
in the Archaeological Survey Report undertaken by RSK Group Ltd in June
2008 during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of
the development.
16 No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has
secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in
accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The written scheme will include the following components:
• An archaeological evaluation to be undertaken in accordance with the
agreed written scheme of investigation;
• An archaeological recording programme, the scope of which will be
dependent upon the results of the evaluation and will be in accordance
with the agreed written scheme of investigation.
17 Where appropriate: an archaeological post–excavation assessment and
analysis; preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store;
completion of an archive report; and publication of the results in a suitable
journal as approved beforehand by the local planning authority; shall be
carried out within two years of the date of commencement of the
development hereby permitted.
18 No turbine shall be erected unless and until a scheme has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority following
consultation with NATS (En Route) plc for the modification of the Great Dun
Fell primary radar or associated radar processing systems by the creation
of a plot suppression zone in the airspace above the development
(otherwise known as blanking) and that scheme has been implemented.
The development shall thereafter be carried out and operated in accordance
with the approved scheme.
19 The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind
turbines (including the application of any penalty for tonal noise or noise
characteristics), when assessed in accordance with the attached Guidance
Notes, shall not exceed the values set out in the attached Tables 1 and 2.
20 At the request of the local planning authority, following a complaint to it
relating to noise from the wind turbines, the wind farm operator shall, at its
expense, employ a consultant approved by the local planning authority to
assess the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s
property following the procedures described in the attached Guidance
Notes.
21 Wind speed, wind direction and power generation data for each wind
turbine shall be continuously logged and provided to the local planning
authority at its request and in accordance with the attached Guidance
Notes within 28 days of such request.
22 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until there has
been submitted to, and have been approved in writing by the local planning
authority, details of a nominated representative to act as a local point of
contact for local residents together with the arrangements for notifying and
approving any subsequent change in the nominated representative. The
nominated local representative shall have responsibility for dealing with any
complaints made during the construction, operation and decommissioning
of the wind farm and liaison with the local planning authority.
23 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme to
avoid the incidence of shadow flicker at any dwelling or other sensitive
property has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved and as
necessary.
SCHEDULE OF GUIDANCE NOTES RELATING TO CONDITIONS 19-21
These notes form part of conditions 19-21. They further explain these conditions and
specify the methods to be deployed in the assessment of complaints about noise
emissions from the wind farm.
NOTE 1
(a) Values of the LA90,10min noise statistic should be measured at the complainant’s
property, using a sound level meter of IEC 651 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1,
standard (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the
measurements) set to measure using a fast time weighted response. This should be
calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the
equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements).
(b) The microphone should be mounted at 1.2 - 1.5 m above ground level, fitted
with a two layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved by the local authority,
and placed outside the complainant’s dwelling. Measurements should be made in
“free-field” conditions, so that the microphone should be placed at least 3.5 m away
from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground.
(c) The LA90,10min measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the
10-minute arithmetic average wind speed and with operational data from the turbine
control systems of the wind farm.
(d) The wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind speed
and arithmetic mean wind direction data in 10 minute periods from the hub height
anemometer on the site to enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated.
Such data shall be 'standardised' to a reference height of 10 metres as described in
ETSU-R-97 at page 120 using a reference roughness length of 0.05 metres.
NOTE 2
(a) The noise measurements should be made so as to provide not less than 20
valid data points as defined in Note 2 paragraph (b). Such measurements should
provide valid data points for the range of wind speeds, wind directions, times of day
and power generation requested by the local planning authority. In specifying such
conditions the local planning authority shall have regard to those conditions which
were most likely to have prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there
was disturbance due to noise. At its request the wind farm operator shall provide all
of the data collected under condition 21 to the local planning authority
(b) Valid data points are those that remain after all periods during rainfall have
been excluded.
(c) A least squares, “best fit” curve of a maximum 2nd order should be fitted to
the data points and define the rating level at each integer speed.
NOTE 3
Where, in the opinion of the local planning authority noise emissions at the location
or locations where assessment measurements are being undertaken contain a tonal
component, the following rating procedure should be used.
(a) For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10min data have been obtained as
provided for in Note 1 a tonal assessment is performed on noise emissions during 2
minutes of each 10 minute period. The 2 minute periods should be regularly spaced
at 10 minute intervals provided that uninterrupted clean data are available. Where
clean data are not available, the first available uninterrupted clean 2 minute period
out of the affected overall 10 minute period shall be selected. Any such deviations
from standard procedure shall be reported.
(b) For each of the 2-minute samples the margin above or below the audibility
criterion of the tone level difference, Delta Ltm, should be calculated by comparison
with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104-109 of ETSU-R-97.
(c) The margin above audibility is plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-
minute samples. For samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion
or no tone was identified, substitute a value of zero audibility.
(d) A linear regression should then be performed to establish the margin above
audibility at the assessed wind speed for each integer wind speed. If there is no
apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic average shall be used.
(e) The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone
according to the figure below. The rating level at each wind speed is the arithmetic
sum of the wind farm noise level, as determined from the best fit curve described in
Note 2, and the penalty for tonal noise.
012345601234567Tone Level above Audibility (dB)
Penalty (dB)
NOTE 4
If the rating level based on the measured noise level exceeds the limit set out in the
conditions at any wind speed, measurements of the influence of background noise
should be made to determine whether or not there is a breach of condition. This
may be achieved by repeating the steps in Note 2, with the wind farm switched off,
and determining the background noise at the assessed wind speed, L3. The wind
farm noise at this speed, L1, is then calculated as follows where L2 is the measured
level with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty:
..
.
..
.-=10L10L1321010log10L
The rating level (corrected for background noise) is re-calculated by adding the tonal
penalty (if any) to the derived wind farm noise L1. If the rating level thus corrected
lies at or below the values set out in the conditions then no further action is
necessary. If the rating level exceeds the values set out in the conditions then the
development fails to comply with the conditions.
TABLES OF NOISE LIMITS RELATING TO CONDITION 19
Table 1: Between 23:00 and 07:00 hours (Noise Level in dB LA90, 10min):