Agenda item

Renewable Energy project comprising the erection of 20 wind turbine generators, each with a maximum height of 126.5 metres, together with associated access track, hard standing areas, control and substation building, borrow pits, meteorological mast and temporary construction and site storage compounds on Claughton Moor and Whit Moor near Lancaster for Community Windpower Ltd

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, John Hatt, Tim Sarney of

Lune Rivers Trust, Professor Joe Shennan, Dr. Martin Edmonds,

Dr. Jennifer Newton, MBE, Peter Edge, John Towers, Sir Timothy Kimber,

John Ryle and County Councillor Susie Charles spoke in objection to the application.  Gill Fenna, Sam Ashton and Gillian Cropper, Community Windpower Limited, the applicant, spoke in support.)

John Hatt addressed the Committee in objection to the application and spoke as a travel writer, who had resided in the area for several decades.  He advised Members to ignore propaganda that advised landscapes were not scarred by wind farms.  Most people lived in towns and cities and wanted to spend vacations in unmarred landscapes.  Whilst wind turbines could be acceptable in subtle landscapes, they were out of place in the proposed setting.  The fragility of the landscape had led to it being designated an area of outstanding natural beauty, and this would be spoilt by the proposed wind farm, with turbines higher than St. Paul’s Cathedral.  The Lune Valley should be protected and consideration given to the true cost of the proposal in terms of the environment and beyond.  He had travelled to more than 92 countries and Claughton Moor was as worthy of saving as any place that he had visited.  He urged Committee to refuse the application.

Tim Sarney, a trustee of the Lune Rivers Trust, spoke in objection to the application, and advised Members that Halton Parish Council had voted unanimously to oppose the application.  The proposal was contrary to planning policy, particularly due to its visual impact, and significant numbers of people had registered their objections.  The proposal would result in destruction to the environment, and would undermine the Trust’s work with the Environment Agency on development of a framework to reduce discharge and flows, as the proposal would increase the risk of polluted discharge, resulting in degradation of water quality.  The proposal would impact on several areas, and environmental organisations had submitted objections.  The area played a vital role for many bird species that were in decline, including the Hen Harrier, with a significant percentage of the nesting population successfully nesting in the area.  The area was rich in birdlife and butterfly species, and the proposal would result in displacement due to disturbance and habitat loss.  Every public authority must have regard to biodiversity, policy and enforcement, and it was the legal responsibility of the planning authority to oppose the application.

Joe Shennan spoke in objection to the application and drew Members’ attention to the previous occasion when he had spoken at Committee regarding the application for the enlargement of Caton Moor wind farm, which had been successful at appeal, and advised that this proposal was even more unacceptable, and it would be helpful if counter-arguments could be passed on.  Like Caton Moor, it was within an area of outstanding natural beauty, a unique environment that would be ruined by the proposal.  Energy generated by wind power was an ineffective and flawed process, and required the back up of conventional power sources.  The wind did not blow everyday and wind turbines offered only a temporary and intermittent, short-lived source of power, generating about 30% of the theoretical maximum output.  As of February 2010, there were 35 on-shore UK wind farms, most of them being in Scotland, with massive wind farm expansion at Dunbar.  The Government had started to realise that off-shore wind farms were better.  Wave and tidal power were even better and nuclear power was the best.  It was indefensible to allow wind farms in or adjacent to AONBs or National Parks, given the importance of the setting of such landscapes for ourselves and our children.  Urban wind farms would be preferable.  Wind turbine technology was already dated. 

Dr. Martin Edmonds spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Farleton Residents Action Group, who had submitted a letter and photographs to Committee Members showing the impact that the turbines would have on the landscape.  He advised Committee of three points for concern, firstly, that Farleton would be the first village to be affected by the proposal, the access track being created from a stretch of the A683 between the villages of Claughton and Farleton, and unauthorised vehicular access would be restricted by the use of locked gates.  Secondly, the proposal would result in increased run-off and there were concerns for the beck running along the boundary of two parishes.  EU subsidies for land drainage had already resulted in increased water levels in the beck after moderate rainfall and these would be worse should the proposal go ahead.  Thirdly, this was an area of outstanding natural beauty which was afforded protection statutorily under EU legislation.  Committee was requested to uphold this obligation.

Dr. Jennifer Newton, MBE, addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal on ecological grounds.  Members were advised that she was a botanist by training, who monitored butterfly and insect activity, and was involved in surveying spider species across North Lancashire and had a special interest in this area, being the recorder in Lancashire.  The proposal threatened species of wildlife, including birds, moths, butteflies, spiders and, bees, including the uncommon Bilberry bumblebee.  Claughton Moor was the only place where three species of spider were to be found.  All were listed for protection under the Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan.  Bees, moths, butterflies and insects, unique to blanket bogs and heather moorland, needed to be surveyed and, whilst some people would not worry about their existence, they formed the basis of the food-chain for many animals, and were protected under PPS9 of the European Habitats Directive.  Damage would be inevitable should the proposal proceed, with 30 hectares being covered and no comparable habitat nearby for wildlife to escape to.

Peter Edge of SUSTRANS addressed Members in objection to the application, and advised that the Lune Valley was advertised and signed as comprising beautiful countryside and unspoilt villages in an historic setting.  Hornby had gained Conservation Area status through its medieval origins and historic buildings.  The proposed huge turbines would be incongruous in such a setting.   SUSTRANS proposed a new coast to coast route connecting the seaside towns of Morecambe and Bridlington in 2010, encouraging people to holiday locally, rather than go abroad.  The valley had been immortalised in one of Turner’s paintings and was in an area of outstanding natural beauty.  Lancaster City Council’s own Tourism Service promoted the Lune Valley as being set in beautiful, undisturbed countryside with unspoilt villages, showing England at its best.  Committee was asked to refuse the application.

John Towers addressed the Committee in objection to the application and advised that he was a dairy farmer from Farleton.  The proposed access track to Claughton Moor was not shown clearly on the map provided and reference was made to provision of a visibility splay.  He advised Members that he was the owner of the land in question and had not been approached for a visibility splay.  There was no right of access to the A683.  He was speaking as the brother of a gentleman who had been killed on the said road and he was objecting to the proposal on the grounds that access could not be achieved safely.

Sir Timothy Kimber addressed the Committee in objection to the application and advised Members that he was speaking in his capacity as President of FELLS (Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery), and informed Members that he was also President of Lancashire Wildlife Trust.  He raised several points, namely that the basis on which the calculation of CO₂ savings from wind farms had changed since the 1990s, when it had been calculated that 1 tonne of CO₂ saved could be claimed for every megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity generated.  New-build nuclear and gas stations meant that the CO₂, savings from wind farms would be negligible, with further diminution from disturbed peatland.  FELLS was politically neutral, and had been constituted to protect the visual pollution of the countryside, particularly from the inappropriate siting of wind turbines.  FELLS had never seen an application for wind turbines so comprehensively condemned on so many grounds, with such an emphatic recommendation for refusal by a planning officer.

John Ryle spoke in objection to the application and advised Members that he had been a local resident for 40 years, with professional experience in the energy industry.  More and more money was being spent by the tourism industry on attracting visitors to the area.  The green energy business was a fragmented structure peopled by well-heeled corporate extremists attracting tax payers’ money.  Farmers of poor land received a better return from schemes of this kind, despite the damage caused, with middle men, bankers and manufacturers profiting.  The Danes had erected wind farms off-shore but were happy for them to be positioned anywhere elsewhere.  In the UK, wind turbines were uneconomic without subsidy as they were reliant on wind and would not function for a quarter of the year.  In fact, the turbines on Caton Moor had been still for many days recently for this reason.  It made sense for man to lighten his footprint, but turbines as high as Blackpool Tower in such a surrounding were unacceptable, and Members were asked to imagine the uproar should they be proposed on the South Downs.

County Councillor Susie Charles spoke in objection to the application and congratulated the planning officer on his comprehensive report.  She advised Members that she was speaking both as a County Councillor and a member of the Forest of Bowland AONB Committee.  There was no mention in the details regarding storage and construction.  The effect on the landscape of such a proposal would be irreversible, and she expressed concerns regarding damage to the peatlands and flood risk arising from the application, resulting in worsening run-off.  Since the erection of turbines on Caton Moor, protection of the AONB had been enhanced.  The proposal would not benefit local people or those suffering fuel poverty.

Gill Fenna addressed the Committee in support of the application and advised Members that she lived in Caton and had worked in the energy management field for several years.  The national requirement for electricity had been increasing for some time through the use of computers in schools, home entertainments, street lighting, heat pumps and electric vehicles.  There was a need for strong medium- and short-term energy supplies in the next 20 years, which nuclear, wave and tidal power would not meet in the short-term.  Land turbines would fill this gap and there would be the potential to move to alternative supplies in the future.  There were limited suitable sites and it was preferable that the turbines were situated together, rather than scattered.  The existing turbines on Caton Moor could be seen from her window and there had been little disturbance from their erection.

Sam Ashton addressed the Committee in support of the application and advised Members that he was Hornby born and bred.  This was no time to be too sensitive regarding issues such as this.  Electricity supplies were needed quickly and finite sources, such as gas and coal, were running out.  A new European Union directive on air quality required one-third less air pollution by 2015.  The investment in capturing and storing greenhouse gas emissions as prices for EU-wide trading in emission rights rose meant that there was a break-even point between 30 and 35 Euros per tonne.  The conference in Copenhagen had failed to give a lead.  Electricity demands depended on Drax which sold electricity generated into the market and had a £23m termination of interest rate.  It would take ten years to build a new power plant and it was too late for any of the expected generation gap to be replaced by nuclear, during which time the lights might go out.  The proposal was within an acceptable price structure and presented no toxic residue.  He urged Committee to support the application.

Gillian Cropper of Community Windpower Limited addressed the Committee in support of the application, and advised Members that the City Council was committed to tackling climate change, having adopted a Climate Change Strategy, and had committed to the 10:10 campaign to cut 10% of emissions during 2010, but these targets would not be met at present.  The Council recognised that tackling climate change was a key priority.  The proposal was for 20 wind turbines which would generate up to 50 megawatts of clean, locally sourced electricity.  The windfarm would provide 89% of the shortfall required to meet Lancashire’s overall 2010 renewable energy target set at 239 MW.  There would be beneficial investment into the local economy and the proposal would create employment opportunities.  The Claughton Moor site was elevated and exposed and the turbines would be isolated from properties.  Consideration of decommissioning would be given after 15 years.  It was preferable that the turbines were positioned together rather than in clusters elsewhere.  Government targets for clean, green electricity would increase and Committee could ensure that Lancaster City Council remained at the forefront of this drive by taking a proactive stance and approving the application.

Members considered the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Rogerson and seconded by Councillor Sherlock:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons, as set out in the report, with amendment to reason 9:

1.         The application does not set out any ‘exceptional circumstances’ to develop such a major proposal within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is therefore contrary to PPS7.

2.         The development is of an inappropriate scale given its location within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Countryside Area, and therefore is contrary to PPS7, Core Strategy Policy EM1 and saved Local Plan policies E3 and E4.

3.         The development would have an adverse visual impact upon the landscape, contrary to PPS1, RSS policies DP7 and EM1(a), Core Strategy policies SC1, SC3, SC5 and E1, and saved Local Plan policy E3.

4.         The development would have an adverse cumulative impact upon the environment, contrary to PPS1, RSS policies DP7 and EM1(a) and Core Strategy policies SC1, SC3, SC5 and E1.

5.         The development’s impact on biodiversity, including within the Biological Heritage Sites, has not been adequately assessed, so appropriate mitigation against and/or compensation for the development cannot be identified.  The proposal is therefore contrary to PPS1, PPS9, PPS22, RSS policy DP7, Core Strategy policies SC1 and E1, and saved Local Plan policy E12.

6.         The development’s impact on hydrology has not been adequately assessed, so appropriate mitigation against and/or compensation for the development cannot be identified.  The proposal is therefore contrary to PPS25, RSS Policy EM5, Core Strategy policy SC7 and saved Local Plan policies E7 and E8.

7.         The development would have a detrimental impact on the historic environment, particularly on the setting of a number of local Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings within these protected areas, and therefore is contrary to PPS1, PPG15, RRS policy DP7, Core Strategy policies SC1, SC3, SC5 and E1 and saved Local Plan policy E35.

8.         The development would be overbearing, dominant and intrusive on a number of nearby residential properties.

9.         The application does not adequately assess alternative access routes, and therefore it cannot be determined if the proposed route is the most acceptable given social and environmental considerations.