Minutes of the joint meeting of New and Old Hutton Parish Councils held on the 17th October, 2012 at New Hutton
121017-1 Present
Tony Ellis, Henry Robinson, Martyn Welch; Tony Porter and Paul Edwards (joint chairmen), Peter Thornton (SLDC councillor), Stan Collins (CCC councillor), Arthur Robinson (clerk) and about 33 members of the public
121017-2 Apologies
Pat Bell
121017-3 Aim of the meeting
The meeting was called to hear presentations for and against the proposed Killington wind farm SL/2012/0845. Old Hutton Parish Council will decide its formal response on the 30th October; New Hutton Parish Council has still to fix a date.
Issues relevant to the planning application are: visual impacts, ecological impacts (Natural England’s report will be the definitive guide to this), cumulative impacts, noise, light flicker, and impacts on inhabitants and users of public footpaths.
Issues not relevant to the planning application are: perceptions of global warming, efficacy of wind turbines and impacts on local property values.
121017-4 Banks’s presentation (Phil Dyke, Martyn Earle and Barry Grimes)
The company has much experience of wind farms; it has consent for 9: 3 operating and 6 in planning
Larger turbines (as at Killington) are much more efficient than smaller ones (as at Lambrigg)
Onshore wind farms are the cheapest form of renewable power.
The cost is not related to the price fluctuations of fossil fuels.
From 2004 to 2010 household energy costs increased by 75%. This increase consisted of gas 64%, transmission and VAT 20%, energy efficiency in houses 10% and support for renewable was only 6%.
The proposal is for 3x3.4MW turbines (10.2MW total capacity) to be in place for 25 years saving 14,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.
The key impact will be on the visual landscape. All residences are more than 1Km from the site.
When choosing the site all constraints such as the national parks and their proposed extensions, Special Protection Areas(SPAs), SSSIs and 500m exclusion zones around all houses were mapped.
The Cumbria Supplementary Planning Document is the main guide to turbine development in the county. It states that this landscape type can accommodate 3 to 5 turbines up to 120m high. Banks have proposed fewer (three) but higher ones (132m) because they are more efficient. Though some thought this exceeded the maximum capacity for this landscape, Mr Dyke considered the CWE SPD set only a minimum and more could be accommodated.
Cumulative impact is an issue here as three will be visible from the east (Lambrigg, Killington and Armistead). However, their visibility will vary according to the route taken and the lie of the land in an area such as the Howgills.
The heights of the turbines at the three wind farms vary but their tops will be at similar heights because their bases are at different altitudes.
Views were then shown from Killington Services, Fox’s Pulpit, Killington Reservoir House, the path below Winder and Winder summit.
Noise will not be an issue. All houses are more than 1Km away and none will suffer noise above the 35dB level.
There are no SSSIs and SPAs.
Killington Reservoir is a County Wildlife Site and Banks will put forward a habitat management plan to protect it.
Cumbria has been set a target of 284MW for the generation of renewable power. At the moment it is about 140MW short of this target.
The wind farm will provide £27,000 per year for schemes such as faster broadband with subsidised bills, warmer homes through draught-proofing and enhanced community facilities. Broadband could be provided by 3G or 4G; research is currently being done into this.
121017-5 FELLS’s presentation (Mike Hall)
Wind farms proliferate – a map was shown of all the sites where wind farms operate, are proposed or have been refused planning permission between Lancaster and Shap. The point is that there are about 12 companies involved and they do not tell each other what they are doing so there is no guarantee that permission given for Killington would reduce the possibility of others seeking permission.
The size of turbines is difficult to show in pictures. 132m turbines are as tall as the viewing platform on Blackpool Tower and the swept area of their blades is the size of Manchester United’s football pitch. The wind measurement mast which has been erected at Killington would reach only the hub; the blades would rise another 52m.
The wind farm will harm the scenic beauty of the area – views from several locations were shown.
The turbines will not be visible from the west as they will be hidden by Roan Edge but from other directions their movement will be distracting and they will dominate the scenery at distances of up to 2.4Km.
Killington wind farm will have a cumulative impact. Views were shown of the three wind farms from north of Lambrigg and from south of Armistead. Other developers are looking at sites south of Armistead, and Lambrigg could be redeveloped with taller turbines which would exacerbate the problem. This industrialisation of the M6 corridor would harm the gateway to the Lake District National Park along the M6 from the south and the gateway to the Dales National Park along the A684 from the west. Views were shown from the proposed extensions to the two national parks. Killington Lake is also an important leisure resource.
There would be potential pollution to Killington Lake from the development. An account was given of similar incidents at Armistead.
There would be impacts on cultural heritage – turbine blades would be visible from Fox’s Pulpit.
There would be potential danger to birds, especially soaring species such as larks and raptors, and especially at night.
In summary, it is FELLS’s view that the development would be contrary to several aspects of recent national policy and also to existing to SLDC policy. Planning decisions must be based on planning issues and not on money benefits to the community, and although the government wants wind turbines they should not be given permission if the environmental and other costs are greater than the benefits.
121017-6 Questions from the floor
Q – There are likely to be extensions to the national parks and more wind farm proposals. Can SLDC take these possible future changes into account when deciding about the Killington wind farm proposal?
A – Both sides agreed that SLDC can take them into account but they will be given less weight in their considerations than if the changes had happened.
Q – If SLDC refuse the application it will have been through a democratic process. Will Banks appeal if refused bearing in mind that there is a new emphasis on localism in planning?
A – Banks – It is likely that they would appeal because it is difficult to establish what is the democratic view; Banks try to be open at all times.
FELLS – Banks have not approached organisations whose key interest is in preserving the landscape and who often are opposed to wind farms - such as FELLS - for their comments. However, it is difficult to ascertain the democratic view.
Banks - The FELLS response was in relation to landscape and visual consultation. Banks have spoken to and met with the statutory consultees on landscape (YDNP / LDNP / CCC). About 600 people live in the two parishes most of whom are not here at the meeting and so it is impossible to know what their opinions are.
Q – Armistead has received permission and is being developed. Will the two sides please say whether they assess the landscape and visual impact of Killington as being greater or less than Armistead?
A – FELLS considers that landscape quality is higher at Killington but there are also distinct differences. For example, Armistead is on a ridge and is visible from very long distances while Killington is more screened from the west by Roan Edge.
Banks – There are three points to be made here. The reservoir is an amenity but the wind farm itself would have less impact. Impact should not be judged on whether it can be seen; the wind farm might be seen from far away but would have little impact because it would be small in the landscape. Both Killington and Armistead are in the same landscape character area (Foothills) and so are similar in this respect.
Q – Does Banks have ideas for further sites in this area?
A – Banks – They did speak to other landowners but they were not interested. Banks is not now looking at any other sites but is evaluating the Shap scheme proposed by Gamesa some years ago as a training exercise for new staff members.
Q – How have the wind speed measurements been made and why has the wind mast been put up?
A – Banks – there is a national data base (NOABL) at the 1Km2 scale which has been supplemented by data from Lambrigg and Armistead. The site mast is now adding further information. At Killington 60% of the wind is from the south west so Roan Edge to the west does not have a huge sheltering effect on the site. The wind mast is necessary because Banks Renewables have to fund the capital cost of the turbines by bank loans. The wind data from the mast is necessary to secure the necessary loans.
FELLS – pointed out that the NOABL data base specifically says it should not be used for site specific assessments. Banks agreed with this.
Q – Could you please clarify the meaning of ‘cumulative’?
A – Banks – ‘cumulative’ can have positive or negative effects. It can be positive if there is already a detractor in the area which lowers the landscape and visual amenity of the area and thus a new wind farm might impact on it less. On the other hand, if a new wind farm led to too much development in the area the cumulative effect would be negative.
FELLS – Along the Solway coast the planners have allowed a landscape with wind farms to develop so more wind farms are acceptable. It could be the same here; Banks will not be seeking other sites but other firms could be leading to an exacerbation of cumulative negative effects.
Q – How will the power be taken out of the site?
A – Banks – By underground cables to main power lines to the north
Q – Will low flying aircraft be diverted by the wind farm to fly over New Hutton’s hamlets?
A – Banks – In good visibility RAF pilots can fly where they wish. In poor visibility and at night they need to be at least two nautical miles away.
Q – Is SLDC governed by the same planning criteria as those listed at the start of this evening? In particular, do they pay more attention to economic factors?
A – Peter Thornton – The question of who receives revenue from a wind farm is not considered by the Planning Committee which discusses only the planning issues. This is enforced by the appeal process which also focuses on only planning issues.
Q – What is the time limit for comments?
A – Peter Thornton – The deadline for the general public is the 30th October and for parish councils it is the 7th November. However, the application will probably go to the January or February Planning Committee meeting and all comments submitted up to that date will be included. This is because there has been a delay in erecting the turbines at Armistead so people might wish to make further comments, either for or against, when they have seen them in place.
121017-7 Votes
The question to be voted on was: ‘Are you for or against the Killington wind farm?’
Voting papers were issued only to those on the electoral rolls. Voters were asked to indicate which parish they lived in.
The votes were:
New Hutton:
For = 6
Against = 11
Abstentions = 0
Old Hutton:
For = 4
Against = 12
Abstentions = 2
121017-1 Present
Tony Ellis, Henry Robinson, Martyn Welch; Tony Porter and Paul Edwards (joint chairmen), Peter Thornton (SLDC councillor), Stan Collins (CCC councillor), Arthur Robinson (clerk) and about 33 members of the public
121017-2 Apologies
Pat Bell
121017-3 Aim of the meeting
The meeting was called to hear presentations for and against the proposed Killington wind farm SL/2012/0845. Old Hutton Parish Council will decide its formal response on the 30th October; New Hutton Parish Council has still to fix a date.
Issues relevant to the planning application are: visual impacts, ecological impacts (Natural England’s report will be the definitive guide to this), cumulative impacts, noise, light flicker, and impacts on inhabitants and users of public footpaths.
Issues not relevant to the planning application are: perceptions of global warming, efficacy of wind turbines and impacts on local property values.
121017-4 Banks’s presentation (Phil Dyke, Martyn Earle and Barry Grimes)
The company has much experience of wind farms; it has consent for 9: 3 operating and 6 in planning
Larger turbines (as at Killington) are much more efficient than smaller ones (as at Lambrigg)
Onshore wind farms are the cheapest form of renewable power.
The cost is not related to the price fluctuations of fossil fuels.
From 2004 to 2010 household energy costs increased by 75%. This increase consisted of gas 64%, transmission and VAT 20%, energy efficiency in houses 10% and support for renewable was only 6%.
The proposal is for 3x3.4MW turbines (10.2MW total capacity) to be in place for 25 years saving 14,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.
The key impact will be on the visual landscape. All residences are more than 1Km from the site.
When choosing the site all constraints such as the national parks and their proposed extensions, Special Protection Areas(SPAs), SSSIs and 500m exclusion zones around all houses were mapped.
The Cumbria Supplementary Planning Document is the main guide to turbine development in the county. It states that this landscape type can accommodate 3 to 5 turbines up to 120m high. Banks have proposed fewer (three) but higher ones (132m) because they are more efficient. Though some thought this exceeded the maximum capacity for this landscape, Mr Dyke considered the CWE SPD set only a minimum and more could be accommodated.
Cumulative impact is an issue here as three will be visible from the east (Lambrigg, Killington and Armistead). However, their visibility will vary according to the route taken and the lie of the land in an area such as the Howgills.
The heights of the turbines at the three wind farms vary but their tops will be at similar heights because their bases are at different altitudes.
Views were then shown from Killington Services, Fox’s Pulpit, Killington Reservoir House, the path below Winder and Winder summit.
Noise will not be an issue. All houses are more than 1Km away and none will suffer noise above the 35dB level.
There are no SSSIs and SPAs.
Killington Reservoir is a County Wildlife Site and Banks will put forward a habitat management plan to protect it.
Cumbria has been set a target of 284MW for the generation of renewable power. At the moment it is about 140MW short of this target.
The wind farm will provide £27,000 per year for schemes such as faster broadband with subsidised bills, warmer homes through draught-proofing and enhanced community facilities. Broadband could be provided by 3G or 4G; research is currently being done into this.
121017-5 FELLS’s presentation (Mike Hall)
Wind farms proliferate – a map was shown of all the sites where wind farms operate, are proposed or have been refused planning permission between Lancaster and Shap. The point is that there are about 12 companies involved and they do not tell each other what they are doing so there is no guarantee that permission given for Killington would reduce the possibility of others seeking permission.
The size of turbines is difficult to show in pictures. 132m turbines are as tall as the viewing platform on Blackpool Tower and the swept area of their blades is the size of Manchester United’s football pitch. The wind measurement mast which has been erected at Killington would reach only the hub; the blades would rise another 52m.
The wind farm will harm the scenic beauty of the area – views from several locations were shown.
The turbines will not be visible from the west as they will be hidden by Roan Edge but from other directions their movement will be distracting and they will dominate the scenery at distances of up to 2.4Km.
Killington wind farm will have a cumulative impact. Views were shown of the three wind farms from north of Lambrigg and from south of Armistead. Other developers are looking at sites south of Armistead, and Lambrigg could be redeveloped with taller turbines which would exacerbate the problem. This industrialisation of the M6 corridor would harm the gateway to the Lake District National Park along the M6 from the south and the gateway to the Dales National Park along the A684 from the west. Views were shown from the proposed extensions to the two national parks. Killington Lake is also an important leisure resource.
There would be potential pollution to Killington Lake from the development. An account was given of similar incidents at Armistead.
There would be impacts on cultural heritage – turbine blades would be visible from Fox’s Pulpit.
There would be potential danger to birds, especially soaring species such as larks and raptors, and especially at night.
In summary, it is FELLS’s view that the development would be contrary to several aspects of recent national policy and also to existing to SLDC policy. Planning decisions must be based on planning issues and not on money benefits to the community, and although the government wants wind turbines they should not be given permission if the environmental and other costs are greater than the benefits.
121017-6 Questions from the floor
Q – There are likely to be extensions to the national parks and more wind farm proposals. Can SLDC take these possible future changes into account when deciding about the Killington wind farm proposal?
A – Both sides agreed that SLDC can take them into account but they will be given less weight in their considerations than if the changes had happened.
Q – If SLDC refuse the application it will have been through a democratic process. Will Banks appeal if refused bearing in mind that there is a new emphasis on localism in planning?
A – Banks – It is likely that they would appeal because it is difficult to establish what is the democratic view; Banks try to be open at all times.
FELLS – Banks have not approached organisations whose key interest is in preserving the landscape and who often are opposed to wind farms - such as FELLS - for their comments. However, it is difficult to ascertain the democratic view.
Banks - The FELLS response was in relation to landscape and visual consultation. Banks have spoken to and met with the statutory consultees on landscape (YDNP / LDNP / CCC). About 600 people live in the two parishes most of whom are not here at the meeting and so it is impossible to know what their opinions are.
Q – Armistead has received permission and is being developed. Will the two sides please say whether they assess the landscape and visual impact of Killington as being greater or less than Armistead?
A – FELLS considers that landscape quality is higher at Killington but there are also distinct differences. For example, Armistead is on a ridge and is visible from very long distances while Killington is more screened from the west by Roan Edge.
Banks – There are three points to be made here. The reservoir is an amenity but the wind farm itself would have less impact. Impact should not be judged on whether it can be seen; the wind farm might be seen from far away but would have little impact because it would be small in the landscape. Both Killington and Armistead are in the same landscape character area (Foothills) and so are similar in this respect.
Q – Does Banks have ideas for further sites in this area?
A – Banks – They did speak to other landowners but they were not interested. Banks is not now looking at any other sites but is evaluating the Shap scheme proposed by Gamesa some years ago as a training exercise for new staff members.
Q – How have the wind speed measurements been made and why has the wind mast been put up?
A – Banks – there is a national data base (NOABL) at the 1Km2 scale which has been supplemented by data from Lambrigg and Armistead. The site mast is now adding further information. At Killington 60% of the wind is from the south west so Roan Edge to the west does not have a huge sheltering effect on the site. The wind mast is necessary because Banks Renewables have to fund the capital cost of the turbines by bank loans. The wind data from the mast is necessary to secure the necessary loans.
FELLS – pointed out that the NOABL data base specifically says it should not be used for site specific assessments. Banks agreed with this.
Q – Could you please clarify the meaning of ‘cumulative’?
A – Banks – ‘cumulative’ can have positive or negative effects. It can be positive if there is already a detractor in the area which lowers the landscape and visual amenity of the area and thus a new wind farm might impact on it less. On the other hand, if a new wind farm led to too much development in the area the cumulative effect would be negative.
FELLS – Along the Solway coast the planners have allowed a landscape with wind farms to develop so more wind farms are acceptable. It could be the same here; Banks will not be seeking other sites but other firms could be leading to an exacerbation of cumulative negative effects.
Q – How will the power be taken out of the site?
A – Banks – By underground cables to main power lines to the north
Q – Will low flying aircraft be diverted by the wind farm to fly over New Hutton’s hamlets?
A – Banks – In good visibility RAF pilots can fly where they wish. In poor visibility and at night they need to be at least two nautical miles away.
Q – Is SLDC governed by the same planning criteria as those listed at the start of this evening? In particular, do they pay more attention to economic factors?
A – Peter Thornton – The question of who receives revenue from a wind farm is not considered by the Planning Committee which discusses only the planning issues. This is enforced by the appeal process which also focuses on only planning issues.
Q – What is the time limit for comments?
A – Peter Thornton – The deadline for the general public is the 30th October and for parish councils it is the 7th November. However, the application will probably go to the January or February Planning Committee meeting and all comments submitted up to that date will be included. This is because there has been a delay in erecting the turbines at Armistead so people might wish to make further comments, either for or against, when they have seen them in place.
121017-7 Votes
The question to be voted on was: ‘Are you for or against the Killington wind farm?’
Voting papers were issued only to those on the electoral rolls. Voters were asked to indicate which parish they lived in.
The votes were:
New Hutton:
For = 6
Against = 11
Abstentions = 0
Old Hutton:
For = 4
Against = 12
Abstentions = 2
