Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of New Hutton Parish Council held on the 2nd May 2012 at the Institute
Meeting 1 at 7.30pm
120502-1 Present
Pat Bell (Chairman), Tony Ellis, Henry Robinson, Martyn Welch, Tony Porter, Arthur Robinson (clerk), and 46 parishioners
120502-2 Declaration of interests None
120502-3 Introductions
The meeting was called to discuss the proposed development of the field between the church and The Ashes for housing. The Parish Council had been asked by the developers whether it wished to consult with them about the development. The Parish Council wished to have the meanings of the terms ‘consultation’, ‘infill’, ‘rounding off’ and ‘affordable housing’ explained in the context of this proposal.
The following is an account of what was said by the speakers and later in discussion.
120502-4 Iain Withington (IW) (SLDC Development Plans and Policy Development Officer)
(Iain is also responsible for the development of affordable housing, advises on Neighbourhood Plans and works on the allocation of land)
Context of the proposal:
The Land Allocation Document, which will soon be finalised, puts into practice the SLDC Core Strategy for development up to 2025.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued by the government sets targets for local authorities. In the past SLDC has not been delivering its set targets so it has to allocate a supply of land for the next 6 years (rather than the normal 5 years).
The NPPF presumes in favour of sustainable development except where adverse impacts will outweigh any benefits.
New Hutton is classed as a small village or hamlet in open countryside. All open countryside in the South Lakes District is targeted to provide only 11% of the housing needed. This amounts to 25 houses per year across the whole district.
The Church/Ashes field was put forward in the original Land Allocation Document in early 2011 but the policy has now changed to non-allocation of land in small communities. Local communities should find sites for their own needs and the neighbourhood planning process can identify these.
Definitions:
Infill – building on a vacant plot along a built-up street frontage. This does not usually fit in with rural areas. The development should be the same as on each side of the plot.
Rounding off – completion of an incomplete gap between buildings on a partly developed site. It is not the same idea as the extension of a village. Therefore, scale and type of development are important here. The impact on the landscape is also important; this means how the site sits in the wider landscape.
Exception policy – developments can occur outside infill and rounding off policies if they are for affordable housing. 35% of all developments of 3 or more houses must be affordable houses. If the affordable houses are for sale SLDC controls the price so a three-bedroom house price would be £110,000 and the purchasers must be from the Upper Kent LAP (Local Area Partnership) area. In future sales of the houses the price discount would continue amounting to about 45 to 50% of open market prices. Affordable housing can also be for private rent and shared ownership. The exceptions policy specifies that all the houses are to be affordable and there must also be evidence of local need and local support. The development has still to be at an appropriate scale and must have the support of the parish councils, not only in New Hutton but also in the rest of the Upper Kent LAP. This means that parish councils can influence the developments.
Consultation – The Localism Act requires consultation for major developments but this probably means those over 200 homes or more. However, SLDC requires consultation for smaller developments and developers have to give evidence of how the views of the community have been taken into account. However, there is no precise definition within the planning context of the word ‘consultation’.
Advice – Iain (IW) advised the Parish Council to engage in consultation before an application is submitted. SLDC will consult the Parish Council after the planning proposal has been submitted but, before that, the Parish Council should try to find out what the developer is aiming at. SLDC looks for meaningful consultation. The Parish Council can propose its own affordable housing scheme.
120502-5 Judith Derbyshire (JD) (Cumbria Rural Housing Trust, CRHT)
(The CRHT carries out housing needs surveys, works with local communities to find housing solutions and is a charity working to ensure affordable housing is provided where needed. It employs Andy Lloyd who works with communities on Community Land Trusts, community organisations formed to develop affordable housing and other services on community land.)
New Hutton Housing Needs Survey – 184 questionnaires were sent out. There was a 32.6% return of questionnaires in the survey in December 2011. 10 of the 60 responses said the whole household or someone living in it wished to move within the parish in the next 5 years. 11 were in need; two want to move to Kendal. Some responses had details of multiple households so 16 households in total were assessed.
Most were young adults working in New Hutton or nearby who live with parents. One response was a household wishing to return to the parish to support a local family.
Part 1 responses on the questionnaire
The age profile of the parish has a peak at 50-70 which poses the issue of what the community wants the future to be like. Young people are moving out and older people are moving in. 66% of households are singles or couples. Most are owner-occupiers and work nearby. Many have moved in within the last 15 years or have lived in the parish for more than 30 years. 85% of respondents would not object to a small number of new homes in the parish which would help to meet the needs of local people and a number of sites were suggested.
Part 2 responses on the questionnaire
Most people in need are living with their families.
Only two are on the housing register (or Cumbria Choice as it is now known as).
Some have land or buildings suitable for conversion and could work with the local authority to develop housing.
The old school was suggested in 4 responses. Coniston converted a similar community building with the help of a housing association but there is less money from government for these schemes now so the most practical route is to have a cross-subsidy from a developer who would build private houses for sale on the open market and also develop the affordable housing.
The Localism Act permits the formulation of Neighbourhood Plans whereby communities can give themselves planning permission for new developments through the Community Right to Build.
120502-6 Discussion
Arthur Robinson – The Parish Council has been asked to consult with the developers but they say they have no intentions yet. Would consultation by the Parish Council be used to help the developer when the Planning Committee is considering the application?
IW – The Parish Council can mould the development (he did not really answer the question)
JD – The developers could come and discuss it. Do they want to come and talk with no commitment from the Parish Council?
Kathleen Twist – Are they being honest? Surveyors/architects have already been on the site.
Alan Barton – In the past, developers have gained outline planning permission and then doubled the housing density when it has come to the detailed planning application stage. Can they still do this after consultation has occurred?
IW – His impression was that they cannot but he will check this point at SLDC and send the reply to the clerk.
Ian Mason – If they got permission for 3 houses, how long would it be before they could submit another application?
IW – Scale is important here. Development could only be done as rounding off so permission for the first application should clearly specify the limit.
David Bigford – What is the meaning of ‘scale’?
IW – Scale is judged with respect to the size of the settlement and the need for housing. New Hutton has a relatively low level of affordable housing need.
JD – The old school could be developed for affordable housing by the developer which would give a clearer case for rounding off.
Jean Robinson – Is The Ashes part of the village of New Hutton?
IW – No
Michael Burke – Would a small development of affordable housing include any other developments such as roads?
IW – The provision of infrastructure is required as part of planning except for small scale developments. Highway access is sent to Cumbria County Council for advice
Martyn Welch – Sustainability is part of an application. What does it mean?
IW – New Hutton is unsustainable in general (travel etc). Therefore, only 11% of new housing can be in open countryside like this in the whole of the South Lakes District.
Arthur Robinson – Would the development of the old school for affordable housing increase or decrease the likelihood of the field being developed?
IW – Debatable.
Phil Ashcroft – Could 1/3 of the field near the church be developed, then 1/3 next to The Ashes leaving the remaining 1/3 to be developed as infill?
IW – Each is an individual settlement. Next to the church is debatable. Next to The Ashes is very unlikely.
Alan Barton – Can ‘infill’ be applied to the parish rather than to the village?
IW – ‘Infill’ applies only to the village.
IW – said he would clarify the following points and would e-mail the answers to the clerk:
(a) The question of whether developers can change their plans after consultation.
(b) The question of the possibility of creeping development of the field.
(c) The question of whether development of the old school for affordable housing would affect development of the field.
120502-7 Secret ballot
A secret ballot was held at the close of the meeting, the ballot being limited to New Hutton parishioners. The statement to be considered was:
“The proposal to build houses on the field between the Church and The Ashes”
and the alternative responses were: “I agree” and “I disagree”. Parishioners were invited to add written comments on the ballot paper if they so wished
Results:
“I agree” = 5 votes but one was qualified with the statement “If it’s affordable housing ie smaller properties to buy or low rent. Otherwise I disagree. I do not think we need larger houses as many in village not selling already.”
“I disagree” = 37 votes. Comments were:
“Totally inappropriate development”
“Any development would spoil the balance”
“I would like to see affordable housing at the old school [and] only if carefully thought out with regards to infill and rounding off etc.”
Meeting 2 at 8.55pm
120502-7 Present
Pat Bell (Chairman), Tony Ellis, Henry Robinson, Martyn Welch, Tony Porter, Arthur Robinson (clerk), Peter Thornton (SLDC councillor) and 56 parishioners
120502-8 Declaration of interests none
120502-9 Introductions
The meeting was called to discuss planning application SL/2012/0289 for a single 80m wind turbine on Hawkrigg Hill.
The following is an account of what was said by the speaker and later in discussion.
120502-10 Dr Mike Hall (MH) (President of the Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery, FELLS)
Planning policy has changed to the Nation Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless adverse impacts outweigh the proposal. SLDC has no overall plan for wind energy developments.
MH distributed a sheet of points about submitting a letter of comments to SLDC.
He then went through the following points illustrated by power point photographs and diagrams:
Scale
In the local area are pylons – 150ft, Lambrigg turbines – 242ft, Armistead – 325ft; the Hawkrigg Hill turbine would be 262ft. The Proposed turbine will be amongst the largest such structures in Cumbria.
Visual impact on public amenity
He showed the photomontages accompanying the application (and one of The Ashes he had prepared according to approved guidelines) and questioned whether the document downplays the visual impact.
He showed that the turbine would be dominant from all directions and from the A684 and the B6254. Although very little would be visible from the Institute, the top half, including all the blades, would be visible from the church.
Visual impact on individual amenity
No-one has a right to a view.
However, the visual impact is relevant if it dominates, overbears or intimidates which usually means if it is closer than 500m and is visible from a main room such as a lounge.
Landscape character
The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document shows the capacity for wind farms throughout the county. This area is in the “up to 5 turbines” category and 5 already exist at Lambrigg.
New Hutton is also on the edge of the landscape character 7b (Drumlin Fields). It was noted that the Sillfield wind farm planning inquiry refused the application in part because the turbines would have dominated the small, intimate scale drumlin landscape there.
Cumulative impact
This consideration applies if one can see two or more wind developments. There are three categories in it:
Simultaneous – where one can see two or more developments by looking in the same direction.
Repetitive – where if one swivels around without moving from the spot, one can see two or more developments.
Sequential – where one can see two or more developments while travelling through the landscape eg along the A684 there will be Armistead and Lambrigg as well as Hawkrigg Hill if developed.
Wildlife
Birds – especially soaring species such as buzzards, curlew and lapwings
Bats – fly along hedgerows and wind turbines should not be placed in zones 50m on each side.
Wildlife is not likely to be an important issue at this site.
Noise
It is not clear that a full background assessment of noise levels has been done in accordance with the guidelines set out in ETSU-R97. This is important. Measuring devices should have been in some people’s gardens for at least two weeks to gather background noise data from several wind directions. The impression is that the noise information in the application has been calculated from manufacturer’s data.
Flicker
This occurs when the sun goes behind a turbine which casts flickering shadows or, if the sun’s angle is right, flickering glinting. It is not likely to be important here and can be managed by planning condition.
Local economy
The turbine will generate no new jobs and contribute little to the economy.
It could have an adverse impact on local businesses such as B&B and camping/caravan sites.
Summary
Local people and the planning committee have to judge the balance between the benefits of wind farms (renewable energy targets, power generation and carbon dioxide reduction) and the disadvantages (social, visual, landscape and environmental)
Points which are not relevant in comments sent to SLDC planning committee
Impacts on the National Parks
Hydrological unless there might be an impact on a private water supply
Archaeological – no evidence has been found at the site.
House prices
Efficiency of turbine technology
Income for the developer and the land owner
Comments to SLDC should be concise and relevant to this application.
120502-11 Discussion
Jackie Ashcroft – questioned the noise data in the application and said that a House of Lord’s Bill seeking to establish fixed separation distances between wind turbines and residential property to restrict noise and visual impact was imminent.
MH – The Bill, sponsored by Lord Reay, is due for its first reading on May 15th .It is likely to progress to a second reading and debate and ultimately to Committee stage but in order to become law it would have to be adopted by the House of Commons. The Government have stated that there are no plans for a minimum separation of turbines from houses.
Phil Bell – The church is a quiet area. Would noise be heard during services?
MH – impossible to answer. Most noise is generated by the blades passing the column (the periodic pulse or amplitude modulation) and by wind shear on the blades (the continuous background swoosh). The hill will hide the column so it is impossible to tell whether the sound will reach the church or be reflected over it.
Anne Steele – No guidelines exist for the separation of houses from turbines. Noise concerns should be directed to the Environmental Health Officer.
MH – The Environmental Health Officer’s letter is on the SLDC website. He says there will be no noise problem but he has not based his judgement on measured data. The matter could be taken up with him.
Michael Burke – What is the point of writing to the Environmental Health Officer?
MH – If there is genuine concern then it should be possible to ask for a second opinion about the noise data
Michael Burke – Medical problems from noise exist. A recent article in the British Medical Journal concerned noise affecting sleep.
MH – There is extensive data on ill health caused by wind farm noise but the Government has so far declined to accept it. The advice is to press the noise issue with the planning officer, Barry Jackson.
Nancy Field – Will the sound vary with the weather?
MH – Yes. There is more noise if the turbine is upwind of your house. Background noise must be measured at different wind speeds because both turbine noise and background noise increase with wind speed.
Kathleen Twist – Is it relevant to say in comments on the application that this application could set a precedent for single turbines on other hill tops nearby?
MH – Yes
Jan Hunt – Could they re-apply for a smaller turbine if this was refused?
MH – Yes. However, the two smaller turbines at Town House (35m high) were turned down by a vote of 6 to 5. The Ecclerigg one (50m) was withdrawn.
Phil Ashcroft – Should comment letters be individual or communal?
MH – Definitely individual, even separate ones from husband and wife. He suggested up to six points on each letter and to keep them short and concise.
MH – The Localism Act and the National Policy Planning Framework specify that the community view is important. Therefore, the view of the Parish Council is also important.
Peter Rowe – Is it likely to get permission?
MH – I will stick my neck out and say no because the impact in severe and it is too near the village.
Richard Sharp – warned that parishioners must not be complacent in view of the previous comment. He asked what is being done to get more letters written to the planning committee.
MH – Man and wife should send in separate ones; as many as possible must be written.
Anne Steele – who can write?
MH – any age can write; there is no minimum age limit for letters.
Christine Kingsley-Chase – Are effects on animals relevant?
MH – No
Anne Steele – asked for details of the planning committee meeting.
MH – advised that any number of individuals can speak against a submission but repetition should be avoided. About 6 people would be ideal. By being representatives of a local action group they can have up to 5 minutes each. They should divide the relevant points between them so each concentrates on just one. An individual not representing a group can speak for up to 3 minutes.
Peter Thornton - Campaigners can send letters to members of the planning committee but its composition might change as a result of the elections on 03-05-2012.
120502-12 Secret ballot
A secret ballot was held at the close of the meeting, the ballot being limited to New Hutton parishioners. The statement to be considered was:
“The proposal to erect a wind turbine on Hawkrigg Hill” and the alternative responses were: “I agree” and “I disagree”
Parishioners were invited to add written comments on the ballot paper if they so wished
Results:
“I agree” = 2 votes. There were no comments on this side.
“I disagree” = 49 votes. The only comment was: “Totally inappropriate”
The meeting closed at 10.10 pm.
Meeting 1 at 7.30pm
120502-1 Present
Pat Bell (Chairman), Tony Ellis, Henry Robinson, Martyn Welch, Tony Porter, Arthur Robinson (clerk), and 46 parishioners
120502-2 Declaration of interests None
120502-3 Introductions
The meeting was called to discuss the proposed development of the field between the church and The Ashes for housing. The Parish Council had been asked by the developers whether it wished to consult with them about the development. The Parish Council wished to have the meanings of the terms ‘consultation’, ‘infill’, ‘rounding off’ and ‘affordable housing’ explained in the context of this proposal.
The following is an account of what was said by the speakers and later in discussion.
120502-4 Iain Withington (IW) (SLDC Development Plans and Policy Development Officer)
(Iain is also responsible for the development of affordable housing, advises on Neighbourhood Plans and works on the allocation of land)
Context of the proposal:
The Land Allocation Document, which will soon be finalised, puts into practice the SLDC Core Strategy for development up to 2025.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued by the government sets targets for local authorities. In the past SLDC has not been delivering its set targets so it has to allocate a supply of land for the next 6 years (rather than the normal 5 years).
The NPPF presumes in favour of sustainable development except where adverse impacts will outweigh any benefits.
New Hutton is classed as a small village or hamlet in open countryside. All open countryside in the South Lakes District is targeted to provide only 11% of the housing needed. This amounts to 25 houses per year across the whole district.
The Church/Ashes field was put forward in the original Land Allocation Document in early 2011 but the policy has now changed to non-allocation of land in small communities. Local communities should find sites for their own needs and the neighbourhood planning process can identify these.
Definitions:
Infill – building on a vacant plot along a built-up street frontage. This does not usually fit in with rural areas. The development should be the same as on each side of the plot.
Rounding off – completion of an incomplete gap between buildings on a partly developed site. It is not the same idea as the extension of a village. Therefore, scale and type of development are important here. The impact on the landscape is also important; this means how the site sits in the wider landscape.
Exception policy – developments can occur outside infill and rounding off policies if they are for affordable housing. 35% of all developments of 3 or more houses must be affordable houses. If the affordable houses are for sale SLDC controls the price so a three-bedroom house price would be £110,000 and the purchasers must be from the Upper Kent LAP (Local Area Partnership) area. In future sales of the houses the price discount would continue amounting to about 45 to 50% of open market prices. Affordable housing can also be for private rent and shared ownership. The exceptions policy specifies that all the houses are to be affordable and there must also be evidence of local need and local support. The development has still to be at an appropriate scale and must have the support of the parish councils, not only in New Hutton but also in the rest of the Upper Kent LAP. This means that parish councils can influence the developments.
Consultation – The Localism Act requires consultation for major developments but this probably means those over 200 homes or more. However, SLDC requires consultation for smaller developments and developers have to give evidence of how the views of the community have been taken into account. However, there is no precise definition within the planning context of the word ‘consultation’.
Advice – Iain (IW) advised the Parish Council to engage in consultation before an application is submitted. SLDC will consult the Parish Council after the planning proposal has been submitted but, before that, the Parish Council should try to find out what the developer is aiming at. SLDC looks for meaningful consultation. The Parish Council can propose its own affordable housing scheme.
120502-5 Judith Derbyshire (JD) (Cumbria Rural Housing Trust, CRHT)
(The CRHT carries out housing needs surveys, works with local communities to find housing solutions and is a charity working to ensure affordable housing is provided where needed. It employs Andy Lloyd who works with communities on Community Land Trusts, community organisations formed to develop affordable housing and other services on community land.)
New Hutton Housing Needs Survey – 184 questionnaires were sent out. There was a 32.6% return of questionnaires in the survey in December 2011. 10 of the 60 responses said the whole household or someone living in it wished to move within the parish in the next 5 years. 11 were in need; two want to move to Kendal. Some responses had details of multiple households so 16 households in total were assessed.
Most were young adults working in New Hutton or nearby who live with parents. One response was a household wishing to return to the parish to support a local family.
Part 1 responses on the questionnaire
The age profile of the parish has a peak at 50-70 which poses the issue of what the community wants the future to be like. Young people are moving out and older people are moving in. 66% of households are singles or couples. Most are owner-occupiers and work nearby. Many have moved in within the last 15 years or have lived in the parish for more than 30 years. 85% of respondents would not object to a small number of new homes in the parish which would help to meet the needs of local people and a number of sites were suggested.
Part 2 responses on the questionnaire
Most people in need are living with their families.
Only two are on the housing register (or Cumbria Choice as it is now known as).
Some have land or buildings suitable for conversion and could work with the local authority to develop housing.
The old school was suggested in 4 responses. Coniston converted a similar community building with the help of a housing association but there is less money from government for these schemes now so the most practical route is to have a cross-subsidy from a developer who would build private houses for sale on the open market and also develop the affordable housing.
The Localism Act permits the formulation of Neighbourhood Plans whereby communities can give themselves planning permission for new developments through the Community Right to Build.
120502-6 Discussion
Arthur Robinson – The Parish Council has been asked to consult with the developers but they say they have no intentions yet. Would consultation by the Parish Council be used to help the developer when the Planning Committee is considering the application?
IW – The Parish Council can mould the development (he did not really answer the question)
JD – The developers could come and discuss it. Do they want to come and talk with no commitment from the Parish Council?
Kathleen Twist – Are they being honest? Surveyors/architects have already been on the site.
Alan Barton – In the past, developers have gained outline planning permission and then doubled the housing density when it has come to the detailed planning application stage. Can they still do this after consultation has occurred?
IW – His impression was that they cannot but he will check this point at SLDC and send the reply to the clerk.
Ian Mason – If they got permission for 3 houses, how long would it be before they could submit another application?
IW – Scale is important here. Development could only be done as rounding off so permission for the first application should clearly specify the limit.
David Bigford – What is the meaning of ‘scale’?
IW – Scale is judged with respect to the size of the settlement and the need for housing. New Hutton has a relatively low level of affordable housing need.
JD – The old school could be developed for affordable housing by the developer which would give a clearer case for rounding off.
Jean Robinson – Is The Ashes part of the village of New Hutton?
IW – No
Michael Burke – Would a small development of affordable housing include any other developments such as roads?
IW – The provision of infrastructure is required as part of planning except for small scale developments. Highway access is sent to Cumbria County Council for advice
Martyn Welch – Sustainability is part of an application. What does it mean?
IW – New Hutton is unsustainable in general (travel etc). Therefore, only 11% of new housing can be in open countryside like this in the whole of the South Lakes District.
Arthur Robinson – Would the development of the old school for affordable housing increase or decrease the likelihood of the field being developed?
IW – Debatable.
Phil Ashcroft – Could 1/3 of the field near the church be developed, then 1/3 next to The Ashes leaving the remaining 1/3 to be developed as infill?
IW – Each is an individual settlement. Next to the church is debatable. Next to The Ashes is very unlikely.
Alan Barton – Can ‘infill’ be applied to the parish rather than to the village?
IW – ‘Infill’ applies only to the village.
IW – said he would clarify the following points and would e-mail the answers to the clerk:
(a) The question of whether developers can change their plans after consultation.
(b) The question of the possibility of creeping development of the field.
(c) The question of whether development of the old school for affordable housing would affect development of the field.
120502-7 Secret ballot
A secret ballot was held at the close of the meeting, the ballot being limited to New Hutton parishioners. The statement to be considered was:
“The proposal to build houses on the field between the Church and The Ashes”
and the alternative responses were: “I agree” and “I disagree”. Parishioners were invited to add written comments on the ballot paper if they so wished
Results:
“I agree” = 5 votes but one was qualified with the statement “If it’s affordable housing ie smaller properties to buy or low rent. Otherwise I disagree. I do not think we need larger houses as many in village not selling already.”
“I disagree” = 37 votes. Comments were:
“Totally inappropriate development”
“Any development would spoil the balance”
“I would like to see affordable housing at the old school [and] only if carefully thought out with regards to infill and rounding off etc.”
Meeting 2 at 8.55pm
120502-7 Present
Pat Bell (Chairman), Tony Ellis, Henry Robinson, Martyn Welch, Tony Porter, Arthur Robinson (clerk), Peter Thornton (SLDC councillor) and 56 parishioners
120502-8 Declaration of interests none
120502-9 Introductions
The meeting was called to discuss planning application SL/2012/0289 for a single 80m wind turbine on Hawkrigg Hill.
The following is an account of what was said by the speaker and later in discussion.
120502-10 Dr Mike Hall (MH) (President of the Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery, FELLS)
Planning policy has changed to the Nation Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless adverse impacts outweigh the proposal. SLDC has no overall plan for wind energy developments.
MH distributed a sheet of points about submitting a letter of comments to SLDC.
He then went through the following points illustrated by power point photographs and diagrams:
Scale
In the local area are pylons – 150ft, Lambrigg turbines – 242ft, Armistead – 325ft; the Hawkrigg Hill turbine would be 262ft. The Proposed turbine will be amongst the largest such structures in Cumbria.
Visual impact on public amenity
He showed the photomontages accompanying the application (and one of The Ashes he had prepared according to approved guidelines) and questioned whether the document downplays the visual impact.
He showed that the turbine would be dominant from all directions and from the A684 and the B6254. Although very little would be visible from the Institute, the top half, including all the blades, would be visible from the church.
Visual impact on individual amenity
No-one has a right to a view.
However, the visual impact is relevant if it dominates, overbears or intimidates which usually means if it is closer than 500m and is visible from a main room such as a lounge.
Landscape character
The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document shows the capacity for wind farms throughout the county. This area is in the “up to 5 turbines” category and 5 already exist at Lambrigg.
New Hutton is also on the edge of the landscape character 7b (Drumlin Fields). It was noted that the Sillfield wind farm planning inquiry refused the application in part because the turbines would have dominated the small, intimate scale drumlin landscape there.
Cumulative impact
This consideration applies if one can see two or more wind developments. There are three categories in it:
Simultaneous – where one can see two or more developments by looking in the same direction.
Repetitive – where if one swivels around without moving from the spot, one can see two or more developments.
Sequential – where one can see two or more developments while travelling through the landscape eg along the A684 there will be Armistead and Lambrigg as well as Hawkrigg Hill if developed.
Wildlife
Birds – especially soaring species such as buzzards, curlew and lapwings
Bats – fly along hedgerows and wind turbines should not be placed in zones 50m on each side.
Wildlife is not likely to be an important issue at this site.
Noise
It is not clear that a full background assessment of noise levels has been done in accordance with the guidelines set out in ETSU-R97. This is important. Measuring devices should have been in some people’s gardens for at least two weeks to gather background noise data from several wind directions. The impression is that the noise information in the application has been calculated from manufacturer’s data.
Flicker
This occurs when the sun goes behind a turbine which casts flickering shadows or, if the sun’s angle is right, flickering glinting. It is not likely to be important here and can be managed by planning condition.
Local economy
The turbine will generate no new jobs and contribute little to the economy.
It could have an adverse impact on local businesses such as B&B and camping/caravan sites.
Summary
Local people and the planning committee have to judge the balance between the benefits of wind farms (renewable energy targets, power generation and carbon dioxide reduction) and the disadvantages (social, visual, landscape and environmental)
Points which are not relevant in comments sent to SLDC planning committee
Impacts on the National Parks
Hydrological unless there might be an impact on a private water supply
Archaeological – no evidence has been found at the site.
House prices
Efficiency of turbine technology
Income for the developer and the land owner
Comments to SLDC should be concise and relevant to this application.
120502-11 Discussion
Jackie Ashcroft – questioned the noise data in the application and said that a House of Lord’s Bill seeking to establish fixed separation distances between wind turbines and residential property to restrict noise and visual impact was imminent.
MH – The Bill, sponsored by Lord Reay, is due for its first reading on May 15th .It is likely to progress to a second reading and debate and ultimately to Committee stage but in order to become law it would have to be adopted by the House of Commons. The Government have stated that there are no plans for a minimum separation of turbines from houses.
Phil Bell – The church is a quiet area. Would noise be heard during services?
MH – impossible to answer. Most noise is generated by the blades passing the column (the periodic pulse or amplitude modulation) and by wind shear on the blades (the continuous background swoosh). The hill will hide the column so it is impossible to tell whether the sound will reach the church or be reflected over it.
Anne Steele – No guidelines exist for the separation of houses from turbines. Noise concerns should be directed to the Environmental Health Officer.
MH – The Environmental Health Officer’s letter is on the SLDC website. He says there will be no noise problem but he has not based his judgement on measured data. The matter could be taken up with him.
Michael Burke – What is the point of writing to the Environmental Health Officer?
MH – If there is genuine concern then it should be possible to ask for a second opinion about the noise data
Michael Burke – Medical problems from noise exist. A recent article in the British Medical Journal concerned noise affecting sleep.
MH – There is extensive data on ill health caused by wind farm noise but the Government has so far declined to accept it. The advice is to press the noise issue with the planning officer, Barry Jackson.
Nancy Field – Will the sound vary with the weather?
MH – Yes. There is more noise if the turbine is upwind of your house. Background noise must be measured at different wind speeds because both turbine noise and background noise increase with wind speed.
Kathleen Twist – Is it relevant to say in comments on the application that this application could set a precedent for single turbines on other hill tops nearby?
MH – Yes
Jan Hunt – Could they re-apply for a smaller turbine if this was refused?
MH – Yes. However, the two smaller turbines at Town House (35m high) were turned down by a vote of 6 to 5. The Ecclerigg one (50m) was withdrawn.
Phil Ashcroft – Should comment letters be individual or communal?
MH – Definitely individual, even separate ones from husband and wife. He suggested up to six points on each letter and to keep them short and concise.
MH – The Localism Act and the National Policy Planning Framework specify that the community view is important. Therefore, the view of the Parish Council is also important.
Peter Rowe – Is it likely to get permission?
MH – I will stick my neck out and say no because the impact in severe and it is too near the village.
Richard Sharp – warned that parishioners must not be complacent in view of the previous comment. He asked what is being done to get more letters written to the planning committee.
MH – Man and wife should send in separate ones; as many as possible must be written.
Anne Steele – who can write?
MH – any age can write; there is no minimum age limit for letters.
Christine Kingsley-Chase – Are effects on animals relevant?
MH – No
Anne Steele – asked for details of the planning committee meeting.
MH – advised that any number of individuals can speak against a submission but repetition should be avoided. About 6 people would be ideal. By being representatives of a local action group they can have up to 5 minutes each. They should divide the relevant points between them so each concentrates on just one. An individual not representing a group can speak for up to 3 minutes.
Peter Thornton - Campaigners can send letters to members of the planning committee but its composition might change as a result of the elections on 03-05-2012.
120502-12 Secret ballot
A secret ballot was held at the close of the meeting, the ballot being limited to New Hutton parishioners. The statement to be considered was:
“The proposal to erect a wind turbine on Hawkrigg Hill” and the alternative responses were: “I agree” and “I disagree”
Parishioners were invited to add written comments on the ballot paper if they so wished
Results:
“I agree” = 2 votes. There were no comments on this side.
“I disagree” = 49 votes. The only comment was: “Totally inappropriate”
The meeting closed at 10.10 pm.
