Planning Services

COMMITTEE REPORTAPPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/15/02768/FPA

FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION:

Erection of 1 wind turbine, 30m to hub and 45m to tip. Installation of associated equipment and infrastructure, including access track (re-submission)

NAME OF APPLICANT: Future Energy Partnership

ADDRESS: Blakeley Hill Farm, North Bitchburn, Crook DL15 8AP

ELECTORAL DIVISION: Willington and Hunwick

CASE OFFICER: Ann Rawlinson, Senior Planning Officer03000 261393 ann.rawlinson@durham.gov.uk

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The site relates to an area of arable land, enclosed by hedgerows and trees, located on an eastern facing slope, approximately 500m to the west of Hunwick. North Bitchburn is approximately 800m to the northwest. An unclassified but moderately trafficked road passes the site to the southwest. Blakeley Hill Farm itself lies approximately 180m to the north of the site. The farm is accessed from the main road along Public Footpath No.112 (Crook) which extends to the west of the site in a northerly direction. This is sited approximately 56m to the west of the proposed turbine.

2. The nearest non-involved residential property is sited approximately 400m to the northwest of the site. A further residential property is sited at a distance of approximately 440m away. Witton le Wear Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies approximately 1.5km to the south and Hunwick Conservation Area is approximately 600m to the north east. This contains the Grade 2* listed Hunwick Hall which is located approximately 700m from the site. An Area of Landscape value (ALV) lies approximately 140m to the south of the site. The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural beauty (AONB) is located approximately 9km to the west of the site. A National Grid High Pressure Gas Pipeline is located approximately 260m to the south of the site.

The Proposals

3. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a Wind Technic Nord 250 (kW) 3 blade wind turbine. This would be 30m in height to hub and 45m to overall tip height. The rotor diameter of the proposed turbine would be 30m. Permission is also sought for a 170m length access track and associated infrastructure. This would incorporate

a small enclosure measuring approximately 2.3m x 3.1m x 2.3m, which would house a substation and a further small enclosure measuring approximately 2.3m x 2.55m x 3m. This would house a transformer, associated switchgear and electrical protection equipment. This enclosure would be located close to the base of the turbine tower and would be connected to the grid connection via underground cabling.The access track would incorporate approximately 140m of the existing access track to Blakeley Hill Farm, which would be upgraded. An additional 30m would extend eastwards from this into the field.

4. The applicant has submitted a letter advising that they are voluntarily offering a one off community benefit fund payment of £40,000 should planning permission be forthcoming for the proposed wind turbine for the local community by way of a Unilateral Undertaking. This would be forthcoming before the Planning Committee meeting or before the issuing of any grant of planning permission. This is made to offset adverse impact of the proposal. The applicant advises that the local community should decide how to distribute the fund in order to support community initiatives and address concerns relating to the proposals.

5. The application is being presented to the Strategic Planning Committee for determination as the proposal is for a wind turbine with a tip height of more than 40m and Councillors Tinsley and Gunn have requested that it be determined by members.

PLANNING HISTORY 6. A planning application for the same proposal was withdrawn in September 2015.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY:

7. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant.

8. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.

9. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report below. The following elements are considered relevant to this proposal;

10. One of the twelve core principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) supports “the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate….. and encourages the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy).” The NPPF also states in paragraph 98 that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:

Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small

scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions...

Approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be) made acceptable.”

11. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The NPPF outlines in paragraph 19 that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

12. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.

13. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

14. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

15. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.

16. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.

17. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

18. The NPPF also states in paragraph 98 that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions...Approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be) made acceptable.”

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

19. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this application is the practice guidance with regards to; conserving and enhancing the historic environment, consultation and pre-decision matters, design; health and well-being; natural environment, noise, public rights of way, renewable and low carbon energy and use of planning conditions. The advice on renewable and low carbon energy includes detailed advice on particular considerations for wind development and includes a recent update following a Written Ministerial Statement on 18th June 2015.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ (National Planning Practice Guidance)

LOCAL PLAN POLICY:

Wear Valley District Local Plan (1997) (WVLP)

20. Policy GD1 – General Development Criteria. All new development and redevelopment should be designed and built to a high standard and should contribute to the quality and built environment of the surrounding area.

21. Policy ENV1 – Protection of the Countryside. Seeks to protect and enhance the countryside of Wear Valley.

22. Policy ENV2 – The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. States that priority will be given to the protection and enhancement of the landscape qualities of the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Development which adversely affects the special scenic quality and the nature conservation interest of the AONB will not be permitted.

23. Policy ENV3 – Area of Landscape Value. Development will not be allowed which adversely affects the special landscape character, nature conservation interests and appearance of the Area of Landscape Value (ALV).

24. Policy BE1 – Protection of Historic Heritage. Seeks to conserve the historic heritage by the maintenance, protection and enhancement of features and areas of particular historic, architectural or archaeological interest.

25. Policy BE4 – Setting of a Listed Building. Development which impacts upon the setting of a listed building and adversely affects its special architectural, historical or landscape character will not be allowed.

26. Policy BE8 – Setting of a Conservation Area. Development which impacts upon the setting of a Conservation Area and which adversely affects its townscape qualities, landscape or historical character will not be allowed.

27. Policy BE17 – Areas of Archaeological Interest. When development is proposed that would affect areas of archaeological interest an assessment would be required before permission is given. Where possible remains should be preserved in situ.

28. Policy T1 – General Policy – Highways. All developments which generate additional traffic will be required to fulfil Policy GD1 and provide adequate access to the developments; not exceed the capacity of the local road network; and be capable of access by public transport networks.

29. Policy MW4 - Renewable Energy Allocation. Proposals for the development of wind turbines will be allowed on land identified on the Proposals Map, provided that they fulfil the following criteria:i) They do not adversely affect the amenity, health and safety of neighbouring

properties and residents by reason of noise, vibration, visual dominance, shadow flicker or reflected light; and

ii) No electromagnetic interference is likely to be caused to existing transmitting or receiving systems and that measures will be taken to remedy or mitigate any such interference.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY:

The County Durham Plan

30. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded. An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 15 February 2015, however that report was Quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council. As part of the High Court Order, the Council has withdrawn the CDP from examination. In the light of this, policies of the CDP can no longer carry any weight at the present time.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications can be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/media/3403/Wearvalley-local-plan-saved-

policies/pdf/SedgefieldBoroughLocalPlanSavedPolicies.pdf (Wear Valley Local Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES:

31. Highway Authority – No objections. Officers advise that the submitted swept path analysis demonstrates that widening of the existing Unclassified 34.11 public highway junction is required to facilitate the largest vehicle movements, together with temporary hardening of the public highway verge opposite the junction. This should be ensured by planning condition. Temporary signing in the highway during construction works should also be implemented.

32. Ministry of Defence (MOD) – No objections. There would not be physical obstruction to

air traffic movements and interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. Should permission be granted information would be required to be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this area.

33. Newcastle Airport (NIA) – No objections. Due to the location a considerable distance from NIA, and the modest nature of the turbine, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any detriment to the safe operations of the Airport.

34. Durham Tees Valley Airport (DTVA) – No objections in relation to aerodrome safeguarding. Advise that the proposal is unlikely to have an impact on Air Traffic Services and would not impact on current operations.

35. Met Office – Advise that they do not have any objections to the proposal.

36. Environment Agency – Advise that they have no comments to make.

37. Natural England – Advise that they have no comments to make.

38. Northumbrian Water – Advise that they have no comments to make.

39. Drainage and Coastal Protection – Advise that they have no comments to make.

40. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – The HSE advise that it does not wish to be consulted on wind turbines developments in the vicinity of major hazard pipelines, as they would not lead to a material increase in the number of people in the vicinity of the major hazard.

41. National Grid – Advise that the proposal is not considered to affect National Grid’s pipeline given that the entrance to the site is located approximately 110m from the pipeline, and the turbine would be over 250m away.

42. Coal Authority – The site does not fall with the High Risk Area and is located within Low Risk Area. There is therefore no requirement for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment or for The Coal Authority to be consulted.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:

43. Spatial Policy – Officers consider that the proposals are a departure from the WVLP Policies MW4 and ENV1. The planning balance must weigh whether the wider benefits of the scheme in terms of the generation of electricity through renewable means and associated economic and social benefits outweigh negative effects and the departure from policy. Any negative effects should be mitigated or should be of sufficiently low magnitude to be acceptable when weighed against the benefits of the scheme. Whilst the NPPF is supportive of renewable energy development, community support needs to be proven and single turbines should be located within areas identified in Local Plans or Neighbourhood Plans.

44. Landscape – Policy MW4 of the WVLP allocates land for renewable energy. This is more than 4km away. The proposed turbine is considered to be overbearing in relation to the nearby ALV. There would also be significant visibility from properties at the edge of Hunwick at 500m which is considered to be dominant. The proposed turbine would be overbearing from the adjacent public footpath. The successive cumulative effects of the turbine are of concern given the recent spread of medium and large turbines east of Crook, to the north of the site. The sequential cumulative effects are also problematic as the landscape is free from medium/large turbines. Officers consider that the proposed turbine would result in significant successive and sequential cumulative effects when travelling in the countryside between the site and Crook that would appear as the spreading of the windfarm landscape.

45. Ecology – Raise no objections. Having considered the submitted Phase 1 habitat survey report and due to the proposed location of the turbine, together with it being a single turbine, the likely risk of impact on protected and priority species is low.

46. Design and Historic Environment – Hunwick Conservation Area is situated 650m from the site and contains three listed buildings. Views into the Conservation Area would be masked by the undulating topography of the landscape and by mature trees and woodland. Officers do not consider that the proposed wind turbine would be visually dominant from the Conservation Area and would not directly affect the features of architectural and historic interest. Views out of the Conservation Area would be unaffected as they would be screened behind existing trees and buildings which line either side of Church Lane. The proposed turbine would not have an

overly dominant or have a detrimental impact upon Auckland Castle Park (Grade II* Historic Park) or listed buildings within 2km of the site. There would be no impact on the setting of the Conservation Area or the setting of listed buildings.

47. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Contamination) – Officers advise that they have no adverse comments to make and that there is no requirement for a contaminated land condition.

48. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Noise) – Officers do not object to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions which restrict noise levels from the proposed turbine at the nearest residential properties and ensure that justified complaints regarding noise are appropriately resolved.

49. Archaeology – No objections. There is a possible Iron Age enclosure approximately 320m to the south. Officers advise that given the low level of background data and that the proposal is for a single turbine they do not consider that archaeological works are required.

50. Access and Public Rights of Way – The nearest PROW is Public Footpath No.112 Crook, positioned 62m to the west of the proposed turbine. This is also the existing access track to Blakeley Hill Farm. Whilst construction/service vehicles would use this Footpath, officers do not consider that vehicle movements would be detrimental to users of the footpath. Path user / driver information signs would be appropriate. The proposed siting would be outside of fall over and over sail distance.

NON STATUTORY RESPONSES:

51. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) – Object to the proposal. Concur with the views of the Council’s Landscape Team. The site does not fall within the wind development allocation in the WVLP. The proposal does not meet the first criterion of the Written Ministerial Statement. Therefore it is not necessary to consider the second criterion regarding concerns of the local community.

52. Fulcrum Pipelines – Advise that they do not have any existing pipes or equipment on or around the site.

53. Sabic – Advise that they would not wish to make any observations given that the proposal does not affect the Wilton to Grangemouth Ethylene Pipeline.

54. Northern Gas Networks – No objections are raised. Northern Gas Networks does not have any apparatus in the vicinity of the site. The recommendation for the siting of wind turbines in the vicinity of high pressure pipelines is a minimum proximity of one and a half times the mast height.

55. Joint Radio Company (JRC) – Advise that they assess the potential of wind turbines to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies. It is further advised that JRC do not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios.

PUBLIC RESPONSES: 56. The application has been advertised in the press on site and in the locality. Letters

have also been sent to neighbouring residents. Three letters of objection have been received during the consultation process. Residents’ concerns are summarised below:

57. Objections

Residential Amenity Noise from swooshing would be intrusive and detrimental to health. Noise would exceed acceptable levels and be greater than anticipated. Can already hear activities of farm and so a turbine would add to this. Shadow flicker in the mornings and would be greater than anticipated

Visual Amenity View of turbine from main habitable rooms. Loss of visual amenity. The turbine would spoil a beautiful area.

Ecology

Impact on ground nesting birds, migrating birds, bats and raptor species.

Other Issues Loss of property value, Lack of community engagement, No community benefit, People who have made positive comments would not be affected, The applicant has not included any views of residents that were neutral or

against the proposal in their door knocking survey, Setting of precedent,

58. Councillor Tinsley and Councillor Gunn, the local members, have advised that they wish the application to be determined by the planning committee on the grounds of visual impact, environmental sustainability and community impact.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

59. This single medium scale 250KW wind turbine will produce approximately 470,000kWh of carbon free electricity per annum or enough to power up to 100 UK homes. It is a joint venture between a renewable energy company and a local farmer and it will offset approximately 256 tonnes of CO2 per annum.

60. Blakeley Hill Farm is a mixed farm which is home to approximately 20 fattening cattle, 200 ewes together with land set aside for arable cropping. Michael, the Father, works on the farm part-time with the remainder of his time spent contracting - mainly hedge cutting in the locality. One son, Andrew, works on the farm part-time with his father and also does contracting away from the farm to secure an additional income. The second son runs a scaffolding business from the farm. With falling commodity prices, lower basic farm payments and little income from the stewardship scheme, the income from the turbine will make the farm much more sustainable in terms of both Michael and his son Andrew both being able to remain in the farm business for the foreseeable future.

61. The proposal is not located within any sensitive land designation and is in agricultural grassland. The field in which the development will be located is bound by a dense well-defined hedgerow on the north, south, east and west sides within this large agricultural landscape.

62. The planning application was accompanied by a set of robust specialist reports including; landscape and visual, noise, shadow flicker, ecology, radar, cultural heritage and transport reports. These reports demonstrate that this application is acceptable when assessed against current policy at all levels, emerging policy,

guidance and other material planning considerations and that it provides material benefits that far outweigh any limited impact on the surrounding area.

63. In relation to landscape and visual impacts, the LVIA concluded that landscape visual and cumulative impacts are not expected to be significant. The Emerging County Durham Plan states that the Council will actively support new single wind turbines over 25m in height as long as they are not in areas dominated by existing wind turbine development; The proposed turbine is not within a zone of visual dominance. For the most part the proposal will be seen in isolation and where there is some limited potential for some sequential views to the south and south-east of the site, due to the local topography and extensive natural vegetation, the predicted impact is limited in nature here.

64. In relation to providing community benefits, the Applicant has entered into a Unilateral Undertaking to provide a one off community benefit fund of £40,000 to be used by the local community for community projects of its own choice if the project is consented.

65. The LPA consulted with approximately 282 local residents and the response was a mere 3 objections and 1 letter of support which is indicative of widespread local community support for the proposal. The Applicant obtained 31 letters of support for the previous application which is for the same proposal. The nearest neighbouring dwellings are in excess of 400m away. Due to the scale of the proposal and separation distances involved the predicted noise, shadow flicker and visual impacts on nearby residential properties is expected to be insignificant.

66. In terms of the planning balance, the benefits of the generation of renewable energy as advocated by the NPPF and the associated economic and social benefits clearly outweigh any localised effects of this scheme here and community support has clearly been demonstrated.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at:

http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

67. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out that if regard is to be had to the development plan, decision should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In accordance with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the policies contained therein are material considerations that should be taken into account in decision-making. Other material considerations include representations received. In this context, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: principle of development, landscape and visual impact, residential amenity, impact on heritage assets, highway safety, impact on ecology and nature conservation, aviation and radar, TV and communication interference, degree of community support and other matters.

Principle of Development

68. WVLP Policy MW4 states that proposals for the development of wind turbines are acceptable, subject to criteria being met, on land identified on the Proposals Map. This Policy is consistent with the NPPF in that Paragraph 97 promotes energy from renewable and low carbon sources and encourages LPA’s to consider identifying suitable areas for renewable energy.

69. The site does not lie within this designated allocation on the Proposals Map and is approximately 4km away. However, although WVLP Policy MW4 is indeed a renewable energy allocation, it is a permissive Policy, rather than a restrictive one, in that it does not state that wind turbine proposals in other locations are necessarily unacceptable. Thus it does not rule out wind turbines in other locations. In this respect it is not considered that the proposal conflicts with this Policy.

70. The site lies within the open countryside. WVLP Policy ENV1 seeks to protect the countryside from development, except in certain exceptional circumstances, such as farm diversification. Policy ENV1 is considered to be partially consistent with the NPPF, in that it is noted that NPPF takes a more permissive attitude towards a wider range of development types in the countryside than Policy ENV1. This should be reflected in decision making. The applicant has advised that the proposed turbine would allow the landowner to diversify their income whilst reducing costs such as electricity and fuel at the same time. The justification to Policy ENV1 does also establish that renewable energy proposals considered under Policy MW4 are in principle acceptable developments in the countryside. It is considered there is no conflict with Policy ENV1.

71. One of the twelve core principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) is to support “the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate….. and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy)”. It also advises at paragraph 98 that when determining applications, LPA’s should not require applicants to demonstrate the need for renewable/low carbon energy and that applications should be approved (unless material considerations indicate otherwise), if its impacts are or can be made acceptable.The NPPF advises that even small scale renewable energy proposals can provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The submitted documents state that the turbine would provide 500kw to be fed into the grid.

72. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes dedicated guidance with regards to renewable energy. In principle it supports renewable energy, advising that planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable. The PPG advises that considering the energy contribution to be made by a proposal can be given weight in decision making particularly when a decision is finely balanced.

73. The PPG includes advice more specifically relevant to wind turbine development including an updated section following a Written Ministerial Statement dated 18th June 2015. This states that when determining applications for wind energy involving one or more wind turbines, LPA’s should only grant planning permission if the site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan, which have been allocated clearly. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, would not be sufficient.

74. Part 10 of the NPPF generally supports renewable energy schemes. WVLP Policies MW4 and ENV1 do not rule out such development in the countryside. Therefore the principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable in policy terms. However, it is noted that the Written Ministerial Statement dated 18th June 2015 is the most recent expression of government Planning Policy for wind development. As such this is a material consideration which is not in favour of the proposed development in this location. This is quite clear, in that it advises that planning permission should only be granted if the site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. WVLP Policy MW4 is indeed a renewable energy allocation, which is considered to be consistent with the

NPPF. The site does not lie within this allocation. As such the proposal would conflict with the Written Ministerial Statement and thus the PPG, in Paragraph 033, which is reflective of the Statement in this regard. The Written Ministerial Statement also advises that planning permission should only be approved for wind farm development where it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. This is addressed later in the report.

Landscape and Visual Impact

75. WVLP Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape quality of the surrounding area and that new development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. Proposals must have regard, and be appropriate to, the setting of neighbouring buildings and landscape features. The components of this Policy are broadly consistent with the NPPF in terms of the objective of securing sustainable development.

76. Due to their scale wind turbines would always have a visual impact upon the landscape and a turbine of 45m in height, as proposed, would be visible over a wide area. This does not necessitate that the impact would be unacceptably harmful, however; this is a matter of judgment taking into account the specific case.

77. A Landscape and Visual Assessment has been submitted to support the application which concludes that the impact is acceptable. However officers consider that there are two primary concerns in relation to the proposal. Firstly, the impacts of the proposed turbine on the immediate locality, and secondly its potential wider impact in terms of cumulative impact and spread of a wind turbine landscape.

Local Impact

78. In terms of the visual impact of the proposed turbine upon the locality, the site is located within a wide open farmland landscape, on an elevated prominent ridge which appears as an island between two valleys. At present there is a clean sweeping skyline which is not visually cluttered. As such the proposed turbine would be visible from wider vantage points and would be seen in panoramic views across the Wear Valley, particularly from the ridges on higher ground. The proposed turbine would be notable as a prominent singular feature within the wider landscape and as such would appear continuously present and unavoidable in views across the landscape, in an area generally lacking in tall structures.

79. It is noted that the proposed turbine would be located within very close proximity to public footpaths, roads and properties (which are not screened by trees/topography) at the south western extent of Hunwick, as well as sporadic dwellings surrounding the site, all within 500m. At this distance the turbine would be visually dominant and potentially overbearing to these residents and users of the roads and footpath.

80. In terms of proximity to the nearest public footpath, Footpath No. 112 (Crook) runs within 65m of the site. The intervening hedge to the west of the site would not be sufficient to obscure the proposed turbine. It is considered that the proposed turbine would have an overbearing impact upon the users of the Footpath. Views from the Footpath would be experienced only by users of the path, who are transient in their nature. Consequently, overbearance would be experienced intermittently and the impact could be characterised as being severe, but for a relatively short period of time. The users of the roads that run to the south of the site, at approximately 135m, and to the east, at approximately 160m, would experience a high impact, again in

passing, although the length of road over which the turbine would appear as overbearing is extensive and the roads are likely to experience higher use than the public Footpath. Consequently, the impacts that result are considered to be substantial.

81. The closest non-associated residential properties are further away, but are of course more vulnerable in that any impacts are likely to be experienced over a significant length of time. At a distance of approximately 400m to the closest dwelling, the proposed turbine could not be considered to be excessively overbearing. The concern of the objector is though acknowledged, and it is likely to appear as a highly prominent structure, and is considered to be dominant, particularly given the open views across the fields.

82. The local visual effects of the proposal are considered to conflict with WVLP Policy GD1, in that it is considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the landscape quality of the surrounding area. The proposed turbine, due to its size and siting would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area as it would appear as a prominent, continually present, singular feature visible across the wider landscape. The siting and size of the proposed turbine has insufficient regard to the setting of nearby buildings and features, and would have a dominant impact on local residential properties, and in some cases an overbearing impact upon local roads and public rights of way, contrary to WVLP Policy GD1 and Part 10 and 11 of the NPPF.

Cumulative Impact

83. The cumulative effects of the proposed turbine with others is of concern to Officers, particularly in relation to the recent spread of turbines east of Crook, to the north of the site. However the rolling nature of the countryside, and the distances involved, does reduce the combined cumulative effects that is those where the proposed turbine would be seen in the same view as others. Thus this is not deemed to be so significant.

84. However, the successive, cumulative effects, that is, those where the observer sees the proposed turbine with others, from the same viewpoint, but in different directions, and also the sequential cumulative effects, those where the various existing turbines are seen one after the other when the observer travels, are considered to be more problematic. The landscape east of Crook now features three medium large (66-100m tip height) and one medium (40-66m tip height) sized turbines. To the north of this are Broomhill and Tow Law wind farms. At present the landscape in the vicinity of the site is free from turbines of medium or larger size. The proposed turbine would result in significant successive and sequential cumulative effects when travelling in the countryside between this turbine and Crook and then onto Tow Low that would appear as the spreading of the windfarm landscape to the south of Crook and would result in a sprawling or straggling pattern of development and compound the existing visual clutter.

85. Whilst successive and sequential cumulative landscape effects are a matter of judgement, Officers consider that the addition of the proposed turbine would exacerbate landscape impact to an unacceptable point having regards to the aspirations set out in WVLP Policies GDP1 and Paragraph 97 of the NPPF, which seeks to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.

Impact upon Designated Landscapes

86. WVLP Policy ENV3 advises that development which adversely affects the special landscape character and appearance of the ALV would not be allowed. The purpose and content of this Policy is reflected in the objectives of the Paragraph 109 of the NPPF. However the NPPF does not recommend local landscape designations. Notwithstanding this the NPPF acknowledges the importance of protecting the character of 'valued landscapes'. Officers consider ALV's fall within the scope of such landscapes. For these reasons Policy ENV3 is considered to be partially consistent with NPPF.

87. WVLP Policy ENV2 seeks to protect and enhance the landscape qualities of the North Pennines (AONB). This Policy is considered consistent with Paragraph 115 of the NPPF which gives great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s.

88. The site is not located within a designated landscape. It is approximately 9km from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) at the nearest point. The proposed turbine and cumulative impact of the turbine with others in the area would be visible from some sections of the AONB. However, the views towards the site from the AONB would be across a very different landscape, one already containing turbines and other vertical elements, generally seen as small features on a distant horizon. Impacts in the views from the AONB are therefore considered to be low and thus there is no conflict with WVLP Policy ENV2.

89. An Area of Landscape Value (ALV) is located approximately 160m to the south of the site at the nearest point. The proposed turbine is considered to be potentially overbearing in this respect. Extensive areas of land designated as ALV exist to the west and south of Crook, east of Willington and to the north of Stanley Crook. Whilst the turbine would be visible from these local landscape designations, and in some cases at a relatively short distances, as one moves further from the site and into the ALV, these views would become more sporadic and the turbine less prominent. It is therefore considered the proposed turbine would not cause a specific detrimental impact upon the landscape of these wider areas beyond local impact. Thus the proposal is considered not to significantly conflict with WVLP Policy ENV3.

Impact upon Residential Amenity

Potential for Overbearing Impacts

90. WVLP Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that development would not disturb or conflict with adjoining uses, would not be detrimental to public health, would not significantly pollute the environment with noise or emissions and has regard to the setting of neighbouring buildings. It is considered that this Policy is consistent with Paragraph 109 of the NPPF which requires that existing development should not be adversely affected by unacceptable air or noise pollution. Paragraph 120 seeks to ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects of pollution on health or general amenity should be taken into account. Paragraph 123 requires that decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life, including through the use of conditions.

91. The evidence of past appeal decisions suggests that turbines are likely to be overbearing at distances closer than four times the turbine height and unlikely to be overbearing at distances of greater than seven times their height. At distance ranges in between, the acceptability of their impact is influenced by site-specific factors.

92. Six times the tip height of the proposed turbine is a distance of 270m whilst seven times the tip height is 315m. There are no non-involved residential properties located within either six

times or seven times the tip height of the proposed turbine. The property Reservoir House is the closest non-involved property to the proposed turbine located approximately 400m to the north west of the site (approximately just under nine times tip height distance). Other individual properties at Conifer Rise and Small Leazes Farm would be 440m and 480m away respectively. Properties on the western edge of Hunwick would be slightly farther from the proposed wind turbine although with rear, and in some cases front elevations facing the turbine.

93. It is accepted that the turbine would be dominant, but would not necessarily be overbearing for residential properties, given the distances involved. Consequently, it is considered that there would not be an unreasonable loss of residential amenity as a direct result. However, the proposed turbine is considered to be a prominent and potentially dominating feature. Thus it is considered that a residential amenity reason for refusal could not be substantiated. As such it is not considered that there would be significant conflict with WVLP Policy GD1 and Parts 10 and 11 of the NPPF.

Noise

94. It is noted that Paragraph 122 of the NPPF requires that LPA’s focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF goes on to acknowledge that development will often create some noise. Having regard to the relationship between the site and the nearest residential properties, it is important to consider whether potential adverse impacts could be mitigated or be reduced to a minimum through the use of conditions, if this is indeed necessary. The NPPF at paragraph 123 requires that LPA’s consider the impact of noise relating to new development giving rise to health and amenity issues for adjacent residents. It is noted that noise is a concern for objectors.

95. The application is accompanied by noise data for the proposed model of turbine in accordance with ETSU-R-97, which is the methodology for assessing noise from wind turbines advocated by the NPPG. It describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours. ETSU-R-97 recommends that wind turbine noise should be limited to between 35 and 40 dB(A), with it being noted that sleep is usually not disturbed below 35 dB(A). The upper limit of 40dB(A) external is derived from around 10dB attenuation being provided by an open window. Essentially, if a resident is sleeping in a room with an open window, external noise levels of around 40dB(A) should not usually wake them. Furthermore, wind turbine noise is related to the speed at which the turbine is turning, and at a lower wind speeds will generate less noise. As wind speed increases, so does the background noise level, so the noise of the turbine, despite turning faster is less noticeable to a point at which the turbine noise is drowned out by the wind itself, or it simply reaches its maximum cut out speed and ceases to operate.

96. With this in mind, the applicant has calculated maximum noise levels at those properties closest to the proposed turbine. Of these Blakeley Hill Farm would experience noise levels of up to 40.6dB(A), however, it is an involved property and thus can be afforded lesser protection. Reservoir House the closest not attached residential property could expect noise levels of up to 34.8dB(A), with other remaining close properties potentially experiencing between 27.4 and 33.3dB(A).

97. These values are within ETSU-R-97 guidance levels and it is noted that Environment, Health and Consumer Protection raise no objections to the submitted noise assessment and predicted noise levels, subject to planning conditions being imposed so as to ensure that noise emission does not exceed prescribed levels at identified receptors and to ensure that

investigative procedures are undertaken upon receipt of noise complaints to enable resolution of any issues.

98. Having regard to the above the proposals is considered to be in accordance with WVLP Policy GDP1 and Parts 10 and 11 of the NPPF in this respect.

Shadow Flicker

99. Shadow flicker can occur within 130 degrees either side of north, although the effect is unlikely to be significant in distances greater than 10 rotor diameters. Ten rotor diameters is a distance of 300m of which only the host property is located within. Concerns relating to shadow flicker are noted. The application is accompanied by a Shadow Flicker Assessment which considers the potential impact that the turbine would have in terms of numbers of hours per year where properties would be potentially affected by shadow flicker. These periods of time are calculated on a theoretical worst case scenario basis in that matters such as the following are not taken into account; that the rotor blades will not be rotating for 365 days per year, that the sun shines in a clear sky every day of the year and that there is no tree cover that may prevent windows being affected.

100. The assessment shows that a significant number of properties could potentially be affected by shadow flicker, including much of Hunwick and parts of New Hunwick. However, in the vast majority of cases, that these properties would only be likely to experience from between 0.1 – 10 hours of shadow flicker per year at most. More detailed modelling has been undertaken for those properties closest to the turbine, and most likely to experience shadow flicker. Small Leazes would potentially be the worst affected and could expect to experience shadow flicker on 24 days per year, however only for a maximum of 14 minutes per day, totalling under 5 hours of flicker per year. Reservoir House could potentially experience flicker on 20 days per year, for a maximum of 17 minutes per day, amounting to under 4 hours of shadow flicker per year. Conifer Rise could potentially experience flicker on 22 days per year, for a maximum of 16 minutes per day, amounting to under 4.30 hours of shadow flicker per year.

101. It is considered this level of shadow flicker would not constitute such a loss of residential amenity that it would justify the refusal of the application on this basis. Furthermore, in the event of any approval it is considered that a condition can be attached so as to require mitigation measures to be implemented to remove the potential for shadow flicker occurrence, examples include through the provision of screening measures or alternatively through controls to switch the turbine off in periods where shadow flicker can occur.

102. No objections with regards to the effect of shadow flicker are therefore raised having regards to WVLP Policy GDP1 and Parts 10 and 11 of the NPPF.

Heritage Assets and Archaeology

103. In accordance with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA), special regard must be had to the desirability of preserving listed structures or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. Special attention must also be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, as required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

104. WVLP Policies BE1, BE4 and BE8 seek to preserve historic heritage and the setting of conservation areas and listed buildings. It is considered that these Policies are partially consistent with Part 12 of the NPPF as the conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle. The NPPF is supportive of ensuring new development is sensitive to its setting, although advocates a proportionate approach to considering proposals, based upon an understanding of significance and harm. As such there is scope for permitting development which adversely affects the Conservation Area where there is sufficient justification in the form of public benefits outweighing disbenefits.

105. Paragraph 129 of the NPPF requires LPA’s to assess the impact of a proposal on the setting of a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict. In accordance with Paragraph 134, where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

106. The application is supported by a Cultural Heritage Desk Based Assessment. The conservation area is located to the north east of site at a distance of approximately 600m it is considered that views into the Conservation Area would be masked by the undulating topography of the landscape and by mature trees and woodland when in leaf. It is not considered that the proposed wind turbine would be visually dominant from the Conservation Area and would not directly affect the site or the features of architectural and historic interest. Views out of the Conservation Area would be unaffected by the proposed turbine as they would be screened behind existing trees and buildings which line either side of Church Lane.

107. Auckland Castle Park is a Grade II* Historic Park which is situated approximately 3.50km from the site. Views of the Park from the site would be screened by the mature woodland, when in leaf, which runs along the northern boundaries of the park and also due to the undulating topography of the landscape. It is considered that the proposal would not be visually dominant from the parkland and would not directly affect the site or the features of architectural and historic interest. It is not considered that the proposed turbine would have a dominant or detrimental impact upon any listed buildings.

108. Having regard to the requirements of Paragraph 128 of the NPPF, in respect disturbance of any underground archaeological features, The Councils Archaeologist advises that there are no heritage assets within the site and very few non-designated assets within 2km. There is a possible Iron Age enclosure approximately 320m to the south. However the Council’s Archaeologist advises that given the low level of background data and that the proposal is for a single turbine no further archaeological investigation would be required.

109. It is considered that there would be no harm caused to any historic asset, including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings. It is considered that the proposal would meet the requirements of Policies BE1, BE4, BE8 BE18 of the WVLP and Part 12 of the NPPF.

Access, Traffic, Highway Safety and PROW

110. WVLP Policies GD1 and T1 require that all developments provide adequate access to the developments, would not exceed the capacity of the local road network, and priority is given to pedestrians and cyclists. It is considered that these Policies are consistent with Part 4 of the NPPF.

111. The vast majority of vehicular movements associated with the proposal would be during the construction rather than operational period. It is considered that the proposal would not conflict with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF which states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where residual cumulative impacts are severe.

112. The Highways Authority advise that the submitted swept path analysis accompanying the application demonstrates that widening of the existing Unclassified 34.11 public highway junction is required to facilitate largest vehicle movements associated with the proposal. Temporary hardening of the public highway verge opposite the junction is also required. The required widening and widening and strengthening works and temporary signing in the highway during construction works can be ensured by planning condition. The siting of the proposed turbine would not be within fall over distance plus 10% of the nearest vehicular public highway, the distance cited within the PPG as a safe distance.

113. Public Footpath No. 112 (Crook) in part, follows the delivery route of the turbine components and is also the existing access track to Blakeley Hill Farm. Access and Rights of Way Officers advise that whilst construction and service vehicles would use this footpath, they do not consider that vehicle movements would be detrimental to users of the footpath. However they do advise that path user / driver information signs would be appropriate. This could be ensured by planning condition. The public footpath is located beyond over distance of the turbine in that the proposed turbine and thus there would be no oversail given that would be 45m high to tip and the footpath is sited approximately 56m away.

114. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of highway and footpath safety, subject to the implementation of the above conditions, having regards to WVLP Policies GDP1 and T1 and Part 4 of the NPPF.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

115. WVLP Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that proposals would not endanger or damage important national and local wildlife habitats or have a detrimental impact on ecology. This Policy is considered to be consistent with Paragraph 109 of the NPPF which seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity.

116. The application site does not form part of any statutory ecological designation, the closest being some 1.5km away

117. Having considered the submitted Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report and due to the proposed location of the single turbine, the Council’s Ecologist has advised that the likely risk of impact on protected and priority species is deemed to be low. The siting of the proposed turbines respects the 50m stand off from field boundaries required to protect bats.

118. In respect of the public concern raised regarding potential impact of the proposed turbine on birds. Some species, because of their habitat preferences and/or flight behaviour, are unlikely to be impacted upon by turbines. Species which normally remain close to ground are only likely to be subject to a low collision risk. It is recognised, as is also noted by an objector, that Curlews may be vulnerable to turbines. However the likely populations of individual species utilising the site is likely to be low. Indeed curlews more commonly breed on open moorland, rough and damp pastures, unimproved hay meadows, and boggy ground. They only occasionally use arable crops and silage fields. Considering surrounding habitats, and likely low numbers of the species utilising the immediate area, the impact of

displacement onto adjacent suitable fields would not be considered significant. Direct impacts, for example collision with a single turbine would also not be considered significant, as the majority of birds would avoid turbines.

119. With regards to the above, it is considered that the development could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without unreasonable impact upon biodiversity or protected species and is therefore in accordance with WVLP Policy GD1 and Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

Aviation and Radar

120. The MOD, CAA, NATS, Tees Valley Airport and Newcastle Airport have all been consulted with regards to the proposed turbine. The MOD, Newcastle Airport and Tees Valley Airport do not perceive the turbine as being likely to disrupt or compromise the safety of either civilian or military air traffic. NATS and the CAA have not responded to consultation, however, the CAA advised that they had no objections to the previous withdrawn application which was in relation to a turbine of the same height in the same location. The CAA previously advised that they have no responsibility for safeguarding sites other than its own property. NATS did not responded to the consultation in relation to this or the previous application. Officers raise no objections to the development on the grounds of aviation safeguarding.

TV and Communication Interference

121. Wind turbines have the potential to disrupt telecommunication links and cause interference to television reception. This risk is increased with larger wind turbines and multiple turbines. The Communications Managers for Utilities Companies (JRC) have been consulted and raise no objections to the proposal. With regards to television interference, this is less likely occur with digital transmission than it did previously with analogue signals, however with no assurance that it would not occur, a condition is suggested if the application is approved to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are undertaken.

Degree of Community Support

122. A Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) made 18th June 2015 set out new considerations to be applied to wind energy development. The PPG has also been updated to reflect the content of the WMS. Where an application was already valid at the point of this new guidance emerging then transitional provisions apply. The guidance advices that with regards to this application local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing. The PPG advises that whether the proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local authority. No definition of what constitutes the affected local communities is provided.

123. Based upon the public responses received to the application three letters objection have been received. In addition CPRE has objected to the proposals and the two ward Councillors have also raised issues in relation to the proposal.

124. It is considered that the objections raised within public responses have either been addressed within the application submission or in the opinion of Officers would not result in any harmful impacts that would warrant refusal of the application. The exception to this is with regards to landscape and visual impact and also in relation to the proposal not being located in an area suitable for wind development.

125. The applicant has advised that they have undertaken a door knocking consultation exercise in the area (up to a radius of 1km) and that in total they received seven objections, one letter not supporting or objecting and 31 letters of support. These have been submitted in support of the proposals by the applicant. They do not include letters from the closest residents although some of the letters received are marked with addresses which are within the vicinity of the site, with some being further away. It is not clear what stake these respondents have in the local area. With no definition of what constitutes the “affected local communities” within the recent guidance contained within the PPG and WMS it is difficult to judge whether those submitting the letters to the applicant constitute those being affected in the local community. However, based purely upon the numbers of comments received from the applicant to support the proposal, these are tipped in favour of supporting the development. However, no letters of support were received as part of the Council’s notification procedures, although three letters of objection were received from local residents.

Other Matters

126. The NPPG advises that planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in Paragraph 204 NPPF.

127. It is considered that the proposed community benefit fund offered through unilateral undertaking by the applicant, should planning permission be granted, does not meet the required tests set out above. It is considered that it would not make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms, nor is it considered that it would be directly related to the proposed development, in that it is not clear how it would mitigate the impact of the development. The applicant has advised that it could be used to plant trees to mitigate adverse impact. However, it is considered that tree planting would not overcome Policy or landscape and visual concerns. Furthermore the applicant has also suggested that the local community could use the fund for community initiatives. However, it is not considered that this would relate to the proposed development or mitigate its adverse effects. Therefore it is considered by officers that the proposed unilateral undertaking should carry no weight in the decision making process.

128. Concerns raised by local residents regarding loss of property value cannot be given any weight in the decision making process.

129. Officers note the concerns regarding consultation that have been expressed by local residents. As stated above the application has been advertised in the press, on site and in the locality. In addition letters have also been sent to neighbouring residents. It is considered that the consultation that has been undertaken is appropriate.

130. A National Grid High Pressure Gas Pipeline is located approximately 260m to the south of the site. National Grid have advised that given the distance from the proposed wind turbine to the pipeline, they have no objections to the proposals.

131. The site within a Coalfield Development Low Risk Area as defined by the Coal Authority. Any development is therefore subject to standing advice.

CONCLUSION

132. The proposed wind turbine would make a positive contribution towards the supply of renewable energy. The proposal would have public benefits in terms of electricity supply, contribution to meeting international commitments on low carbon or renewable energy production and contribution to farm diversification. The key consideration in determination is whether this Policy support outweighs any adverse impact.

133. Certain matters which are raised as concerns are not considered sufficient to warrant refusal on those grounds such as, impact on residential amenity, heritage assets, highway safety, nature conservation and ecology, aviation, TV and other communication interference. It is considered that such matters have been adequately addressed or could be appropriately addressed through imposition and implementation of conditions.

134. The landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development have been assessed. Due to the location, siting, prominence, scale and nature of the proposed development there would be impacts upon on the visual environment for a number of residential properties in the immediate locality. It is not considered that these would be overbearing other than in respect of the involved property, although the proposed turbine would be a dominant feature. However, the unacceptable significant effects are considered to be on the character of the local landscape and on the adjacent PROW and roads in the vicinity of the site. In addition, there would be significant sequential and successive cumulative effects, in conjunction with existing and approved wind turbines in the area.

135. Whilst officers acknowledge that the development would deliver a contribution to new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure, the benefits of this are not considered to outweigh the aforementioned harm, contrary to criteria set out in Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley Local Plan. The site is in not located within an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in the Wear Valley Local Plan. As such the proposal would be in conflict with the Written Ministerial Statement dated 18th June 2015, and thus Paragraph 033 of the Planning Practice Guidance which advises that that planning permission should only be granted if the site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development. As a result, the conflict with Policy GD1 and the Written Ministerial Statement outweigh benefits of the scheme.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be refused, for the following reasons:

1. The site is in not located within an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in the Wear Valley Local Plan Local or Neighbourhood Plan. As such the proposal would be in conflict with the Written Ministerial Statement dated 18th June 2015, and thus Paragraph 033 of the Planning Practice Guidance.

2. The proposed turbine, due to its nature, size, location and siting would appear as a prominent, continually present, singular feature visible across the wider

landscape. The proposed development would thus have significant effects on the character and visual amenity of the local landscape conflicting with Wear Valley District Local Plan Policy GD1 and Part 11 of the National Planning Practice Framework.

3. The proposal would have significant successive and sequential cumulative effects, in conjunction with existing and approved wind turbines in the area, on the character and appearance of the local landscape conflicting with Wear Valley District Local Plan Policy GD1 and Parts 10 and 11 of the National Planning Practice Framework.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to refuse the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Submitted application form, plans and supporting documents The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) National Planning Practice Guidance Notes Written Ministerial Statement dated 18th June 2015 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 Wear Valley District Local Plan (1997) Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Planning Services

DM/15/02768/FPA

Erection of 1 wind turbine, 30m to hub and 45m to tip. Installation of associated equipment and infrastructure, including access track(re-submission)

Blakeley Hill Farm, North Bitchburn, Crook DL15 8AP

CommentsThis map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding.Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005

Date December 2015

Scale Not to scale