Group. Lancashire County Council. Lancaster City Council. A number of members of the public were also in attendance.

Transcription

1 Forest of Bowland AONB Joint Advisory Committee Lancaster Town Hall 10 December 2009, 10:00am Minutes Present Chair and Vice Chair County Councillor Albert Atkinson Members Henry Bainbridge David Kelly Landowning and Farming Advisory Group Ramblers Association Officers Steven Brereton Mark Cassidy Pin Dhillon-Downey Holly Gregson Sarah Manchester Dr Jennifer Newton Don McKay Lancaster City Council Natural England (Minutes) The Wildlife Trust A number of members of the public were also in attendance. Apologies County Councillor Susie Charles County Councillor David Smith Councillor Stuart Langhorn Councillor Richard Welch Samantha Marsden Graham Megson Terry Norris Martin Putsey Adam Walsh Lancaster City Council North Yorkshire County Council Natural England North Yorkshire County Council Peak and Northern Footpath Society Preston City Council Environment Agency Public Participation: Comments and Questions Members of the public from the area close to the proposed development made the following comments: The Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is a designated landscape. The European Landscape Convention does not distinguish between AONBs and National Parks and as such is offered the 1

2 same level of protection. Wind turbines would be more appropriately located outside designated areas. The Turner View, one with a lot of history, would also be severely damaged by wind turbines. Community Wind Power Ltd not a community enterprise and not a farm it s an industrial power plant. It's vandalising an outstanding area which we have a duty to protect for future generations. A letter from Lord Hunt to Lord Reay was referred to which highlights the importance of preserving our beautiful landscapes and cherished assets and should be treated with the respect they are due. The letter goes on to note that the purpose of an AONB is the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and that they have the highest level of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty, and great weight should be given to them in planning policies and development control decisions. In particular the letter refers to the Planning Bill 'major development test' set out in PPS7 Paragraph 22 which says that major developments should not take place in these areas except in exceptional circumstances. Policy EM17 (Renewable Energy) of the Regional Spatial Strategy makes it clear that opportunities should be sought to identify renewable energy schemes but subject to several important criteria. On of these notes that ' stringent requirements for minimising impacts on landscapes and townscape would not be appropriate other than in the most exceptional circumstances such as within nationally recognised designations as set out in PPS22 paragraph 11 (developments within 6km of AONB). Building a wind farm at this location would be in direct conflict of this policy. Whitmore Common is used by a number of local residents to graze animals and as a water supply. There is concern that the wind farm would reduce the amount of common land available and could contaminate the water supply. It was noted that as the wind farm was going to be part built on a registered Common Land and as such it would be necessary to seek permission from the Secretary of State to develop this land. The developer would also need to provide the equivalent hectares of grazing area elsewhere to compensate for Common Land that is no longer in use. It was noted that the water level has risen by about 3 feet after the Caton wind farm was constructed, there is concern that by further developing this area it could lead to another major flood. When the wind farm was built at Caton Moor the residents were given assurance that no additional turbines would be located at this site. Taking into consideration the manufacturing, transportation, building of infrastructure, etc it was felt that the carbon saving would not be substantial enough to warrant ruining a protected and beautiful area. It was added that there was limited evidence to the effectiveness of wind turbines. How much subsidy is paid to land owners? The landscape is unique and beautiful and is enjoyed by many thousands of people. Building a wind farm at this location would ruin the landscape and heritage for future generations alongside destroying the livelihood of many local people. 2

3 It was felt that planning permission of this application should be refused as should any future applications for wind farms in this area. There would be significant habitat loss if the wind farm was built which can not be found elsewhere. If one application is agreed in a protected area it would open up applications in other areas which could ruin landscapes across the United Kingdom. At the time of the meeting over 300 letters of objection had been received in relation to the wind farm application. There had been approximately 10 letters of support of which 6 had been received from the developer. There are a number of habitats and species in the Lune Valley which could be affected by the development; including Sea Trout spawning sites, fresh water thermossals, otters, perigrim falcon and hen harrier. In Scotland areas which are populated by protected species can not be developed upon. It was also noted that the planning authority can be prosecuted if habitats are ruined. There was concern about poor communication regarding the proposed wind farm. In Lapwing nesting season it would be a legal offence for farmers to work the land near nesting sites. Farmers work closely with the RSPB to look at ways to minimise the affect on both the nesting birds and his farming. It was felt the proposals would ruin the good work that has been progressing to protect these birds and their habitats. Minutes of the Last Meeting The minutes of the meeting were agreed as a correct and accurate record subject to the following amendment: RSPB Presentation, Page 5: "In 2009 there were 8 nesting attempts of which half were successful". Matters Arising There were no matters arising. Caughton Moor Wind Farm Planning Application Mark Cassidy from the Planning Department of Lancaster City Council noted that the Council had taken the decision to consult all Parish Councils and had advertised the application in both the local press and on the website. He added that any individuals or organisations are able to submit comments electronically or in writing and that anyone can attend the planning committee to comment on the application. He suggested it would be more effective if parties joined together to make points as this would avoid duplication and allow arguments to be made strongly and accurately. He added that unique site specific examples to back up the objections would add considerable value. Mark did not feel that organisations or individuals needed legal representation to speak at Planning Committee. He added that should be 3

4 planning application be refused and it went to appeal it would be possible to apply for 'Rule 6 Status'. Responding to a query Mark noted that it was not a legal obligation for the developer to consult communities prior to the application being submitted although it is considered good practice; on this occasion he felt it could have been done more effectively. David Kelly noted that the application states the impact on the landscape would be minimal, he felt that 20 turbines at the summit of the moor is far more than minimal. He also expressed concern about the application not mentioning Common Land and the route of the access road which he felt was not appropriate. David added that the application mentions both community and environmental benefits but does not put a figure on these. Henry Bainbridge noted that he was advisor to the Minister of Agriculture when the application for the Caton Moor wind farm was processed. He was in favour of this application as at the time agriculture was going through a difficult time and it would be of financial benefit to farmers. He added he would covey the communities' strong objection to his successor. Don McKay noted that he 61m had been allocated to the undergrounding of electric cables to enhance natural beauty in protected areas. He felt that if 10ft pylons were considered a blemish on the natural landscape then wind turbines would be sorely inappropriate. Don also noted that the Forest of Bowland Management Plan states that officers should oppose and seek to prevent large scale energy generation developments that are damaging in scale or siting to the conservation of the character of the AONB landscape. He added that the Forest of Bowland is fully committee to climate adaptation and carbon management through the Sustainable Development Fund which had helped with a number of small scale projects, but felt the scale of this development was inappropriate. Steve Brereton, Specialist Landscape Advisor at, noted that he is in the process of carrying out a visual impact assessment which would lead to a recommendation being made to the Planning Committee at Lancaster City Council. He noted that his initial thoughts are: The scale of the wind farm is just under 50watts so the planning permission would be granted by the Local Authority as apposed to the Secretary of State. This implies that they want approval from the local community. During meetings with the developer it has been noted that for financial and technical reasons it would not be feasible to reduce the size of the proposed farm. As a wind farm already exists on the site it could be argued that this has already reduced the visual impact of the area; this would be a big plus for the developer. 4

5 There is a presumption that major developments should not happen in AONBs however this is not a legal obligation and so it can be argued. Steve felt that the wind farm could not be located at this site without a negative visual impact as the proposed wind turbines are at the summit of the valley and so can be seen by more residential areas and from a greater distance. In addition the location of the proposed turbines are at the head of the valley which is a natural focal point, therefore people would naturally be drawn to look at them which would be a major negative impact. The Landscape in this area has predominately remained the same for hundreds of years; therefore introducing a new large scale development in the area would not be in keeping with the natural beauty of the area. There are clear agricultural and historic associations in the area, including artistic representations. Access track would include a significant loss of trees in the area and would create a scar on the landscape and the lost vegetation would take a long time to re-establish. This would significantly devalue the beauty of the area. Steve noted that his initial thoughts are the wind farm would have a significant negative impact on the landscape and would be recommending that the proposal be refused. A member of the public noted that the photos used on the Community Wind Power Ltd website compressed the landscape significantly and so the visual representations were inaccurate. She requested that representations be made for the photos be removed however it was suggested that as the photos go beyond the acceptable amount of compression they would form a valid argument to object to the wind farm as they inaccurately represent the impact on the landscape. Mark noted that visual impact is most significant within 15km of the development as after this distance you have a wider panoramic view; therefore highlighted objecting because of visual impact might not carry great weight if there is some distance from the site. Sarah Manchester, Ecologist, noted that she would be looking at the application from a biodiversity point of view and had the following concerns: Under the Planning Bill PPS9 states that there should be no net loss of biodiversity impact, where there is a loss it should be demonstrated that the impact mitigated or compensated for. The planning application does not demonstrate this. Many of the habitat and biodiversity surveys have been undertaken at the wrong time of the year and the methodology used in completing the surveys is incomplete so it can not be established if they have been done correctly. On many occasions it states that there would be no significant impact but does not justify the reason behind this fully. A tree survey has not been completed, which is essential as some trees would need to be felled. 5

6 The application mentions that borrow pits would need to be utilised but when questioning there location it was established the exact location of them has yet to be determined. Hydrology section is very limited and flawed. The application states that there is a pond which could be inhabited with great crested newts; however a full survey has not been carried out. This would need to be done at the correct time of the year. Sarah concluded that she felt that the application was severely flawed and incomplete and her recommendation to the planning committee would be to reject the application as substantial biodiversity work needs to be carried out before a decision could accurately be made. Pin Dhillon-Downey, from Natural England, highlighted that they had indicated to the developers that it would be necessary to do a ZTV (Zone of Theoretical Visibility) Assessment but this has not been included. It was also suggested that the Forest of Bowland Landscape Character Assessment should have been referred to but as it recommends that tall vertical structures should be avoided it might have been a strategic decision to exclude this information. In addition Pin noted that the nearest significant nesting site was over 3km away as so did not think that it would impact significantly. However requested that a fly over assessment be carried out due to raptors in the area, to see how much of an impact it would have on the site. Natural England also have concerns about the accuracy of the data that has been presented, the stability of peat bogs once wind turbines are constructed and methodology they have used to undertake studies. Pin noted that Natural England would be formal objecting to the proposals on the grounds of inadequate information and significant negative visual impact on the landscape. Resolved That the Forest of Bowland AONB Joint Advisory Committee object to the proposed wind farm at Caughton Moor due to insignificant information, questionable scientific methodology being utilised and that it would be in direct conflict with the Forest of Bowland Landscape Character Assessment and Management Plan. Date and Time of Next Meeting Tuesday 27 April 2010, 2:00pm, venue to be determined. 6