Replacement wind turbine at Highfield Farm, Bigrigg, Egremont

What was proposed

The application proposed removing the existing turbine and erecting a replacement turbine up to 76 metres high, with associated development.

“Proposal 3.1 The Application Site currently accommodates a single 250kW turbine, which has a 30m hub height and 29m diameter blades. This results in a 44.5m tip height. It is proposed to replace the existing turbine with a single 250kW turbine with a 50m hub height and 52m diameter blades. This results in a 76m tip height. The turbine elements would be in a light grey matt finish or similar.”

“It is proposed to extend the existing crane pad to account for the larger component sizes of the proposed turbine. It is proposed that the hardstanding is extended both through the reuse of the existing turbine foundations and incorporation of a small area of unused land on the northern edge of the existing crane pad. The replacement turbine will make use of the existing switchgear building and cabling installed to serve the existing turbine.”

Officer report

The site

The site is an active agricultural holding in open countryside between St Bees and Bigrigg, with several homes within about 500 metres.

“Site Location 1.1 This proposal relates to a greenfield site in open countryside situated between the nearest settlements of St Bees and Bigrigg, 1.9km to the southwest and 1.2km to the east northeast respectively. It currently forms part of an active agricultural holding known as Highfield Farm. The nearest dwelling to the site is the applicants own which forms part of the farm building group and is located to the 396m to the south of the turbine.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Permission was granted in 2013 for a smaller turbine, followed by approval in 2014 for changes to its access track, cable and infrastructure.

“Relevant Planning History 4/13/2157/0F1 - Planning permission was granted for the installation of a single wind turbine on the site in 2013. The approved turbine was of a three bladed design with a rotor diameter of 27m and a hub height of 32m, giving a total ground to tip height of 45.5m. The turbine was fixed onto a 10m by10m concrete reinforced foundation some 3.0m in depth.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the established site would produce more renewable electricity and those benefits would outweigh the limited localised harm.

“Paragraph 168 of the NPPF sets out that significant weight should be given to the benefits of utilising an established site. The proposed turbine would increase the amount of electricity generated on the site and maximise the amount of renewable energy being imported into the grid, through the installation of a more efficient wind turbine. This amounts to an additional 163 homes per year or 198 % uplift on the generation provided by the existing turbine.”

“Overall, the repowering of the wind turbine for a further limited period (25 years) would provide benefits in terms of the production of higher outputs of additional renewable energy and contribute to the national need to increase capacity from renewable sources and decarbonise the grid. These benefits are considered to outweigh the additional harm that the development would cause for its lifetime.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor spoke against the application and the agent spoke in support.

Members’ discussion

A member asked whether the turbine could stop shadow flicker and whether officers could intervene if it became a problem; the agent and officer explained the available controls.

“A Member questioned if the turbines could be programmed to stop shadow flicker, in response the Agent advised that they could slow down or cease the turbine at certain times of the year. The Member asked the Officer if they could review it in future and intervene if a problem occurred, The Head of Planning and Place advised referred to the proposed condition 10 and advised Members that Officer’s could intervene if it became a problem.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted eight in favour, with none against and no abstentions.

“Following consideration of the application a Member moved to accept the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded.”

“A vote was taken: 8 voted in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to conditions, with delegated authority to amend the conditions.

“RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below with delegated authority given to the Service Manager for Development and Implementation to add to and/or make any amendments to the conditions as considered appropriate.”

Minutes