Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held Royal Marine Hotel, Golf Road, Brora, on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 at 1.45 p.m.
Present
Mr A I MacDonald, Mr R Saxon, Mr J H Green, Mr G M Smith, Mr F R M Keith, Mr D Allan, Mrs V MacIver, Mr R Durham, Mr R Lyon, Mr A S Park
Non-Members also present:
Mr W J Ross, Mrs R Finlayson
Officials in attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr G MacKenzie, Area Community Works Manager, TEC Services
Mr D Spence, Principal Geotechnical Technician, TEC Services
Miss K MacLeod, Principal Solicitor (Planning)
Mrs R Moir, Principal Administrator, Corporate Services
Ms L Lee, Committee Administrator, Corporate Services
Mr A S Park in the Chair
Declarations of Interest – Members are asked to consider whether they have an interest to declare in relation to any item on the agenda for this meeting. Any Member making a declaration of interest should indicate whether it is a financial or non-financial interest and include some information on the nature of the interest. Advice may be sought from Officers prior to the meeting taking place.
An asterisk in the margin denotes a recommendation to the Council.
All decisions with no marking in the margin are delegated to the Committee.
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mrs A Magee (OCB); Mr A Torrance; Mr E C MacKinnon; Mr R MacIntyre; Mr M M Macmillan; Mr J Laing; Mr S J Shiels; Mr J MacDonald; Mr J Gray; Mr A Milne; Mr N Donald; Mrs K G Matheson; Mr R Wynd; Mrs L MacDonald; Mr B M S Dunlop; Dr M E M Foxley; Mrs O J MacDonald and Mr A R McFarlane Slack (OCB).
2. Erection of 19 Wind Turbines, A Sub-Station Building, Access Roads, Associated Infrastructure At Kilbraur (Tannachy And Knockarthur), Strath Brora, Rogart, Sutherland, Together With Imaprovement Of The Existing Access With The A9(T) At Drummuie And The Formation Of A Link Access Between The A9(T) And The Public Road Through Dunrobin Glen - 04/00125/FULSU
In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Members had applied for and been granted a local Member vote: Mr W J Ross and Mrs R Finlayson.
There were no declarations of interest.
The application was subject to a formal hearings procedure. In attendance in relation to the application were:
Applicants
Mr G Jewson Renewable Development Co. (Scotland) Ltd (RDC)
Mr N Yencken RDC
Mr W Heller Falck Renewables
In support of the application
Mr T Robinson Representing the local crofting community
Mr S MacLennan Employee of local engineering company, Edward MacKay
Objectors
Mr N Harding
Mrs V Scott
Mr A Tubb Rogart Environmental Group
Mr H Mol
Some 16 members of the public were also in attendance as observers.
Earlier in the day, Members had viewed the proposed junction with the A9 at Drummuie and had viewed the site from various points along Dunrobin Glen and Strath Brora, including from Knockarthur, Craggie Beg and Sciberscross. Photomontages had been provided in respect of the four scheduled wind farm site viewing places and Members had been given advice as to how to use the montages correctly. At the request of Mr Harding, Members had also viewed the Strath from a point a short walk from the road in the vicinity of Sciberscross. Members’ attention had also been drawn to the existing pylons, and it had been suggested that these were useful when envisaging the size of the turbines, the pylons being approximately one third of their size. Objectors and applicants had been given an opportunity to point out matters pertaining to the landscape at each halt. Matters pertaining to general consideration of the application had not been discussed.
Prior to the commencement of business, the Chairman summarised the Hearing Procedures. He sought and was given an assurance by all parties that they had received a copy of these Procedures and understood the process. He then advised that the Vice-Chairman, Mr F R M Keith would Chair the Hearing process.
Mr F R M Keith in the Chair
There had been previously circulated Report No. pl19 dated 24 February 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on an application for planning permission to erect 19 wind turbines and associated infrastructure on land to the east of the townships of Knockarthur and Tannachy in Strath Brora, Sutherland. The wind turbines would be a maximum of 115 metres high (70m to hub with blades of 45m). Access to the site would be taken from an improved junction with the A9(T) at Drummuie, south of Golspie, and thereafter using existing forest roads, the formation of a new access road, and by way of the public road through Dunrobin Glen, to reach the wind farm site.
The site was not covered by any statutory natural heritage designations, although part of the site lay within a proposed Area of Great Landscape Value. Technical objections had generally been addressed through the submission of further supporting information. There were 88 representations against the proposed development, covering a wide range of issues but having a particular focus on the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development; its effects on the natural heritage, particularly birds; access and transportation issues; archaeology; tourism; and peat stability. There were 7 representations in support of the application.
Whilst there remained an outstanding objection from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) with respect to the impact of the proposed development on an area of wild land to the immediate north of the proposed wind farm site, the key consideration was the extent to which the proposed wind turbines would dominate the landscape, thereby impacting on the visual amenity of both residents and visitors.
The application was supported by an Environmental Statement and supplementary information, which were available for inspection in the Planning and Development Service at Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness, and at the Committee meeting.
The report recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as set out in the report and to a prior legal agreement covering the following matters:
i. to secure a financial bond for the restoration of the site at the expiry of the permission or at the cessation of operation of the wind farm for a period exceeding 6 months;
ii. to secure a financial bond to correct any interference with television/radio reception during the first 12 months of operation of the wind farm;
iii. to secure a “wear and tear” agreement to cover costs of any damage to the local road network; and
iv. to secure a commitment to prepare and thereafter implement a conservation management plan to mitigate potential adverse effects on birds arising from the proposed development.
In the event that the Committee was minded to approve this application, it would require to be notified to Scottish Ministers under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997 in view of the Council’s financial interest arising from the opportunities created by the development’s access proposals.
The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager summarised the application and described how it had been amended from an earlier (withdrawn) application submitted in 2003, in response to comments and concerns raised, including in particular: (i) a reduction in the number of turbines from 24 to 19 to reduce visual impact in the Sciberscross area; (ii) a revised access route which would remove the need for construction traffic to pass through Golspie and Backies and would improve the A9(T) junction at Drummuie; and (iii) the reduction in length of track within the site from 16.8km to 10.9km. Turbines had been sited to avoid archaeological features. He explained that the Eastern part of the site lay on the edge of a search area for an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) identified in the Structure Plan but that the designation had never been formalised and there were therefore no landscape designations pertaining to the site. He drew Members’ attention to various aspects of the report, including responses received from Community Councils, TEC Services and the Trunk Roads authority; and to the main policies which pertained to the application, including the emerging Highland Council Strategy on Renewable Energy. The site lay at the periphery of one of the Council’s preferred areas for wind farm development, and, although part of the site lay outwith the preferred area, the emerging Strategy recognised that, given the 1km squares used to designate areas, it would be necessary to view each application in detail on its own merits, the Strategy providing guidance only. He stressed that, in coming to a decision, Members should bear in mind that it was Council policy to support wind energy proposals provided that the impacts were not significantly detrimental. There would be grounds for refusal if Members were of the view that the application would have a seriously adverse impact which could not be mitigated.
Hearings Procedure
Applicants
Mr G Jewson spoke on behalf of the applicants. He gave a brief history of RDC and Falck’s working relationship and cited examples of successful wind farm developments on which they had worked together and had either completed or were in the process of constructing across the UK. He set out the reasons that this site had been chosen from around 100 sites they had considered in Scotland, including that:
• it was remote from habited property
• the wind resource was good
• the Council’s Strategy largely supported the choice of site, notwithstanding that it was on the border of the preferred development area for wind farms and some turbines fell outwith the preferred area
• Scottish and Southern Energy had agreed that a connection to the grid could be made in 2007, so there would not be a lengthy wait for connection
• the site was adjacent to existing pylons – no new pylons would be needed.
Mr Jewson referred to the earlier application for 24 turbines and stated that all options and access arrangements had been investigated and the application revised to take account of local concerns. The site was on croft land but the application was supported by the crofting community. Brora Community Council (CC) did not object to the proposal, Rogart CC had not commented and the concerns of Golspie CC related to traffic on the A9. It was the applicants’ view that the traffic concerns had been addressed in the revised application. An independent consultant had carried out an investigation of the peat conditions and it was believed that, with mitigation measures in place, the risk of peat slide was minimal or negligible. A test run from Invergordon (where component parts would arrive by ship) had been carried out to ensure that the large vehicles required were able to negotiate the Cambusavie Bends. This had shown that the route was passable, although would require some use of manual steering mechanisms. A land management plan to enhance a wide area of habitat, for raptors in particular, had been compiled and RSPB had withdrawn its objections in light of this. SNH had withdrawn all but one of its objections. There had been strong local support and relatively few objections.
Mr T Robinson, representing the local crofting community, then spoke in support of the application. Whilst accepting that the turbines would have a significant visual impact, they were eco-friendly. Very few people visited Kilbraur, so impact on tourism would be negligible. Ross Finnie, Scottish Executive Minister for Environment and Rural Development, was of the view that crofters had to diversify if crofting was to survive – the wind farm provided a no-risk opportunity for crofters to do this.
In answer to questions raised, Mr Jewson advised:
• that there would be a clear instruction to contractors to use the purpose-built access track; it would be a disciplinary offence to use other routes; however, it was possible that individual employees might use the local roads to and from work
• turbine components would come in to the area via Invergordon port
• it was hoped work would start on the access routes in Summer 2006 with electricity being generated from Autumn 2007
• pylons were best sited along the ridge as wind resource diminished considerably at lower levels; there was also turbulence at lower levels which could cause damage to the turbines;
• it was anticipated that the turbines would be shut down 1% of the time due to high winds; they were designed to withstand windspeeds of 140 mph.
Members sought an explanation as to why a right turning lane on the A9 from the North at Drummuie had been included in the application. In response, Mr Jewson explained that the choice of access from the A9 had been decided after the consideration of many alternatives, all of which had had serious drawbacks. The route finally selected was as set out in the Council’s existing development brief for Drummuie, which was aimed at providing new housing and offices, but which had not yet been taken forward. The development brief indicated a right hand turning lane from the North, which had been included in the planning application although not operationally required by the developers. Mr Jewson gave an assurance, however, that no pressure had been applied to the developers in coming to their decision to select the Drummuie access route. An assurance was also given that Members had not been involved in any financial talks with the developer.
Members also commented that, if the intention was for all heavy traffic to approach from the South, there appeared to be no need for the stipulation in condition 32(v) prohibiting southbound abnormal loads from entering the development. The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager advised that its inclusion was at the direction of the Trunk Roads Authority and reflected the possible option of unloading construction materials at Wick.
Towards the end of the hearings process, the Chairman was made aware that a Mr S MacLennan, who had previously indicated a desire to speak in support of the application, was present at the meeting but had not been called during this first stage of the hearings process. Noting that the time allocated to the third party objectors had in any case exceeded that used by the applicants and the other third party supporter, the Chairman offered Mr MacLennan an opportunity to speak. The latter explained that he was an employee of a local civil engineering company which had worked on wind farm projects. He stated that his experience in this regard made him confident that the developer would ensure measures were in place regarding design and watching briefs in relation to the project, as they would be in any modern development. Birds and pollution would be monitored and peat slide controlled by design. Road networks would be improved. Environmental health and safety would be well supervised. In addition, there would be community benefits arising from the employment of 70 men on site plus 70 turbine erectors; this would bring income to hotels, shops and petrol stations and would be a particular boost in winter. He welcomed the project to the area.
Third Party Objectors
The objectors were then given the opportunity to speak. Mr N Harding stated that he was an incomer to the area, but had chosen to live at Sciberscross because it was a remarkable location. Crofters might support the application but they would lose their crofting rights for which future generations might not thank them. Mr Harding supported wind farms in principle and had originally supported this application, but on reflection had changed his opinion. Tourism had until recently been restricted as the Estate had controlled access; however Mr Harding was of the view that more visitors would now come, particularly as the route was suitable for those less able to walk, there being open views from cars. There was also ecotourism potential along the Rogart road, with amenity including a salmon leap, deer, raptors and ancient woodland. The application was on the edge of a proposed AGLV. 150 jobs were provided by Skibo Castle, stemming from high quality tourism. Tourism was growing. There would be a long-term economic impact from the development and, in his view, other sites would be more appropriate. The 43 sporting tenants at Balnacoil Lodge would be unlikely to return. In all, in terms of the emerging Council Strategy on Renewable Energy, 500 turbines were proposed for the Strath Brora area and it was questionable as to whether the landscape would be able to absorb this scale of development. The turbines would dominate the landscape. Planning documents emphasised that maximum benefit should be sought from local tourism and stated that the natural environment was Sutherland’s greatest asset. It was vital that the attitudes of visitors were determined. The Council should act as responsible stewards.
Mrs V Scott voiced concerns at the potential damage caused by heavy vehicles to (i) the stability of properties in Main Street, Golspie; and (ii) the road structure at the Cambusmore junction. She estimated that there would be 129 heavy loads (around 3 per day) and some 5,000 personnel cars and minibuses generated by the development. The abnormal loads, some of which would extend widthways onto the oncoming carriage, would need to use manual steering at the Cambusavie bends and this would delay traffic, causing potential difficulties for those aiming to catch the Orkney ferry. She also questioned whether concrete would be batched on site, and if so, expressed concerns at the impact this could have on the water supply to local residents.
Mr A Tubb drew attention to the potential problems arising from the impact of the development on peat. He maintained that loss of water could lead to cracks in the peat and create instability. The proposed roads, turbine bases and the erection of the towers could all therefore lead to peat instability. He gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the construction phases of similar developments and the problems caused by water accumulation arising from peat disturbance and the impact of heavy vehicles. It was also likely that water would accumulate around the concrete bases of the turbines after construction. The Environmental Statement (ES) made no reference to the cumulative effect on peat of construction vehicles, in terms of frequency or loading. He also had concerns regarding slope stability. Roads floated over peat would in time sink and become unstable. PPG14 (dated 1990) set out guidelines on this issue, but this was not referred to in the application and matters such as slope, soil type and stability were not covered by the Ove Arup report. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) was of the view that the impact on peat was important, as peat not only acted as a carbon sink but could cause significant damage to people and the environment, should there be a peat slide. The Council had previously written to the Scottish Executive with regard to an application at Dunbeath, stating that information on the depth, slope, and strength of peat was required, together with a factor of safety rating, yet this information had not been provided for Kilbraur. Ove Arup had not demonstrated how they had arrived at their conclusions and co-efficients. In Mr Tubb’s view, each turbine foundation and all the tracks should be assessed and details of how rock from the borrow-pits would be transported to the tracks should be given.
Mr H Mol then commented that the logical place to site wind farms was close to the centres of population and industry that required the electricity. Wind farms in rural areas should provide only sufficient power to meet the needs of local people. The local countryside should not be spoilt.
There being no questions for the objectors, the Chairman invited TEC Services’ Principal Geotechnical Technician, Mr D Spence, to advise the Committee on the geotechnical aspects of the site at this juncture. Mr Spence agreed with Mr Tubb that it was important that proper investigations of peat were carried out prior to development. However, he was of the view that the investigations carried out by Ove Arup had been adequate. There were no specific guidelines from the Scottish Executive as to how peat investigations should be conducted. The part of the site most at risk from peat instability was between turbines 15 and 17, but mitigation measures were proposed and a full risk assessment would be carried out by the contractor, covering the topography, geomorphology, hydrology and peat type. Members commented that it would be unlikely that a multi-million pound project would disregard peat stability issues.
Applicants’ Response to Points Raised
Mr Jewson clarified the following points:
• only the land required for the roads and turbine bases within the site would be resumed from crofting tenure, amounting to 1 or 2% of the site area
• a MORI poll had shown that 91% of tourists felt that wind farms were a positive feature; 80% of tourists indicated they would like wind farms to be accessible as a visitor attraction
• most of the houses in the vicinity of the site were orientated southwards and would not face the turbines; many of those nearest the site were held by crofters and the crofting community supported the application; visual impact was localised, with little visibility from the A9
• heavy vehicles connected with the development would not go through Golspie
• it was intended to batch concrete on site; water would be extracted under licence from SEPA – the local water supply was expected to be safeguarded under the terms of the SEPA licence
• the developers understood that the A9 north of Invergordon carried some 4,000 vehicles per 24 hours; by comparison, the development proposed 1,000 heavy vehicles over the life of the site
• abnormal loads would be managed, making use of convoys and quieter times of the day, and would be escorted
• this was a large development and the peat issue would not be taken lightly; 270 peat probes and 87 vane tests had been undertaken; water flow had been measured and, following mitigation between turbines 15 and 17, impact would be minimal or negligible; bog burst which had occurred elsewhere had been where no drainage arrangements had been made; this would not be the case here.
In accordance with procedure, the Chairman sought confirmation from the objectors and applicants that (i) there were no further parties wishing to speak and (ii) they were satisfied with the way the hearing had been conducted. Mr MacLennan having been given his opportunity to speak, such confirmation was given.
Mr A S Park in the Chair
Summing-up and Discussion
The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager advised Members that, under Section 25 of the Planning Act, the Committee was required to determine the application. He drew attention to the work carried out by the applicants in resolving issues which had been raised by tenants, landowners, RSPB and SNH, including the Conservation Management Plan, which would be embodied in a Section 75 Agreement. There remained an outstanding objection from SNH in relation to wild land, but there was no statutory designation or definition of wild land. It was for Members to decide the weight that should be given to this consideration. The turbines would dominate the landscape. A number of houses were in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm, but many of them faced away from the site. Visual effects were generally localised with little visibility from the A9. The impact on the landscape would be significant, but it was for Members to decide if the proposals were acceptable in this regard. Making use of the Drummuie Development Brief constituted good planning practice; the right hand turning lane was beyond the needs of the developers but was included in the application. The site was largely in a preferred area for wind farms and there were no outstanding technical problems which could not be resolved by condition. Members needed to judge the likely effect on tourism and the impact on the landscape; the latter was significant but localised. The Area Planning and Building Standards Manager was of the view that the application was not seriously adverse or significantly detrimental and therefore the recommendation was to approve the application, subject to conditions and legal agreement as set out in the report, with an amendment to relax condition 32 in order to allow the applicants flexibility to carry out works on the windfarm site prior to the completion of access roads.
Discussion followed, with a range of comments made, including that:
• the absence of a steer from Government made decision-making regarding wind farm developments difficult
• the standard of representations had been high and this was welcomed
• the turbines would be “grotesque”, tall turbines would not be absorbed by a small landscape; the proposals were significantly detrimental
• the character of the area would be seriously altered, the proposals were industrial
• this was a “jewel of a landscape” and should be protected; the land should not be spoilt
• there was a need to repopulate and to support tourism, the proposals would have an adverse impact on both these aims
• Members had a duty to look for alternative energy solutions; there was no likelihood of the transmission grid being relocated and this constrained the options available; onshore wind farm developments were justified, but other technologies should also be pursued
• concerns regarding the environment had been addressed by conditions
• the visual impact was acceptable on balance
• the existing countryside was not unspoilt – there were many examples of human intervention, including rusty corrugated iron roofs, PVC culvert pipes, non native trees etc.
• the impact on the countryside had been found to be less than feared at Beinn Tharsuinn; tourists often sought directions to the wind farm at Novar; the price of property had not been adversely affected around Novar; wind farms had been found to generate tourism in Caithness; the roads around Kilbraur did not appear to be a popular tourist route, although it was accepted that there was likely to be more traffic in the summer months
• construction traffic for the Causeymire wind farm had, in the event, proved to be relatively unnoticeable
• it was regrettable that so many of the turbines were sited on the ridge but the reasons for this were understood
• the landscape could absorb this development, although it was less certain whether 500 turbines would be acceptable – the cumulative effect would require to be taken into account in future applications
• it was important to ensure that effective conditions were in place to ensure that (i) the peat risk assessment was fully carried out and (ii) traffic management was properly conducted
• the planning brief for Drummuie had been in place prior to this application being lodged; there was therefore no question of any financial “deal” having taken place.
Thereafter, Mrs R Finlayson, seconded by Mr D Allan, MOVED that the application be refused on the grounds that it constituted a proliferation of wind farms, would have an unacceptable visual impact and would be detrimental to the local economy.
As an AMENDMENT, Mr S Park, seconded by Mrs V MacIver, moved that the application as set out in the report be approved, subject to an amendment as recommended to condition 32 to enable on-site works to be carried out prior to the completion of the access works.
On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 3 votes and the AMENDMENT received 9 votes and the AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes cast being as follows:-
For the Motion:-
Mrs R Finlayson, Mr D Allan, Mr R Lyon
For the Amendment:-
Mr S Park, Mr A I MacDonald, Mr G Smith, Mrs V MacIver, Mr R Saxon, Mr R Durham, Mr F R M Keith, Mr J Green, Mr W J Ross
Decision
The Committee APPROVED the application subject to conditions and to a prior legal agreement, as set out in the report, but with the relaxation of condition 32 to allow works on-site to be carried out prior to the completion of the access roads; and NOTED that the application would require to be notified to Scottish Ministers under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997 in view of the Council’s financial interest arising from the opportunities created by the development’s access proposals.
The meeting ended at 4.00 p.m.