Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in Lairg Community Hall, Lairg, Sutherland on Friday 29 September 2006 at 9.15 a.m.
Present:
Mr A S Park, Mr J H Green, Mr G M Smith, Mr F R M Keith, Mrs A Magee, Mr D Allan, Mr A Torrance, Mr R Durham, Mr R MacIntyre, Mr E C Mackinnon, Mrs V MacIver, Mr M Macmillan, Mr I MacDonald, Mr J Laing, Mr J MacDonald, Mr R Lyon, Mr C L Goodman, Mr J Gray, Mr A R McFarlane Slack
Non-Members also present:
Mrs I McCallum, Mr J Ford, Mr D Henderson
Officials in attendance:
Mr J D Rennilson, Director of Planning and Development
Mr G Mooney, Principal Planner, Planning and Development
Miss A Cowling, Landscape Officer, Planning and Development
Mr R Blain, Principal Engineer, Sutherland Area TEC Services,
Miss K McLeod, Principal Solicitor (Planning), Corporate Services
Mrs R Moir, Principal Administrator, Corporate Services
Ms L Lee, Committee Administrator, Corporate Services
Mr A S Park in the Chair
Business
An asterisk in the margin denotes a recommendation to Council. All decisions with no asterisk in the margin are delegated to the Committee.
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr A I MacDonald, Mr R Saxon, Mr B Barclay, Mr W Fulton, Mr S J Shiels, Mr A Milne, Mr N Donald, Mrs K G Matheson, Mr R Wynd, Mrs L MacDonald (OCB), Mr A Gordon, Mr B M S Dunlop, Mr B Clark, Dr M E M Foxley and Mrs O J MacDonald.
2. Introduction, Planning Policy Overview and Cumulative Issues
There had been circulated:
i. Report No. PDET-82-06 ( dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development providing information on the Planning Policies relevant to the three applications;
ii. Report No. PDET-83-06 dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development giving an overview and including guidance on cumulative issues; and
iii. Booklet A , containing Maps and Plans etc. relevant to all the applications – colour versions of the Maps and Plans were on display in the room and were also used in the introductory presentations made by the Director of Planning and Development and the Principal Planner.
The Committee was asked to take full account of the various policies and cumulative issues as set out in (i) and (ii) above.
The Director of Planning and Development explained that, although all three applications had been received prior to the finalisation of the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines, the Strategy should nonetheless be taken into consideration as supplementary planning guidance. He advised the Committee that, whilst the Strategy provided relevant guidance, it was not site-specific, and that each application must therefore be considered taking into account all the available information. The Committee was also required to take cumulative impact into consideration. This included taking into account wind farms (a) which had already been completed, (b) for which permission had been granted but which were not yet constructed, and (c) for which a planning application had been received but which had not yet been determined. In this latter regard, he apprised the Committee of a recently lodged planning application for three wind turbines to the South-South-East of Lairg, but stated that, in his view, the application had no significant bearing on the applications under consideration at the meeting.
The Director of Planning and Development summarised the main Policies pertaining to the proposals and reminded the Committee that the Council had agreed that there would be a general presumption in favour of Renewable Energy developments, as long as these were in the right place and at the right time.
The Principal Planner summarised the content of Report No. PDET83/06 relating to cumulative impact, and reminded Members of the Policy and Development Control matters to be taken into consideration. Colour versions of Figures 4 to 8b from Booklet A, showing the Zones of Visual Impact, were displayed and explained. The Principal Planner commented that there could be both positive and negative impacts arising from increased numbers of wind farms, including, for example, respectively, (a) increased electricity supply from a renewable source and enhancement of ecology by the developer and (b) impact on roads, loss of remoteness and effect of noise on residents. Whether the turbines were seen as an architectural complement to the landscape or as a detraction therefrom was a subjective evaluation. He also drew the Committee’s attention to the comments by the Council’s TEC Services to the effect that one wind farm would have a large impact on roads, two would have a serious impact, whilst three would have an unacceptable impact. In addition, not more than one wind farm should be constructed at any one time. He also commented that the impact on tourism was difficult to quantify.
3. Hearings Procedure – Achany Estate, Lairg Sutherland
Application for the construction of a wind farm, comprising 23 turbines, control building, access tracks, anemometer mast, temporary borrow pits, underground cabling and ancillary works at Achany Estate (Cnoc na Cloich-bhuaile), Lairg, Sutherland - 05/00398/FULSU.
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 S Heyes - Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE)
Community Councils:
Mr R Smith - on behalf of Creich and Ardgay Community Councils
Objectors:
Mr S Mouat ) on behalf of objectors D Mackay, J Mouat, C Gilmour, J White
Mr C Gilmour ) B Bailey, G Bailey and M Keates
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB): Mr K Graham
Some 20 members of the public were in attendance as observers.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-84-06 dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on an application for planning permission to erect 23 wind turbines and associated infrastructure on land at Achany Estate, Lairg, Sutherland. A copy of the Hearings Procedure was appended to the report. There were also tabled (a) transcript of the presentation to be made by Mr Heyes of SSE and (b) transcript of the presentation to be made by Mr K Graham of RSPB. The recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the report.
Introduction
The Principal Planner summarised the key features of the proposal, including that:
- the proposed wind turbines would be a maximum of 105 metres to the rotor tip, with a combined output of up to 46MW
- the turbines would be sited across a ridge extending some 4.3km from East to West and would be visible on the skyline
- access to the site would follow the existing upgraded track off the single track A839, but 13.2km of new site tracks would be required within the site
the nearest dwelling to the site was a holiday home situated around 750m from the nearest turbine
- there had been 34 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, the perceived lack of an overall policy for the location of wind farms, the effect of the proposals on birds, health issues, tourism, and transportation issues; Creich and Ardgay Community Councils had objected to the proposals, whilst Lairg Community Council supported the proposals
- statutory consultees either had no objection, or their concerns could be accommodated by condition, other than Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), who had maintained their objection regarding the potential impact of the proposals on otter and fresh water pearl mussels in Glen Oykel, and relating to visual cumulative impact should more than one windfarm application be approved.
Members had also been advised that, (i) the site lay close to a number of areas covered by statutory natural heritage designations and (ii) the Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy showed one proposed turbine wholly in a zone for “possible” major scale onshore wind farm development, with twenty two of the proposed turbines within an area with a presumption against development for major scale onshore wind farm development and where Policy E7 of the Renewable Energy Strategy urged a precautionary approach to wind farm development.
The application was supported by an Environmental Statement and supplementary information which had been available for inspection in the Planning and Development Service at HQ, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness and at the Area Planning and Building Standards Office, The Meadows, Dornoch. Full texts of all consultation responses and letters of representation had also been available for inspection in the Planning and Development Service at HQ. The Environmental Statement, supplementary information and the consultation responses and letters of representation were available at the meeting. The recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the report.
Applicants
There being no questions for the Principal Planner, Mr S Heyes (SSE) gave a presentation in support of the application. He outlined the reasons for the choice of site and referred to the Renewables Obligation under which all energy-producing companies were required to provide a proportion of their output from renewable sources. He stated that SSE were keen to support local supply companies in the course of this development, which accorded with the Council’s aim of bringing maximum benefit to the local economy; however, this would only be possible if consents were given. Three years’ preparatory work had been carried out prior to submission of the application, and supplementary information had been provided on the cumulative issues. There were no objections from Statutory Consultees. A non-transferable grid connection was already agreed. SSE had pre-application discussions with the Council’s Planners and believed that they had complied with all that was asked of them. The recommendation to refuse planning permission had therefore been unexpected. The recommendation appeared both inconsistent and indefensible on factual grounds, as the adjacent planning application for Rosehall had been recommended for approval; noise and transport issues could be dealt with by condition; Rosehall was closer to properties than Achany; SNH were of the view that the development of Achany alongside Rosehall was acceptable from a cumulative point of view; the Council’s landscape architect had not commented adversely on the Achany proposal; the Rosehall application claimed that 8 of its turbines lay within “yellow” 1km squares (possible development area), but this was inaccurate. Lairg Community Council supported the Achany application but had opposed Rosehall and Invercassley. SSE had not been given time to address the reasons for refusal, were firmly of the view that the application was acceptable and would pursue all avenues open to them to obtain approval.
In answer to questions raised, Mr Heyes advised that:
- turbines were placed on the ridge to take best advantage of the wind resource; this reduced the number of turbines required for the same output
- the main visual impact would be on Lairg, but Lairg Community Council had not objected to the proposals
- the final height of the turbines to blade tip would depend on which turbine models were available at the time of construction, but this would not be in excess of 105m; component parts had in any case to be transportable across the Black Bridge at Lairg, which would be a limiting factor.
The Committee was advised that questions relating to the categorisation of locations within the Strategy and the impact of cumulative issues on the individual applications should be raised when the determination of the application took place.
Community Councils
Mr R Smith, Creich Community Council, then spoke on behalf of Creich and Ardgay Community Councils. The application for 23 turbines each over 100m high was opposed on 4 grounds, namely: tourism and the economy; impact on roads; impact on the environment; and that the application was contrary to the Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy. Surveys had been carried out of residents in the Rosehall and Doune areas in 2005 which had shown that between two thirds and three quarters of residents were worried about the proposals in general and about the impact there would be on the environment; just over 75% of residents had concerns regarding the roads. These responses gave Mr Smith a mandate to speak on behalf of the residents. He expanded on the reasons behind the four grounds for objection, estimating that 30% of visitors would not return if the wind farm was built, due to loss of unspoilt scenery and the disruption during the construction period; tourism was the mainstay of the local economy. Any damage to the environment - otters and raptors in particular were feared to be at risk from the development - would also have a knock-on effect on tourism. Serious difficulties could arise should the A839 between Lairg and Rosehall be damaged or blocked by construction traffic, as emergency vehicles and school buses would require to travel a considerable additional distance along the alternative route, the A837, which was itself prone to closure from flooding. The walking routes provided through the considerable efforts of the Rosehall community itself would be in jeopardy. There was danger from pollution caused by peat slide and water run-off. The development was contrary to the Highland Council Strategy. It was possible that the above concerns might not occur, but the communities could not take the risk.
In response to questions raised, Mr Smith explained that the statistics he had quoted had been compiled using responses given by people questioned at the polling station in the 2005 elections. He confirmed that he was a professional statistician and was experienced in carrying out such surveys. Whilst accepting points made that the landscape was not currently unspoilt, there being man-made structures such as bridges, plastic coated hay-bales, large out-houses, etc., Mr Smith was of the view that there was a significant difference in scale and visibility of these in comparison with 23 flickering turbines.
Third Party Objectors
Mr Mouat and Mr Baillie then spoke on behalf of the objectors. Their concerns included:
- the proximity of the turbines to housing
- water: the water supply to the existing residential properties was already constrained, with two properties having a private supply
- employment: this was provided solely by tourism; considerable effort had been made by the community to attract visitors - £400,000 had been raised over the past 7 years to construct walks and trails, produce pamphlets and to develop a web-site; these efforts were just beginning to bear fruit; the unspoilt countryside was the area’s only asset
- roads, particularly the A839 Lairg to Rosehall road and the narrow Black Bridge at Lairg: there could be serious inconvenience if this road were blocked or closed, particularly should the alternative route, the A837, be flooded; this posed serious implications for access by emergency vehicles; there was also a danger of the roads collapsing as they were based on peat
- the construction period: this would extend beyond 9 months as works would be needed for road and bridge strengthening prior to access being taken by heavy loads
- the proposals were contrary to the Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy, and NPPG6, the latter stating that developments must be appropriate to the location and of appropriate scale
- the turbines were completely out of proportion with the landscape
- the environment: the bird survey methodology was questionable and there would be a negative impact on otters; vital salmon hatcheries and spawning beds in the Grudie Burn were at risk should the hydrology proposals prove inadequate; heavy rain could cause run off from the peat which would affect the burns and rivers
- consultation on the part of the developer with the residents of Rosehall had been insufficient.
In response to questions raised, Mr Mouat clarified that the community’s concerns with regard to water issues were twofold:(i) the hydrology studies had been carried out in good weather – there was flooding in winter of which had not been taken account and it was not known where all the burns started and ended; and (ii) the water supply was restricted in the area.
Mr K Graham outlined the RSPB’s response to proposals. He stated that the RSPB were in favour of renewable energy developments as long as these did not compromise habitat. He referred to the populations of greenshank and golden plover local to Achany, these species being rare both in the UK and internationally. It was the RSPB’s view that the populations of these species could be jeopardised by the development, due to loss of feeding grounds and through collision risk. Insufficient information had been provided by the developers to allow proper assessment of the degree of risk to the birds that the development would cause.
In answer to questions raised, Mr Graham accepted that there was insufficient hard data on collision risk. He stated that there was evidence that golden plover had been killed by turbines, but that it was not possible to assess the significance of this on the basis of existing data. With regard to greenshank, Mr Graham advised that these birds returned to nest in the same place each year and could therefore be disturbed by the turbines. Removal of the two turbines nearest the nesting areas could help to minimise this risk.
Applicants' Response to Points Raised
There being no further questions and it having been ascertained that there were no further persons who had given notice that they wished to speak and who had not been called, the applicant was asked to respond to points raised. Mr Heyes stated that tourism in the Lairg area had not been damaged by the large numbers of pylons in the area nor by the hydro dam beside the village. SSE had experience of installing roads on peat, as was demonstrated by their work at the hydro scheme at Glendoe near Fort Augustus. SSE also had a long history of assisting wildlife, as demonstrated by the fish ladders at hydro schemes. SNH, the statutory consultee on such matters, had accepted that the bird surveys were sufficient.
Those present having been asked, and having given confirmation that the Hearing had been conducted in a satisfactory manner, the Hearing for the Achany windfarm planning application was concluded.
4. Hearings Procedure – Invercassley, (Beinn Rosail), Strath Oykel, Sutherland
Application for the installation of a wind farm consisting of 23 no. turbines and associated infrastructure including access tracks, alteration of access to A837, on-site sub-station, connecting cabling, 1 no. permanent wind monitoring mast, 2 temporary power performance masts, temporary compound and borrow pits, at Beinn Rosail, Strath Oykel, Invercassley, Sutherland - 05/00400/FULSU.
The application was subject to a formal Hearings procedure. In attendance in relation to the application were:
Applicants:
Mr A Baker - Airtricity
Mr G Robertson - on behalf of Invercassley Estate
Community Councils:
Mr R Smith - on behalf of Creich, Ardgay and Lairg Community Councils
Objectors:
Mr M Keates )
Mr D Mackay ) also on behalf of objectors P Thomson, C Gilmour,
Mr C Gilmour ) B Bailey and G Bailey
Mr D Kenniston )
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB): Mr K Graham
Some 20 members of the public were in attendance as observers.
Prior to the commencement of the Hearing for Invercassley wind farm, Members requested a clarification of the means by which the 1km squares in the Strategy had been designated either “red” (presumption against development) or “yellow” (possible development areas). The Director of Planning and Development advised that in the draft Strategy a 1km square was “yellow” if there were no overriding constraints. However, in the final adopted Strategy, it had been agreed that a major commercial windfarm required a significant unconstrained area of a minimum of 4-5 km2 and thus if this could not be achieved the designation reverted to “red”.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-85-06 dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on an application for planning permission to erect 23 wind turbines (amended from 25 turbines originally) and associated infrastructure on land at Strath Oykel, Invercassley, Sutherland. The proposed wind turbines would be a maximum of 99.95 metres to the rotor tip, with a combined output of up to 46MW. Access to the site would follow the upgraded existing track off the single track A837, but 12.25km of new tracks would be required within the site. A habitat management plan had been provided. A copy of the Hearings Procedure was appended to the report. A transcript of the presentation to be made by Mr K Graham of RSPB was tabled. The recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the report.
Introduction
The Principal Planner summarised the key features of the proposal, in particular drawing attention to:
- the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy, which showed the site within an area with a presumption against development for major scale onshore wind farm development and where Policy E7 of the Renewable Energy Strategy urged a precautionary approach to wind farm development
- an outstanding objection from SNH
- the fact that all three Community Councils objected to the proposals.
Members had also been advised that the site was not covered by any statutory natural heritage designations but lay close to a number of designated sites. There had been 38 representations against the proposed development, including a petition with 29 signatures, covering a wide range of issues but having a particular focus on the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development, the perceived lack of an overall policy for the location of wind farms, the effect of the proposals on birds, the potential adverse effect on river water quality and aquatic ecology, health issues, tourism, peat stability and transportation issues.
The application was supported by an Environmental Statement and supplementary information which had been available for inspection in the Planning and Development Service at HQ, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness and at the Area Planning and Building Standards Office, The Meadows, Dornoch. Full texts of all consultation responses and letters of representation had also been available for inspection in the Planning & Development Service at HQ. The Environmental Statement, supplementary information and the consultation responses and letters of representation, were available at the meeting.
Applicants
There being no questions for the Principal Planner, Mr A Baker of Airtricity gave a presentation in support of the application. He drew attention to (i) Airtricity’s experience in developing windfarms, (ii) an additional 25 jobs which it was anticipated would be generated in Scotland by 2007, (iii) Airtricity’s commitment to using local suppliers where possible and their track record on this; (iv) the absence of objectors from the Cassley valley; (v) Airtricity’s proposals not to batch concrete on site as this was considered high risk, and in view of there being a limited public water supply; (vi) Airtricity’s plans to manage hydrology issues by using settlement lagoons; (viii) noise levels being acceptable; (viii) the potential for the development to support the growth of the economy in this sector, in line with the Council’s Strategy; and (ix) Airtricity’s habitat management scheme for the benefit of golden plover. He also gave undertakings that Airtricity would not seek to extend the wind farm, that roads would be surveyed on a weekly basis with rapid repairs being undertaken for potholes and patches, and that turbines would not be transported at peak times. He was of the view that the circulated report had incorrectly summarised the views of SNH regarding environmental issues and that SNH in fact accepted that their concerns could be dealt with.
Mr G Robertson spoke on behalf of the landowner of Balnagown Estate, Mr M Al Fayed. Mr Robertson stated that Mr Al Fayed was a long-term and committed landowner who had invested around £20million in the Highlands, including the tourism development at the Falls of Shin. Forthcoming projects included possible affordable housing development, a village green and small offices. Agriculture, forestry and fishing were not able to sustain the Estate, which relied on tourism for 60% of its income. The Estate would therefore not consider a development which it felt would harm tourism. The site chosen had the best wind resource and had the least impact on views and residents.
Members raised a number of concerns, including (i) the restricted water supply in the Rosehall area – it was emphasised that water should not be taken from the Bonar Bridge supply as this was already insufficient to allow any further housing development; (ii) there were no alternative routes up the Invercassly Glen; the single road leading west from Rosehall was not suitable for large scale vehicles, and, in the event of an accident blocking the road, emergency vehicles would be unable to gain access - even a 10 minute delay could be critical in the case of a fire; and (iii) SNH’s objection on the basis of impact on landscape, as set out in the report.
Mr Baker responded that concrete would not be batched on site as this was too high a risk. He could not comment on the concerns regarding water supply as these needed to be answered by Scottish Water. However, it would be possible to include a condition in the planning permission, if the application were approved, that air ambulances be used when necessary, and, in the case of a major disruption to the road, the fire engine could be relocated to where it would be able to respond to emergencies. He was confident that, if all parties worked together, solutions could be found.
The Area Principal Engineer stated that the same principles regarding the roads applied to all three applications, but distances for the Invercassley wind farm were greater. There would be issues of loading volume on the road and delays would be caused by large vehicle movements. However, engineering works to mitigate damage to the roads could be undertaken if the developers funded this, and movements of large loads could be timed to avoid peak hours. There would need to be consultation with the emergency services to ensure that access would be retained should the roads be closed at any point. TEC Services had no objection to the wind farms provided the access routes were made safe.
With regard to the impact on landscape, Ms C Harry of SNH advised that the turbines would be visible both locally from Invercassley, and from Ben Dearg and Assynt – one of the key attributes of the National Scenic Area was the characteristic of wild land. Mr Baker responded that there was no statutory designation of wild land. In response to further questions, Mr Baker advised that the arrangement of the turbines on the hill was such as to take best advantage of the wind resource.
Community Councils
Mr R Smith then spoke on behalf of Creich, Ardgay and Lairg Community Councils, who had all objected to the application. He stated that the grounds for objection were the same as those for the Achany proposal, namely: tourism and the economy; impact on roads; impact on the environment; and that the application was contrary to Highland Council Strategy. He stated that the proposals for all three windfarms had been considered in detail by the Community Councils. A public meeting attended by 40 residents had been held and there had been a unanimous vote to reject the Invercassley application. Tourism and the economy would be adversely affected as the unspoilt views would be lost. The Invercassley application was nearer to Assynt than the other applications and there would be an impact on the view from that area. The investment by the Rosehall community to promote tourism, including the development of paths, would be wasted. The roads were unsuitable for the transportation of 190 low loaders and emergency vehicles could be blocked – there was no alternative route west of Rosehall to Invercassley – the principle was therefore different for this application. In addition to visual impact, there was likely to be an effect on otters and raptors and there could be peat slides and run-off which would damage freshwater pearl mussels. The communities could not take these risks. The application was also contrary to the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy.
In response to questions raised, Mr Smith advised that no objections had been received from landowners who had interests in fishing on the Rivers Oykel and Cassley. He gave an assurance that the communities were against the proposals, Creich being unanimously so. Whilst accepting that there were occasions, such as following a landslide, when repairs to a bridge might be necessary and any community could face being cut off for a few days, Mr Smith contended that damage caused by “acts of God” was viewed differently from that caused by 190 heavy vehicles movements over an extended period of time. With regard to the assertion that Mr Al Fayed would not knowingly damage tourism, Mr Smith pointed out that this application was needed to help support the Estate and that the turbines would not be seen from the Falls of Shin.
Third Party Objectors
Mr M Keates, who was resident on the South side of the Kyle of Sutherland, drew attention to the beauty of the view from that area. This view would be destroyed if any of the wind farms were approved. He pointed out that the wind farms would be sited around 2-300m above sea level; the turbines would be 100m above that, and therefore out of proportion to the landscape. The turbines were not of an appropriate scale or type. Mr D MacKay, a local crofter and resident, drew attention to the significant increase in traffic and stated that, when tree-felling had taken place at the lower end of Strath Oykel, the road had collapsed within one week, causing months of disruption. He referred to the problems for emergency services should roads be closed, particularly as there was no alternative route between Rosehall and Invercassley.
Mr C Gilmour reminded Members that the application was not in an area designated for wind farm development as specified in the Council’s Strategy, and that the Local Plan stated that Rosehall was a fragile area and that tourism should be encouraged. He referred to the efforts of the community to promote tourism, with £400,000 having been raised for footpaths and marketing, the latter having focussed on the unspoilt nature of the area. Recreation activities such as fishing were crucial to the economy. The Invercassley proposal could affect the burns etc feeding into the Cassley and Oykel rivers, the latter being a Statutory Area of Conservation (SAC), a European designation, to protect the population of freshwater pearl mussels. Rainfall could be tropically heavy at times, with ephemeral burns rising. It was doubtful that mitigation measures would be able to cope with these conditions and the clean water on which the pearl mussels depended would be contaminated. Mr D Kenniston, a resident of Rosehall, expressed his concerns regarding the proximity of the turbines, the visual impact, noise and dust during construction, traffic levels even at off-peak hours, and the lack of information as to how power would be transmitted from the wind farm to the grid.
Mr K Graham outlined the RSPB’s response to the proposals. He stated that RSPB had concerns regarding upland waters, as these provided habitat for greenshank, dunlin and golden plover, the latter breeding in blanket bog and carrying out display flights in proximity to these areas. He requested that the applicant be required by condition to provide further information on the impact of wind farms on golden plover and to protect blanket bog habitat. In response to questions raised, Mr Graham confirmed that species such as sea eagle had been sighted feeding in the area.
Applicants' Response to Points Raised
There being no further questions, and it having been ascertained that there were no further persons who had given notice that they wished to speak and who had not been called, the applicant was asked to respond to points raised. Mr Baker suggested that concerns regarding access by emergency vehicles in the event of road closure might be dealt with by provision of a standby emergency vehicle during the 11 weeks of turbine transportation. The provision of a bailey bridge, should the need arise, could also be investigated. Large loads could be prevented from being moved during peak hours by condition. He was confident that the hydrology issues had been adequately assessed and taken in to account. In relation to SNH’s concerns regarding the impact on view and landscape, he referred to a letter to Airtricity dated 23 March 2006 wherein SNH had stated that “the effect on search areas of wild land” was “not significant.” In order to protect eagles, two turbines had been removed from the proposals and a habitat management plan had been devised. Golden plover had not been disturbed at Novar wind farm, near Evanton, where nest sites were 50m from the turbines, and, at Braes of Doune near Stirling, a three year programme had shown that there was no disturbance to red kite. A similar programme would be carried out for golden plover at Invercassley. There was also potential for wind farms to generate tourist numbers: for example, a visitor centre focussing on renewable energy could be developed. Transmission of electricity from the wind farm to the grid would be by two lines of wooden poles carrying 132Kv. The anticipated connection date was 2012, as the upgrade from Beauly-Denny would require to be in place prior to connection.
Those present having been asked, and having given confirmation, that the Hearing had been conducted in a satisfactory manner, the Hearing for Invercassley windfarm planning application was concluded.
5. Hearings Procedure – Rosehall Hill Forest, Rosehall
Application for the construction of a wind farm consisting of 19 turbines, formation of site tracks, borrow pits and temporary construction compound; erection of electrical control building and on-site anemometry mast, under-grounding of cabling and improvement of existing private access tracks and associated works at Rosehall Hill Forest, Rosehall, Sutherland - 05/00429/FULSU.
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 V Weighill ) E.On UK Renewables Ltd
Kathryn Owen )
Community Councils:
Mr R Smith - on behalf of Creich, Ardgay and Lairg Community Councils
Objectors:
Mr C Gilmour ) also on behalf of objectors J Mouat, C Gilmour, Mrs Hart,
Mr G Bailey ) M Rider and M Keates
Mr S Mouat )
Some 20 members of the public were in attendance as observers.
There had been circulated Report No. PDET-86-06 dated 15 September 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on an application for planning permission to erect 19 wind turbines and associated infrastructure on land at Rosehall Hill, Rosehall, Sutherland. A copy of the Hearings Procedure was appended to the report. The recommendation was to approve the application subject to the prior conclusion of an appropriate legal agreement covering matters as set out in the report and to conditions as detailed therein.
The Principal Planner summarised the key features of the proposal, including:
- the proposed wind turbines would be a maximum of 90 metres to the rotor tip, with a combined output of 25 to 30Mw
- access to the site would follow the existing forestry track off the single track A839
- the existing coniferous woodland on the site was proposed to be clear-felled and the peat bog habitat restored
- the site lay close to a number of areas covered by statutory natural heritage designations
- the proximity of residences to the development
- the Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy showed the site within an area with a presumption against development for major scale onshore wind farm development and where Policy E7 of the Renewable Energy Strategy urged a precautionary approach to wind farm development
- SNH had withdrawn their objections regarding the Special Area of Conservation (otters) subject to appropriate conditions being imposed
- all three community councils had objected
- there were no outstanding objections from statutory consultees subject to appropriate conditions being imposed.
Members had also been advised that 39 representations against the proposed development had been received, covering a wide range of issues but having a particular focus on the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development, the perceived lack of an overall policy for the location of wind farms, the effect of the proposals on birds, health issues, tourism and transportation issues.
The application was supported by an Environmental Statement and supplementary information which had been available for inspection in the Planning and Development Service at HQ, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness and at the Area Planning and Building Standards Office, The Meadows, Dornoch. Full texts of all consultation responses and letters of representation had also been available for inspection in the Planning & Development Service at HQ. The Environmental Statement, supplementary information and the consultation responses and letters of representation, were available at the meeting.
Applicants
There being no questions for the Principal Planner, Mr V Weighill (E.On) spoke in support of the application. E.on were the renewables company behind Powergen and were committed to increasing renewable energy production from all technologies including offshore wind, hydro, biomass, wave and tidal. The site at Rosehall had been chosen as it was less visible than other sites, had good wind resource, was not close to residential property, had existing access, was near the grid, and had a small footprint. Smaller turbines had been chosen as they were better suited to the scale of the landscape and would cause less traffic disruption. Transmission of electricity from the site to the grid would be by underground cable. A turbine had been removed from the original application in order to improve the way the design fitted with the landscape. Mr Weighill displayed a slide illustrating the visibility of the turbines from surrounding roads and advised that visibility would be reduced by tree cover. Concerns raised by Statutory Consultees could be taken account of by condition. The concerns of the community regarding landscape, tourism and construction traffic had been taken into consideration. A traffic management plan would be drawn up in consultation with the communities and the roads would be reinstated to their original condition. The project would cost £20million, and Highland companies would be able to bid for contracts for around half that amount. In this regard, a “meet the buyer” event had been planned.
In response to questions as to whether the two turbines nearest the dwellings could be removed as they were intrusive, Mr Weighill stated that the distance between the dwellings and the turbines was 1.5km, as required by SPPG6. The distance stipulated in the Renewable Energy Strategy was only 1km. Ms K Owen explained that the layout of the turbines had been designed to be as balanced as possible; to remove turbines would affect the balanced appearance of the application.
In answer to further questions, Mr Weighill responded that
- with regard to the restricted water supply, SEPA and SNH were satisfied that the proposals would have no significant impact
- where a cycle track forming part of the Rosehall trails used the wind farm access route, E.On would provide a new cycle track adjacent to the existing track before development commenced; the existing cycle track would be returned to use once construction was completed.
Community Councils
Mr R Smith, speaking on behalf of Creich, Ardgay and Lairg Community Councils, referred to his comments on Achany and Invercassley wind farms, which largely applied to Rosehall wind farm also. He advised the Committee that 90% of the residents of Strathcarron and Strath Oykel had signed a letter opposing Rosehall wind farm. The Community Councils objected to the proposals on the grounds of adverse impact on tourism and the economy, roads and the environment, and because the application was contrary to the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy. He emphasised that people visited this area not to look at wind turbines but for the peace and quiet, shooting and scenery, and that they would go elsewhere to find these qualities. Should the A839 be closed, the alternative route of the A837 was longer, and did not permit Heavy Goods Vehicles. The environment would be affected as there would be visual impact; there was a danger of peat slides and run-off to rivers which could affect fresh water pearl mussels and salmon. He questioned whether the community could take these risks. He also referred to the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy, paragraph 7.3.2, stating that the application lay wholly within an area where there was a presumption against onshore wind farm developments. Of the 19 turbines, he accepted that 8 lay within “yellow” squares (possible development area) but the remaining 11 were within the “red” squares (presumption against). Whilst it was accepted that the Strategy was open to some interpretation, the fact that more than half the turbines were in “red” areas indicated that the site was not appropriate. The Community Councils considered the application should be rejected.
In response to points raised regarding the positive attitude to wind farms in Spain and that tourism had not been affected by wind farms there, Mr Smith accepted that all surveys would show that some people were affected by wind farms and some not, but in this area, where unspoilt scenery was a major reason for people visiting, there was a risk that a significant part of the market would be lost. There was insufficient justification for the communities to take this risk.
Third Party Objectors
Mr Gilmour spoke for the objectors and stated that the points he had made in respect of the applications for Achany and Invercassley windfarms also applied to the application for Rosehall, but with the addition of two others: firstly, recreation facilities were of great importance to the area in terms of attracting visitors - the impact on local walks would be significant, but the developer had taken no account of the impact of the development on the walks around Glen Oykel. Secondly, the developer would be cutting down trees to waste. The previous year a small area of forestry had been felled and, thereafter, during heavy rain, the burn had run dirty and two key salmon pools had been unusable for the following 2 weeks. There was an even greater risk of this happening should the wind farm be developed. Water levels could rise very rapidly and silt traps would be unable to cope. In addition, there was a risk of leaching if concrete were batched on site. He also drew attention to the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy, National Planning Policy Guidelines, the Local Plan and the Structure Plan, which would all be breached by the development.
Mr G Bailey expressed dismay at the proposals in view of the time and effort which the local community had expended on the trails, viewpoint and shelter. The £400,000 spent would be written off. He made reference to applications in England where there had been acceptance of objections lodged on the basis that the developments were of an industrial scale and damage would be caused by the construction of access roads and concrete turbine bases. He questioned the point of the Council’s Strategy, Policy E7 in particular, if it was to be ignored. Mr Mouat expressed concerns regarding the impact on Durcha. He stated that measurements taken by a chartered surveyor had shown the nearest dwelling to be 1.456km from the nearest turbine. No date for connection to the grid was available, and house prices would be devalued in the meantime. With regard to the Council’s Strategy, he stressed that “the rules matter”. The community had believed that wind farms would not be allowed in their area and the Council’s credibility would be lost if the development went ahead. The proposals put the communities at risk and were opposed by the communities and the Community Councils. Even though the developer could be made to undertake repairs to the roads, there would be inconvenience for local people every time this was required. It was possible that the roads, being constructed over peat, would be destroyed. He urged the Committee to reject the proposals.
Applicants' Response to Points Raised
There being no questions for the objectors and it having been ascertained that there were no further persons who had given notice that they wished to speak and who had not been called, the applicant was asked to respond to points raised. Mr Weighill gave an assurance that there would be discussion with the Council, the Scottish Executive and the Emergency Services to establish plans to deal with roads issues. The community would also be involved in the development of the plans. He explained that the reasons the Council’s Strategy had designated the proposed site as “red” were based on criteria including access, MOD activities and birds. However, the access data had been found to be incorrect, the MOD had not objected to the proposals and SNH and RSPB’s concerns were being dealt with by conditions. Overall, the scheme was therefore more accurately classified as being sited in an area designated as “yellow”. Trees would only be felled within the turbine area, which would leave the majority of walks unaffected. Turbines at Novar were 57m in height, those proposed for Rosehall were to be 90m rather than 100m. Mr Weighill was confident that a grid connection would be in place by the time the wind farm construction was completed. SEPA and SNH were believed to be satisfied with the proposals for dealing with run-off.
Those present having been asked, and having given confirmation, that the Hearing had been conducted in a satisfactory manner, the Hearing for Rosehall wind farm planning application was concluded.
6. Planning Officer’s Summary – Achany Wind Farm
The Principal Planner drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 6.14.7 of Report No. PDET84/06, and advised that this required to be amended to read “Achany” rather than “Rosehall” wind farm. He then summarised the relevant planning policies, material considerations and issues relating to the application for Achany wind farm. He advised that SNH had not withdrawn their objection to the proposal relating to their Natura 2000 concerns, as additional information regarding peat stability, requested from the applicant, had only been received on 27 September 2006, which had not allowed time for SNH to properly evaluate the information prior to the Hearing. The recommendation was to refuse the application for the following reasons:
a) the proposals were contrary to Policy E2 of the Highland Structure Plan in that the visual and landscape impacts of the proposals would be significantly detrimental and adverse and that the cumulative landscape, roads and traffic, noise and cumulative effects of the proposed development when considered with the proposals for Invercassley and/or Rosehall were likely to be significant and adverse;
b) the proposals were contrary to the Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy in that the proposals lay within an area classed as having a “presumption against development” for national and major onshore wind farm projects and where Policy E7 in the Renewable Energy Strategy would apply. The applicant had failed to satisfy the precautionary approach to development stated in National Policy Planning Guideline 14 and Policy E7 of the Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy;
c) the proposals were contrary to Policy L4 of the adopted Highland Structure Plan in that the proposals did not maintain and enhance the present landscape character;
d) the proposals were contrary to Policy T6 in the Highland Structure Plan in that the proposals would have an adverse effect on important scenic views enjoyed from tourist routes and viewpoints; and
e) the proposals were contrary to the Policy N1 of the Highland Structure Plan
in that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the conservation interest for which a Natura 2000 site had been designated.
7. Determination of the Application for Achany Wind Farm (05/00398/FULSU)
The Committee was asked to determine the application for construction of a wind farm comprising 23 turbines, control building, access tracks, anemometer mast, temporary borrow pits, underground cabling and ancillary works at Achany Estate (Cnoc na Cloich-bhuaile), Lairg, Sutherland.
In discussion, the following views were expressed by Members:
- the evaluation of visual impact was very subjective, there was a need to debate what constituted visual intrusion
- the turbines would be largely hidden; taken with Rosehall, it would be difficult to find two better sites
- wind farms were recognised by Government as being required
- the turbines at Achany had a positive impact and enhanced the environment – the existing landscape was not unspoilt, there being many man-made features in the vicinity
- the cumulative impact with Rosehall was acceptable; it was difficult to separate the two applications; Rosehall and Achany could be considered as two halves of one application
- the impact of wind farms (once constructed) on the landscape was low, as long as they were well sited
- the argument that there would be a negative impact on tourism was not proven
- there was no hard evidence relating to bird strikes
- policy should be seen as guidance rather than incontrovertible
- the lifespan of wind farms was similar to that of commercial woodlands, around 20-25 years, the land would be reinstated thereafter
- the site was not in a preferred area as defined in the Council’s Strategy, but it was in a “possible” area
- the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy not based entirely on empirical data but included subjective perspectives in coming to its conclusions, it should not therefore be treated as a scientific treatise
- it was difficult to choose between the three applications – all the applicants had undertaken significant amounts of research and would be supportive of the people who would be their neighbours
- the application did not make optimal use of the landscape; the turbines were less sensitively sited than those at Beinn Tharsuinn
- the turbines were 105m high and extended over 2½ miles – the visual impact was therefore unacceptable
- the environment was the mainstay of the economy; local people had invested significantly to attract visitors to the area and these efforts were just beginning to reap rewards; the wind farm would undermine the progress made
- the landscape was valuable to most people in Highland, wind farms were a threat to the landscape; there was a danger that too many wind farms would be approved; the Highlands were becoming industrialised and this would have a negative impact on tourism
- local people were clearly against the wind farm
- the siting of the turbines along the ridge was intrusive; the turbines would swamp the landscape
- the roads were built on peat and there was a danger that they would disintegrate under repeated heavy loads.
The Director of Planning and Development drew attention to existing wind farms which were acceptable and commented that they were not positioned on a ridge; the proposals for Achany were for the turbines to be on the ridge where they would be visually prominent. Whether this was acceptable was a subjective judgement for Members to make.
The position with regard to SNH’s decision not to remove their objection in relation to peat issues was further clarified, the SNH Area Manager for North Highland stating that the additional information provided by the applicant had not been sufficient to allow SNH to make an analysis of the potential impact of the wind farm in this regard.
Thereafter, Mrs A Magee, seconded by Mr D Allan, MOVED that the application be refused on the grounds (i) as set out in the report; (ii) that each application should be looked at on its own merits and, in this case, the proposals did not make optimal use of the landscape; and (iii) that there was an outstanding objection from SNH regarding peat stability.
As an AMENDMENT Mr A R McFarlane Slack, seconded by Mr C L Goodman, moved that the application be approved, subject to (i) the satisfactory resolution of SNH’s concerns regarding peat stability; and (ii) the prior conclusion of an appropriate legal agreement and appropriate conditions, the detailed drafting of these to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Development in consultation with the Chairman and the local Member.
On the vote being taken, the outcome was as follows:
For the Motion:
Mr A S Park, Mr J H Green, Mr F R M Keith, Mrs A Magee, Mr D Allan, Mr A Torrance, Mr R MacIntyre, Mr E C MacKinnon, Mrs V MacIver, Mr I MacDonald, Mr J MacDonald, Mr R Lyon
For the Amendment:
Mr G M Smith, Mr R Durham, Mr M M Macmillan, Mr J Laing, Mr C L Goodman, Mr J S Gray, Mr A S MacFarlane Slack
The Motion was CARRIED by 12 votes to 7. The Committee accordingly REFUSED the application (a) for the reasons as set out in the report; (b) because the proposals did not make optimal use of the landscape; and (c) as there was an outstanding objection from SNH relating to peat stability.
8. Planning Officer’s Summary – Invercassley Wind Farm
Mr R Durham, as a tenant of the owner of the land at Invercassley, declared a financial interest in this item and left the room.
The Principal Planner summarised the relevant planning policies, material considerations and issues relating to the application for Invercassley wind farm. He advised that, although SNH had not objected on the grounds of proximity to the National Scenic Area, Planning Authorities were still required to take this issue into consideration. Scenery was the biggest resource for tourism. The recommendation was to refuse the application for the following reasons:
a) the proposals were contrary to Policy G6 of the Highland Structure Plan and to National Planning Policy Guideline 14 in that the proposal represented
development in or adjacent to a National Scenic Area which detracted from the quality, character, integrity and setting of the landscape, and that the scale, siting and design of the proposal were inappropriate to the National Scenic Area;
b) the proposals were contrary to Policy E2 of the Highland Structure Plan in that the visual and landscape impacts of the proposals would be significantly detrimental and adverse and that the cumulative landscape impacts of the proposed development when considered with the proposals for Achany and/or Rosehall were likely to be significant and adverse;
c) the proposals were contrary to the Highland Council Renewable Energy
Strategy in that the proposals lay within an area classed as having a resumption against development” for national and major scale onshore wind farm projects and where Policy E7 in the Renewable Energy Strategy would apply; the applicant had failed to satisfy the precautionary approach to development stated in National Planning Policy Guideline 14 and Policy E7 of the Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy;
d) the proposals were contrary to Policy L4 of the adopted Highland Structure
Plan in that the proposals did not maintain and enhance present landscape
character; and
e) the proposals were contrary to Policy T6 of the Highland Structure Plan in
that the proposals would have an adverse effect on the important scenic views enjoyed from tourist routes and viewpoints.
9. Determination of the Application for Invercassley Wind Farm (05/00400/FULSU)
The Committee was asked to determine the application for installation of a wind farm comprising 23 wind turbines and associated infrastructure including access tracks, alteration of access to A837, on-site sub-station, connecting cabling, 1 no. permanent wind monitoring mast, 2 temporary power performance masts, temporary compound and borrow pits, at Beinn Rosail, Strath Oykel, Invercassley, Sutherland.
In discussion the following views were expressed by Members:
- the proposal for Invercassley was more acceptable than the proposal for Achany; it was not seriously adverse; the wind farms at Achany and Rosehall were more visible than the Invercassley wind farm from surrounding roads
- the proposals were intrusive but not significantly adverse
- concerns relating to birds and roads could be resolved by conditions; the applicant had made a good presentation and Members were confident that matters of concern would be dealt with
- the design was well planned and enhanced the landscape
- if the application were approved, it was important that strict conditions be imposed to minimise the impact on roads in terms of safety and inconvenience; the conditions used for the Beinn Tharsuinn wind farm had proved successful and Members suggested that these could be used as a model for Invercassley
- the design, comprising two straight lines of turbines along the ridge, was “extraordinary”.
In response to a question, the Director of Planning and Development drew attention to the conditions for the Rosehall application as set out in Report No. PDET85/06, which contained a transport management plan including provision of additional lay-bys, guarantees to ensure that repairs were carried out quickly and agreements regarding the timing of heavy loads – these conditions could be imposed on the Invercassley application if permissions were granted. The conditions could require such the submission of information and the carrying out of any necessary works prior to the commencement of the construction of the wind farm.
Thereafter, Mrs A Magee, seconded by Mr D Allan, MOVED that the application be refused (i) on the grounds as set out in the report; (ii) because the design of the windfarm, comprising two straight lines of turbines, did not fit with the landscape; and (iii) as there was an outstanding objection from SNH.
As an AMENDMENT Mr C L Goodman, seconded by Mr J S Gray, moved that the application be approved on the basis that the proposals were not significantly detrimental, subject to (i) further discussion with SNH regarding their outstanding objection; and (ii) the prior conclusion of an appropriate legal agreement and appropriate conditions, in particular conditions relating to the road network in similar terms to those being proposed for Rosehall wind farm, with agreements on repairs and timing of heavy loads being finalised prior to the commencement of all works, the detailed drafting of these to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Development in consultation with the Chairman and the local Member.
On a vote being taken, outcome was as follows:
For the Motion:
Mr A S Park, Mr J H Green, Mr F R M Keith, Mrs A Magee, Mr D Allan, Mr J MacDonald
For the Amendment:
Mr G M Smith, Mr A Torrance, Mr R MacIntyre, Mr E C MacKinnon, Mrs V MacIver, Mr M M Macmillan, Mr I MacDonald, Mr J Laing, Mr R Lyon, Mr C L Goodman, Mr J Gray, Mr A R McFarlane Slack
The Amendment was CARRIED by 12 votes to 6. The Committee accordingly APPROVED the application on the grounds that the proposals were not significantly detrimental, subject to (i) further discussion with SNH regarding their outstanding objection; and (ii) the prior conclusion of an appropriate legal condition and appropriate conditions, in particular conditions relating to the roads network in similar terms to those being proposed for Rosehall wind farm, with agreements on repairs and timing of heavy loads being finalised prior to the commencement of all works, the detailed drafting of these to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Development in consultation with the Chairman and the local Member.
10. Planning Officer’s Summary – Rosehall Wind Farm
The Principal Planner briefly summarised the relevant planning policies, material considerations and issues raised in the application for Rosehall wind farm. He drew attention to the fact that this application was on a smaller scale and was more compact than the other applications considered at the meeting. The recommendation was to approve the application subject to the prior conclusion of an appropriate legal agreement covering the undernoted matters, and to conditions as set out in the report:
a) a financial bond or other agreed insurance of an amount to be specified by the Highland Council to ensure reinstatement of the public road in the event of a major catastrophic failure of the public road caused by traffic attributable to wind farm construction;
b) a “wear and tear” agreement to cover any damage to the local road network;
c) to bond a sum to correct any interference with television/radio reception during the first 12 months of operation of the wind farm;
d) a commitment to prepare and thereafter implement a conservation management plan to mitigate potential adverse effects on birds and mammals arising from the proposed development; and
e) 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 six months.
11. Determination of the Application for Rosehall Wind Farm (05/00429/FULSU)
The Committee was asked to determine the application for construction of a wind farm comprising 19 turbines, formation of site tracks, borrow pits and temporary construction compound; erection of electrical control building and on-site anemometry mast, under-grounding of cabling and improvement of existing private access tracks and associated works at Rosehall Hill Forest, Rosehall, Sutherland.
In discussion, the following points were put forward:
- the Rosehall and Achany applications should have been considered as one application – it was difficult to justify approving Rosehall but refusing Achany;
- it was disappointing that the applicants would not consider removing or relocating the two turbines nearest to the settlement; the proposals as they stood would overshadow Rosehall
- the application demonstrated the need for the Council’s Strategy to work effectively
- there was a significant difference between this application and the proposals for Achany in that the latter turbines were positioned on a ridge for a considerable distance; the application for Rosehall was smaller and more sensitively set into the landscape.
Thereafter, Mr E C MacKinnon, seconded by Mr J S Gray MOVED that the application be approved on terms as recommended in the report.
As an AMENDMENT, Mrs A Magee, seconded by Mr D Allan, moved that the application be refused on the grounds of cumulative impact and as the applicant would not consider removing or relocating the two turbines nearest to dwellings.
On the vote being taken, the outcome was as follows:
For the Motion:
Mr A S Park, Mr J H Green, Mr G M Smith, Mr R Durham, Mr R MacIntyre, Mr E C MacKinnon, Mrs V MacIver, Mr M M Macmillan, Mr I MacDonald, Mr J Laing, Mr J MacDonald, Mr R Lyon, Mr C L Goodman, Mr J S Gray, Mr A R McFarlane Slack
For the Amendment:
Mr F R M Keith, Mrs A Magee, Mr D Allan, Mr A Torrance
The Motion was CARRIED by 15 votes to 4. The Committee accordingly APPROVED the application, subject to the prior conclusion of an appropriate legal agreement (item 10 above refers) and to conditions as set out in the report.
The meeting ended at 2.05 p.m.