• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in the Aros Centre, Portree on Friday, 9 March 2007 at 1.15 p.m.

 

 

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 F R M Keith, Mr D Allan (OCD), Mrs A Magee (OCD), Mr A Torrance, Mr E C MacKinnon, Mrs V MacIver (OCD), Mr M Macmillan, Mr W Fulton, Mr S J Shiels, Mr N Donald, Mr R Wynd, Mrs L MacDonald (OCD), Mr B M S Dunlop, Mr A Gordon, Dr M E M Foxley, Mr B Clark, Mrs O J MacDonald and Mr A R McFarlane Slack (OCD).

 

2.           Planning Application for the Construction of Windfarm Comprising 18 Turbines, Wind Monitoring Mast, Electricity Sub Station, Borrow Pits and Site Roads at Edinbane, Isled of Skye (as amended) – 02/00089/FULSL

 

The Committee was asked to consider this application in accordance with the Hearing Procedure, a copy of which had been circulated with the Committee papers for ease of reference.

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

The application was subject to a formal hearings procedure.  In attendance in relation to the application were:

      

 

Some 56 Members of the public were in attendance as observers.

 

Earlier in the day, Members had viewed the proposed site from a number of locations from which the turbines would be visible, both to residents in the locality and to tourists travelling along the A87, A850 and A863 routes between Portree and Ose.  Photomontages had been provided in respect of the four scheduled viewing places and Members had been given advice as to how to use the montages correctly.  Features of Ben Aketil windfarm construction were pointed out, as was the proposed location of the junction of the access road to the Edinbane site from the A863. At the request of third parties, several additional stops were made en route to enable objectors to draw Members’ attention to the visual impact of the proposals at particular points.  Matters pertaining to general consideration of the application had not been discussed.

 

Prior to the commencement of business, the Chairman read through the Hearing Procedures.  He sought and was given an assurance by all parties that they had received a copy of the Procedures and understood the process, including that the time allocated to Applicants and Objectors to make representations had, with the agreement of the Chairman, been extended to 30 minutes for each side.  He also requested that, should any person present find they were unable to hear what was being said, they draw this to his immediate attention.

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET-13-07  dated 27 February 2007 by the Director of Planning and Development on an application for planning permission for the erection of a windfarm at Edinbane, Isle of Skye.  Previously for 27 turbines, the application was now for 18 wind turbines, wind monitoring mast, electricity sub station, borrow pits and site roads on land approximately 2km to the south of Edinbane and 8km to the east of Dunvegan.  The turbines would be a maximum of 100m height to blade tip.

 

The nearest residential property to the proposed windfarm was at Glen Vic Askill, approximately 1km to the south.  The nearest communities to the site were those at Edinbane and Bracadale, which lay approximately 2km and 5km from the nearest turbine respectively.  

 

The site was not covered by any statutory natural heritage or landscape designations, but there were nearby proposed areas of Great Landscape Value, focused on sea lochs.  The Cuillin Massif was designated a Special Protection Area (SPA), under the EC Birds Directive, for its golden eagle interest.

 

655 timeous and 6 non-timeous objections individual representations and a petition containing 1676 signatures against the proposal had been received.  The grounds of objection covered a wide range of issues from national policy to visual impact and the effects of the proposal on tourism and birds in particular.  The issues of visual impact and birds also related to cumulative effects with the approved Ben Aketil windfarm nearby.

 

126 letters of support had been received, based on the local generation of green power, support for local employment and disputing the risk to golden eagles.

 

There were no objections from statutory consultees.  Having been provided with further information on eagles, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) had withdrawn its earlier objection to the proposal.  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) however, maintained its objection.

 

In addition to the degree to which the proposal complied with the Development Plan policy and the Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines, the key considerations were the visual impact of the development, peat stability and the impacts on birds, in particular the golden eagle, both as an application on its own merits and cumulatively with the nearby approved Ben Aketil windarm.

 

The recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement and conditions as set out on pages 23-30 of the report.  The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement which had been available for inspection at Council Headquarters in Inverness and in Portree prior to the meeting.

 

Hearings Procedure

 

Introduction

 

The Team Leader, Development Management, reiterated the information given above, and in particular drew attention to :

 

·        Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) having withdrawn its objection in light of the additional information supplied by the applicant, whilst the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) had maintained its objection

·        Structure Plan Policies G2, E1 and E2, which indicated that the application should be approved unless it was “significantly detrimental”

·        the Skye and Lochalsh Local Plan, which supported Renewable Energy but discouraged poor design and developments which were conspicuous along tourist routes

·        the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines, which designated the proposed site as a “red” area – i.e. there was a presumption against wind farm development at that location

·        national policy, which generally supported renewable energy developments provided the impact was not unacceptably detrimental.

 

Applicants

 

Mr D Hodkinson gave a brief overview of the history of the application and referred also to European targets for renewable energy.  He stated that the output of the windfarm had been decreased from 49 to 23 Megawatts, by removing turbines to the high ground to the east of the site, to reduce the risk to eagles.  A comprehensive Environmental Assessment Statement had been prepared.  He also gave assurances regarding his experience in project management of this kind, stating that Amec would work safely, cause minimum inconvenience to residents, respect the environment, and work with the Highways authorities to ensure any disruption to the roads was minimised.  Flood risk would be minimised through mitigation measures and private water supplies would not be affected.  The borrow pits would be reinstated after construction; Amec would agree to a £400,000 financial security in this regard should planning permission be granted.

 

Mr R Hilleary then spoke and drew attention to the history of the application, which had been first mooted some 14 years previously.  There was general support amongst the local crofters, but in his view the development had been delayed through the activities of an unrepresentative minority, who, he alleged, had used both threats and intimidation to try to achieve their ends.  Wind energy assisted towards CO² reduction and the site was one of the best in Highland.  He was also of the view that the threat to eagles had been overstated as these birds had excellent eyesight.  The windfarm was expected to bring £1m to the local economy over its life-time; this would help combat remoteness and would be good for tourism.  Climate was changing; the development would be good for the planet, for Scotland and for the community.

 

Mr G Campbell then stated that much thought had gone into the crofters’ decision to support the application.  The main reasons for their support lay in the decreasing financial returns from crofting, and the drift of young people away from the area.  It was hoped the windfarm would help address both these issues.  Amec had carried out many tests and studies before deciding to go ahead with the proposal.  In response to concerns raised by the crofting community regarding loss of grazing land, the Estate had purchased additional land which would be used to replace that lost.  A fund was in place to decommission the turbines after the end of their 25 year life.  Mr Campbell curtailed his statement, as he found the lighting conditions made it difficult for him to read his notes, but he concluded by saying that local people should be allowed to pass on their way of life to future generations.

 

Mr S Whatley explained that he had been democratically elected to the Steering Group for the Edinbane Community Benefit Company.  He fully supported the application for the following reasons:  for the good of the community, as the finance would help support crofting; for the good of the wider Country and the planet, as it was sensible to use alternative energies, given that fossil fuel would be in short supply in years to come; for the good of his own business, as tourists were interested in windfarms.  He had also been unable to find evidence that windfarms were detrimental to eagle populations and questioned why this might be.

 

Mr B McAllister stated that the Highland Renewable Energy Group had made the case to Government that the Highlands was a potential centre of excellence for renewable energy of all kinds.  Wind energy was the best option at present for meeting renewable energy targets.  The Group sought development of training in this industry, and believed that this could help bring people back to the area.  There were currently 650 jobs in the Renewables Sector and major scope for this figure to increase, particularly if the University of the Highlands and Islands became involved in providing appropriate training.  Some 40 local businesses had attended a meeting arranged recently by E.on following their planning approval for Rosehall Windfarm, Lairg.  Renewable Energy was essential in tackling fuel poverty.  If the application was refused today, after so many years in development, a negative message would be sent to the industry.  Renewable Energy helped mitigate climate change. 

 

Mr N Beaton stated that much of the community at Struan would be affected by the Edinbane windfarm.  There was overwhelming support for the development; all their public meetings demonstrated this.  The local crofters were most directly affected and were custodians for future generations.  He had been dismayed at the delays and the reduction in scale and found it perverse that non-elected bodies had objected to the proposals.  He trusted that the elected Members would support the development.

 

Ms M MacDonald then gave an explanation of the action taken by Skeabost and District Community Council to ascertain the views of the community regarding the proposed windfarm, including the holding of a local, independently scrutinised poll.  There had been a 92% response to the poll, with 57% of people indicating that they were in favour of the development, 30% against, and 15% indicating no position.  Skeabost and District Community Council had taken the view that, as 70% of the Edinbane community did not oppose the windfarm, the Community Council should support the proposal and seek to maximise community benefit.  She dismissed the findings of an earlier meeting whose outcome had suggested that the community did not support the application, on the basis that the meeting had not been properly constituted, had been attended by people outwith the Edinbane area, and had been orchestrated by the anti-windfarm lobby.  The community needed the windfarm.

 

The Chairman noted that the 30 minutes allotted to the applicants had been exceeded.  Mr Hodkinson gave a brief summary, stating that most of the letters of support had come from Skye, and reiterating his undertaking that the work would be carried out safely, with respect for the community and the environment.  He also stated that, where possible, requirements would be sourced from Highland businesses.  

 

Third Party Objectors

 

There being no representatives from Statutory Consultees wishing to speak, and no objecting Community Councils, third party objectors were given the opportunity to address the Committee.

 

Mr J Hodgson stated that if those who benefited financially from the development were excluded from the Skeabost and District poll results, the percentage of people in favour of the windfarm was less than half.  Across Skye, twice as many people had objected to the development than had supported it.

 

Dr A MacLennan stated that it was the view of RSPB that both golden eagles and sea eagles would be adversely affected by the proposals.  She gave a presentation showing areas where both types of eagle were active - this was in particular over ridges where they made use of thermal up-draughts - and gave statistics as to both species’ physical dimensions, populations, population trends, range, and roost sites.  She drew attention to SNH’s recommendation that the three turbines sited at the southern end of the site be removed on landscape grounds.  In relation to the injuries sustained by eagles, she showed a slide of an eagle killed by a wind turbine, and stated that even minor injuries could tip the survival balance by limiting eagles’ hunting ability etc.  The surveys carried out by the applicant had been piecemeal, but all the data sets showed there was a high level of golden eagle activity in the area and an increasing level of sea eagle activity – collision risk was therefore high, with 22 eagles predicted to be killed by the combined Ben Aketil and Edinbane windfarms over their 25 year period of operation (a mortality rate of 0.9 per year).  The adult population would be compromised if more than 1 mortality per year occurred, which left very little room for error.  Also, the number of chicks in the last two years had been the lowest in 25 years.  The reasons for this were not known and it was not clear whether this was a trend.  Under EU law, the Council had a duty to protect the Cuillins Special Protection Area (SPA).  The Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy showed the site as being in a “Red” area, with a presumption against development.  The application did not accord with the Structure Plan and a precautionary approach had not been taken – this latter was required given the narrowness of the survival margins.

 

Mr J Hodgson stated that, in his view, the advice of the Director of Planning and Development was incorrect.  Correspondence from his solicitors to the Council regarding the Council’s failure to comply with EU law had not been answered.  He also alleged that the European Commission was poised to take legal action against the UK Government with regard to Council approval for the Edinbane application.  He played a DVD demonstrating the noise generated by wind turbines, with commentary by individuals adversely affected by this.  He contended that the noise issue had not been properly assessed and stated that people living 3-4km from the Farr windfarm, Inverness-shire, had found the noise ruined their enjoyment of being outside; that residents close to Causeymire windfarm in Caithness had likened the noise to an airfield or motorway, with no remission at night; and that similar problems were experienced at the Glens of Foundland windfarm, near Huntly.  In all these cases the developers had said there would be no significant noise nuisance.  There was increasing evidence that windfarm noise was making people ill.  The application was for an area designated “Red” in the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy – the developer must therefore demonstrate that no other viable sites were available and must take a precautionary approach.  Mr Hodgson showed a short film of the Derrybrien peat slide in Ireland in 2003 and stated that the Health and Safety Executive had said that Edinbane lay in an area of peat instability – had Derrybrian occurred at Edinbane, people would have been killed.  However, no expert opinion had been given by the applicant.  TEC Services officers had indicated that they considered the proposals to be acceptable, but had also stated that they would not be held responsible if this were found to be not so.  No details had been provided in response to letters from SWAG’s solicitor inquiring as to the number and location of sites where the peat had been inspected.  With regard to the Special Area of Conservation, European law stated that an assessment must be carried out which showed beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there would not be an adverse effect on the Golden Eagle population – the RSPB maintained that there was doubt.  It would therefore be illegal to approve the application.  The Director of Planning and Development and the Councillors would be responsible if the law were found to be broken.  

 

Ms H Abendschein referred to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and stated that there had been no attempt to quantify the impact of the development on tourist numbers and income to Edinbane.  The material used had been obtained from VisitScotland.  The applicants appeared not to have spoken to local businesses, including the Lodge Hotel, the Campsite or owners of self-catering cottages.  There were 184 bed-nights in the Edinbane area, plus 134 camping pitches, and up to £1m income for the Edinbane area was generated by tourists per annum, which far exceeded the amounts to be provided by community benefit.  The EIA also did not consider the impact of a peat slide.  The peat had been identified as being unstable and accommodation providers had a duty of care to their guests.  Should a peat slide occur, TEC Services’ caveat would not prevent the option of Councillors being sued individually.  

 

Mr B Palmer stated that the campsite he had bought in 1999 and in which he had invested heavily would suffer a considerable loss as a result of the windfarm.  He had been subject to property damage and theft at the hands of windfarm supporters.  He alleged, amongst other things, that Amec had lied regarding Community Council consultations.  The Edinbane application should not be considered until the Ben Aketil windfarm was complete.  The application did not comply with the Local Plan or the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy and was unduly conspicuous from tourist routes.  The windfarm would not result in any less coal being burnt by conventional power generators.  There would be no local jobs or use of local machinery.  The development would have an impact on the hill 175 years hence.  Amec would receive £4m from the public purse for operating the windfarm – this was money being taken out of Skye and out of Scotland.  The application was a scam, based on money, greed and corruption.  The assertions made by Skeabost and District Community Council regarding local public support were untrue.  The Chairman cautioned Mr Palmer as to the personal nature of his more forceful remarks.

 

The Chairman noted that the objectors had by this time spoken for 33 minutes, and urged the last speaker to be as brief as possible.

 

Ms S Wallace stated that Edinbane was a European issue in terms of the SAC, and that there would be an impact on tourism.  There was a duty of care towards the Golden and Sea Eagles, France had been fined £5.8 by Europe for neglecting this.  The purpose of the development was to make money, including for local people, but a large fine could outweigh any benefit.  She questioned who would remove the turbines if the windfarm failed.  Tourists would prefer to see birds flying than killed by turbines. 

 

In response to questions raised, Dr MacLennan advised that (i) there was no sound evidence that sea eagles were displacing golden eagles; the population of golden eagles had remained stable over the previous 30 years, although there was concern that, with falling productivity levels (the number of chicks), there could be a delayed impact on population in future years as eagles were long-lived birds; and (ii) whilst the estimated strike rate and the productivity rate for golden eagles were similar, the figures would not balance each other out as there were other mortality causes for golden eagles apart from turbine strike – an increase in life threatening hazards could cause the population to go into decline.

 

In response to concerns regarding peat stability, Mr Hodgson advised that peat was by nature an unstable material, and that the situation at Edinbane was as dangerous as in other places.  Risks arose when peat was disturbed.  The incident in Derrybrien had been the result of bad practice and the developers were being held responsible.

 

In accordance with procedure, the Chairman sought and was given confirmation from the objectors and applicants that there were no further parties wishing to speak.

 

Applicants’ response to points made

 

Mr M Trinick of Bond Pearce LLP, called on to speak by the applicant, stated that neither he nor the Director had received any details regarding the alleged intervention by the EU Commission and he would be astonished if this were the case.  SNH took its role seriously, had assessed the information provided, and had concluded after 7 years that there would be no adverse effect on the SAC.

 

In accordance with procedure, the Chairman sought confirmation from the objectors and applicants that they were satisfied with the way the hearing had been conducted.  The applicants made reference to the deficiency in lighting which had caused difficulties for one of the people speaking in their support.  On the objectors’ side, Mr Palmer said that he had been prevented from saying all he had wanted to say, which, he claimed, would have been to state the truth, however unpleasant that might be.  Ms Wallace stated that she had been given insufficient time to make the points she wished, and that she had been made to hurry.  The Committee NOTED the comments made.

 

Summing Up and Discussion

 

The Team Leader, Development and Management reiterated the planning considerations for the Committee to take into account in determining the application.  He was of the view that there was sufficient information before Members to enable them to come to a decision.   The main planning considerations were listed, and Members were asked to bear in mind that PAN58 advised with regard to Environmental Impact Assessments that it was to be expected that there would only be a small number of major issues, perhaps just one, on which the acceptability of a proposal would hinge.  Most of the issues would be in the short term and could be adequately controlled by mitigation or condition.  The main impacts for the Edinbane application related to landscape and visual amenity and ornithology, in particular the golden eagle population, both in respect of this development in itself, and also cumulatively with Ben Aketil.

 

Although the Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy identified the site as a “Red” area, the submission pre-dated the Strategy and was based on the Highland Council guidelines of 1995, which had identified the area as acceptable.  Evaluation of visual impact was a subjective matter.  The proposals would become a major feature of the landscape, but the Team Leader was of the view that the development could co-exist with the windfarm at Ben Aketil.  The turbines would not significantly affect the view from tourist destinations such as MacLeod’s Tables, Dunvegan and the Storr.  SNH was of the view that the favourable conservation status of Hen Harriers and Sea Eagles would not be affected and, although it had been acknowledged that a problem could arise in future years for Golden Eagles if not enough young were produced, SNH considered that there were sufficient young eagles within the Skye population.  On this basis SNH was of the view that the integrity of the SPA would not be adversely affected by the proposals.  The RSPB did not agree with this assessment, but SNH was the Council’s statutory adviser.

 

SEPA had asked for some of the conditions to be clarified, and in this regard the Team Leader requested that, should the application be approved, authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Development to amend the conditions to address SEPA’s concerns.  

 

Discussion followed, with a range of comments being made, including that:

 

·        Members were aware of their duty to make a decision on the basis of what they had seen and heard – in this regard, legal advice was given that, whilst it was the case that attempts could be made to sue the Council or Councillors individually in the event of a peat slide, if it could be shown that they had acted in good faith, any such action was unlikely to succeed

·        if the EU were seeking to legally challenge the Edinbane development, it was extremely strange that the Council had not been apprised of this

·        studies in Spain had shown that windfarms were not detrimental to tourism

·        the windfarm would bring positive benefits to the area, encourage green tourism and help retain young people in the area.

·        peat could slide at any time, with or without disturbance; Amec and TEC Services had assessed the peat at Edinbane and had agreed that the risks were low; there were not the resources to survey all the peat in the Highland area to identify any areas at particular risk

·        Community Benefit was not part of the planning considerations.

 

Mr I MacDonald, local Member for Snizort and Trotternish, stated that he accepted that the survey carried out by Skeabost and District Community Council represented the views of local people.  He was of the view that the application had been rigorously scrutinised and the recommendation was fair and just.

 

Decision

 

After discussion, Mr I MacDonald, seconded by Mr J Laing MOVED that the application be approved in accordance with the Director’s recommendation, subject to the prior conclusion of an appropriate legal agreement covering matters as set out in the circulated report, and to conditions as detailed in that report, with power delegated to the Director of Planning and Development to amend some of these conditions to address late comments received from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

 

There being no amendment, the Committee unanimously AGREED the terms of the motion.

 

 

The meeting ended at 3.10 p.m.