Agenda

Minutes of Special Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications and Review Committee held in the Ross Institute, Halkirk on Tuesday 12 May 2009 at 1.00pm.

Present
Mr D Mackay
Lady M Thurso
Mr W Fernie
Mr G Smith
Mr D Bremner
Mr R Coghill
Mr J McGillivray
Mr M Rattray

Non-Members also present:
Mr W Mackay

Officials in attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr G Mooney, Principal Planner
Mr I Moncrieff, Principal Engineer
Miss K McLeod, Principal Solicitor
Mr F Rennie, Solicitor
Miss A Macrae, Administrator

Mr D Mackay in the Chair.

1.    Site Inspection

Prior to the commencement of the meeting all Members present attended a site inspection in relation to the application to be considered. 

2.    Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr G Farlow, Mr R Rowantree, Mr W Ross, Mrs C Wilson, and Mr D Flear on other Council business, and Mr R Durham and Mr A Torrance.

3. Planning Applications Determined

3.1 Erection of 5 Wind Turbines, 60m High to Hub, Formation of Access Roads and Associated Infrastructure, Construction  Compound and Electrical Control Building (In Detail) and Formation of Visitor Centre Comprising of Fishing Lochan with Enclosed Crannog Style Centre, Archaeological Trail and Woodland Walk (In Outline) at Land to the North of Broubster Cottage, West Shebster, Thurso 05/00594/FULCA

Mr W Mackay had applied for and been granted a local Member vote in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-21-09 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending approval of the application 05/00594/FULCA by Mr and Mrs C Sutherland and Family for the erection of 5 wind turbines, 60m high to hub, formation of access roads and associated infrastructure, construction compound and electrical control building (in detail) and formation of visitor centre comprising of fishing lochan with enclosed crannog style centre, archaeological trail and  woodland walk (in outline) at land to the north of Broubster Cottage, West Shebster, Thurso.

The Chairman confirmed that the application would proceed under the Hearings Procedure.

The Principal Planner summarised the application, the relevant planning policies as set out in the report, together with the consultations carried out and the representations received.    He clarified the RSPB's position in relation to the application, advising that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had confirmed that they would not maintain their objection to the proposal on the grounds that the conditions recommended at Section 3.4 of the report be incorporated into the permission.

The Principal Solicitor advised that the objectors to the application had requested that the time allowed for presenting their case be extended to twenty minutes, and suggested that if Members agreed to the request then the applicants be allowed a similar time to present their case.

The Committee agreed to extend the time allowed for the objectors to present their case, on the basis that the applicants would be afforded the same amount of time for their submission. 

The Chairman invited the applicants to present their case.  Mr C Sutherland advised that the application had been brought forward on the grounds that the local economic situation had caused him to diversify his business interests, against the background of the Scottish Government’s drive in relation to renewable energy.  The site at West Shebster had proven the superior site from three potential sites considered, on environmental grounds, the potential impact on wildlife, and the fact that greater wind speeds could be achieved. He outlined the extensive local community consultation he had undertaken, in response to which the main concern related to the scale of the development, the original proposal being for 25 turbines. Photomontages prepared for that proposal showed that the development would dominate the landscape, and therefore the proposal had been reduced to 5 turbines.  The proposal would not impact on nearby dwellings, the nearest being unoccupied.  The development would also seek to promote tourism in the area by the provision of a tourist facility on the site.

Responding to questions from Members, Mr C Sutherland confirmed that that there would be no noise nuisance affecting local residents, and that while the turbines would be visible they would be positioned so that they would not dominate the view.  He advised that the grid connection would be taken over SSE land to the substation at Dounreay.  This was not covered by a legal agreement as planning consent had to be secured before an appropriate agreement could be finalised.   Regarding the suggestion that the turbines could be repositioned further away from Shebster, Mr Sutherland advised that this would impact on other houses in the area.

The Chairman then asked the Community Council representative to address the meeting.

Mr W Brown, Caithness West Community Council, raised a number of points in relation to the application, as follows;

• Expressing concern at the lack of time the public had been afforded to scrutinise the report

• He objected to the reference contained in Section 3.3 of the report that the Community Council members were not representative of the general public opinion on this proposal 

• The Community Council had 9 members of which 3 were in support of wind farms, and therefore contained a much higher proportion of supporters than existed in the area in general

• The Community Council had not been able to carry out a postal ballot on this application due to lack of funds, however he pointed to the large number of objections to the application against the list of supporters, alleging that some of the local supporters of the application would gain financially from the development, and expressing the opinion that there was no local support for the scheme

The Chairman then invited the objectors to state their case. 

Mrs C Macdougall raised the following objections to the development;

• The topography of the site and the height and siting of the turbines would result in the village of Shebster being overwhelmed by the development

• Concern at the impact of shadow flicker from the turbines on residential properties to the north of the development, and the fact there was no reference in the recommended planning conditions to the statement in the report that the turbines could be shut down at particular periods to prevent shadow flicker

• The development would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the area and the lives of local people

• Little or no consideration had been given to local residents in the environmental statement, and other settlements within 5 km of the development

• In combination with the proposed Baillie wind farm, the development would have a long term detrimental impact on local amenity, contrary to SPP6

• The advice from an MSP was that the broad criteria for assessing applications was that development should not be considered if there was a significant long term detrimental effect on those living close by.  In this case the development was only 2km away from the local community

• The proposal for a crannog style visitor centre and other tourist related activities should be considered as a separate application.  The facilities were out of context in the proposed location, and would not enhance the local landscape, and that this part of the application would only be progressed if the turbines were approved.

• The output of the wind farm would not be significant in term of the Government’s renewable energy targets

• Expressing concern at the visual impact of the development which would be visible from other counties

• The cumulative impact on Shebster, associated with the development and the proposed Baillie wind farm, combined with other existing wind farms in the area would be unacceptable

Mr D Craig expressed the following views;

• There would be no long term jobs created as a result of the development, nor community enhancement in any form

• The report stated that the development would make a significant contribution to the Government’s and Council’s renewable energy targets, however targets were not a material planning consideration

• The environmental statement overstated the CO2 saving  based on the British Wind Energy Authority’s calculations, and in no way would achieve significant savings or a contribution to targets

• The environmental statement contained sweeping statements that there would be no adverse effects associated with the development.  However he suggested that would be a significant adverse impact on Shebster and Broubster, and the assessment of other local communities had been ignored.

• The Highland Renewable Energy Strategy was ignored in the environmental statement, noting that there was a presumption against development in the area even for local schemes under 5MW.  HRES remained in force, and therefore was a material consideration

• Half of the site is located in a PP3 area as detailed in the Local Plan in relation to which there was a presumption against development

• The site selection was not valid, and had been chosen because the developer had an interest in the sites, rather than because they were the best sites available in the area

• The impact on the amenity of the residents of Shebster and Broubster would be substantial and adverse 

• The application did not conform to Policies G2, G3 and E2

• There were reasonable alternative sites elsewhere in the County, and therefore it did not accord to Policy G3

• The application should be rejected on the grounds of impact upon residential amenity to those living in Shebster and Broubster

Mr S Young expressed concern at the cumulative impact of the proposals on central Caithness, referring to developments at the Causeymire, Achnairn, and Forss, and potential developments at Baillie and Camster.  He cautioned that the cumulative impact would only become apparent after developments had been constructed, and the application should therefore be rejected on the above grounds.

Mr J Webster referred to a separate application by another developer where the turbines were located 600m away from houses and had been refused by the Council and the decision upheld at a PLI, and that the Reporter had concluded that there was no lower threshold for the number of turbines where the impact on residential amenity should not be taken into account.  He was astounded that the visual impact on Shebster was considered to be acceptable, and expressed concern at the impact on the A836, as a main tourist route.

Mr Macdougall noted that there were a considerable number of conditions recommended to be attached to the permission, many of which should have been dealt with through the environmental statement.  The application was therefore premature and should be deferred to allow further information to be submitted.   He also expressed concern that approval may lead to an application for an extension to the wind farm, as had occurred with other developments. 

The applicants then responded to the points raised by the objectors, alleging that the local Community Council did not represent a broad range of views across the community.  Shadow flicker was unlikely to be a problem, and in terms of the environmental statement the occupier of the property most likely to be affected had no concerns about the development.  In terms of the relevant policies, there was no minimum separation distance stated in SPP6 or PAN45.  In terms of the cumulative impact this was a small local development in wind farm terms, and would bring social, environmental and economic benefits to the community.   

In accordance with the procedure the Chairman declared the Hearing to be at an end and sought confirmation that (i) there were no further parties wishing to speak, and (ii) the parties were satisfied with the way in which the Hearing had been conducted.  Mr W Brown confirmed that he was satisfied with the conduct of the Hearing with the caveat that there there should have been more time afforded to the public to read the report.  All other parties confirmed that they were satisfied with the conduct of the Hearing.  

The Principal Planner, in summary, advised that the acceptability of the proposals with regard to their visual impact was a subjective matter, and it was judged that the significant visual impacts of the proposal on the residential property were considered acceptable given the separation distances from the houses.  The development was of a scale to provide a significant contribution to the Government’s and Council’s renewable energy targets, and considerable weight had to be attached to this factor.  He therefore recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

During the debate the local Members expressed the following views;

• The list of conditions was exhaustive, and if approved a question existed as to how effective they would be

• The conditions recommended by the RSPB should be incorporated into the conditions attached to any permission

• Expressing concern at the proximity of turbine 3 to the public road on the grounds of public safety, suggesting that conditions in this respect should be strengthened

• Referring to the Local Plan, the site was partly located in a PP3 area in relation to which there was a presumption against development

• The development failed to meet the criteria contained in the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy, in relation to the visual, cumulative and sequential impact, and therefore the precautionary approach had not been overcome

• From the photomontages it was clear that the development would dominate the landscape

• There would be a detrimental impact on the A836 tourist and cycle route, and this would therefore impact on the tourist industry in the area

• The cumulative impact on Caithness would be significant.  National guidance provided that consideration could be given to other applications if they were at an advanced stage.  If the Baillie wind farm was approved there would be a cumulative impact on local residents

• HRES was a material planning consideration that could not be ignored and there was a presumption against development in proximity to houses

• There was also a presumption against development in proximity to archaeological sites.  This was a historic landscape, which contained a great wealth of archaeological sites, and the site would be best enjoyed as a natural landscape

• In terms of SPP6 it was not unreasonable to suggest that could the proposal should be assessed against Annex A. Although a small development, the height of the turbines were that to be found in a Section 36 application.

• The development did not meet the separation distance in SPP6 and the application should be assessed against this criterion.  The landscape could not hide the development and therefore the precautionary approach should be maintained 

Further comments from Members were as follows;

• Suggesting that the visitor centre was not located on the main tourist route and expressing doubt as to whether it would attract tourists to the area. The style of visitor centre proposed was also not in keeping with the area.

• The development would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents

• There had been no means to view the cumulative impact of the proposal should the Baillie wind farm be approved

• Expressing the view that SNH’s advice was contradictory, stating that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the site, but that there would be a significant effect on qualifying interests

• Grave concern that there was no mitigation provided in respect of the proximity of the development to houses, especially turbines 2 and 3 as detailed in the site plan

• Proposing that some turbines 2 and 3 be set back to the centre of the site, in mitigation of the impact on local residents

• Expressing reservations that the site represented the best location for the development

Mr G Smith questioned whether the application be approved on the basis that turbines 2 and 3 be withdrawn from the development, or alternatively be set back on the site.  The Principal Solicitor advised that this represented a significant material change to the application, and that Members should either refuse or approve the application as submitted.

Following further discussion the Committee agreed to refuse the application on the grounds that (i) the application failed to accord with Highland Structure Plan policies E2 and G2 having been assessed as significantly detrimental on grounds of visual impact and individual and community residential amenity (ii) the application had been assessed to significantly damage the amenity of residents at Mackay Terrace, Shebster and therefore the application failed to accord with the Caithness Local Plan policy PP3. Although only part of the application site was within Plan policy PP3, non-compliance with the Highland Structure Plan policies E2 and G2 justified a precautionary approach to assessment of the application against the Local Plan, (iii) the application failed to accord with the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy (iv) the application would have a negative effect on tourism, given visibility of the development from the A836 tourist route and the national cycle route (v) the application would cause a significant long term detrimental impact on the visual and residential amenity of residents of Mackay Terrace, Shebster given the separation distance between the turbines and the properties (vi) If the Baillie Wind Farm application was approved on appeal there would be a significant long term detrimental cumulative impact.

The meeting concluded at 3.00pm.