Agenda

Minutes of Special Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee held in Dunbeath Community Centre, Portormin Road, Dunbeath on Tuesday 9 February 2010 at 11.40am.

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

Non-Members also present:
Mr D Flear (Item 3.1)

Officials in attendance:
Mr I Hargrave, Area Manager (Item 3.1)
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Mr I Moncrieff, Principal Engineer
Mr D Proudfoot, Environmental Health Officer (Item 3.1)
Ms S Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr P Adams, 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 the application to be considered. 

2.    Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

Apologies for absence were submitted from Mr G Farlow, Mr R Rowantree, Mrs C Wilson and Mr A Torrance, on other Council business.

Mr R Coghill declared a non financial interest in item 3.1, having previously declared his opposition to the development, and took no part in the discussion or determination of this item.

The Clerk advised that Mr R Rowantree had declared a financial interest in Item 3.1 on the grounds that he was a contractor for a company with wind farm interests, and had confirmed he would not attend the meeting.

3.     Planning Applications Determined

3.1 Electricity Act 1989 – Section 36 – Application to the Scottish Government – 22 Turbine (66MW) Wind Farm, West of Dunbeath for West Coast Energy 05/00113/S36CA

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

There had been circulated Report No.  PLC-01-10 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that the Council do not object to the application to the Scottish Government under the Electricity Act 1989 for a 22 Turbine (66MW) Wind Farm, West of Dunbeath for West Coast Energy 05/00113/S36CA

Prior to commencement of business, the Chairman confirmed that the application would proceed under the Hearings procedure.

Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner, summarised the various elements of the application, the consultations carried out and the representations received, together with the relevant planning policies as set out in the report.  Responding to questions which had arisen at the site visit he confirmed that the Boulfruich turbines were 68m high, and that the distance between the development and the nearest wind farm at Boulfruich was 5km.  Referring to the report he clarified the specific terms of SNH’s response which had noted likely significant effects upon the qualifying interests of the Caithness Peatlands SPA and the Caithness Cliffs SPA, but that SNH had raised no objection to the application in relation to the impact on the integrity of these sites.  He also reported that Historic Scotland had objected to the application on the basis that it would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of scheduled ancient monuments in the area.

The Chairman then invited the applicants to present their case. 

Mr W Heller, Falck Renewables, and Mr G Jewson, RDC reported that the application was being progressed in partnership with Achorn and Dunbeath Sheep Stock Clubs.  The local community would actively participate in and benefit financially from the development and the scheme would create local employment in a fragile rural locality.  The site selection process, project history, and level of local support for the development was explained, and it was reported that the local Community Council had not objected to the application.  SNH had not objected on avian and ecological grounds, and both environmental and technical issues relating to archaeology and birds had been addressed. In summary it was reported that the site benefited from good wind speeds, a grid connection offer by SSE, land availability and local crofter support, and that the development would have a minimal impact on the area.

Mr A Sinclair, representing Achorn and Dunbeath Sheep Stocks Club expressed his support for the development emphasising that in a climate of declining subsidies, it was important that crofters diversified to secure their future.  Local crofters and the wider community would benefit greatly from the development, and approval would help protect existing families, and future generations.

Mr Neil Buchanan, local resident and retailer, suggested that the applicant had developed an excellent community benefit package which should be used as a model for future developments, and highlighted the economic and community benefits the development would bring to the area, particularly at a time when there were cuts in both Government and local authority spending.

Responding to questions from Members, Mr S Green, West Coast Energy Ltd, reported on the proposed underground grid connection and advised that the indicative route was set out in the supplementary information attached to the application.  He confirmed that this had been fully assessed by SSE and they were content with the indicative route shown.   In terms of local employment opportunities it was the applicants’ policy to use local contractors.  In the long term, the development would generate 30 jobs in Scotland, of which 17 would be Highland-based.  Of the 17 jobs created in Highland, 6 would be in the local area.

The Chairman then invited the objectors to state their case. 

Mr A MacAuslan expressed concern at the impact the development would have on the landscape and particularly on the iconic mountains in the area, noting SNH’s objection on landscape and visual issues. The turbines would be visible from many parts of Caithness and would impact on the amenity of local residents and visitors to the area. The development would also impact on a mass of archaeological sites, and both Historic Scotland and the Council’s Archaeologist had maintained objections to the application. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was inadequate, unavailable as a single document, and did not include a full peat slide assessment, archaeological survey, or proper survey of watercourses.  There would also be an adverse cumulative impact associated with the development.

Mrs M Sinclair, Dunbeath Heritage Centre, referred to the need to protect the residential amenity and cultural identity of the area. A large number of visitors enjoyed the local landscape, and she expressed concern that the turbines would impact on the historical features in the area, also an important tourist attraction. She also quoted from the Burra Charter which assist in the assessment of places of cultural value and suggested that the terms of the Charter provided sufficient grounds to refuse the application.

Mr C Mackenzie, agent for Wellbeck Estates challenged the competency of the EIA, and advised that a proper watercourse assessment had not been undertaken. He claimed that it would be impossible to construct the turbines in accordance with condition 5 which required that a 50 m buffer be retained from any existing watercourse.  SPP6 required that a rigorous peat slide assessment be carried out. However only a preliminary assessment had been conducted, and therefore SEPA may not be aware of issues that existed in relation to hydrology.  The adjacent designated nature conservation sites should not be compromised by the development.   

Mr K Graham, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, reported that, while not a designated site, the development would be located on a bird rich site with many Annex 1 species.  Research had shown that wind farms reduced the attractiveness of an area to birds, and that there was a lack of evidence to verify the assessment that the collision rates would be low.  In summary he suggested that the application be refused on the grounds that there would be likely significant effect on rare and protected breeding birds and on the grounds that it could not be concluded with certainty that there would be no adverse impact on the integrity of designated sites in the vicinity.  If minded to approve the application then the Committee should insist on an approved habitat management plan, accompanied by appropriate research and monitoring proposals, secured by conditions.

Mr S Young, Caithness Wind Farm Information Forum, referring to SPP6 and the requirement to have due regard to meet renewable energy targets, claimed that the developers had overestimated the power likely to be generated by the turbines. 

Thereafter Members questions related to the access tracks on the site and the most appropriate method of construction.

The applicants responded to the points raised, as follows;

• The preliminary peat slide assessment had been reviewed by the relevant statutory authorities, who had concluded that the risk of peat slide was minimal.  However detailed geotechnical assessments would be undertaken before construction and an assurance was given that no risks would be taken in this regard.
• The supplementary information provided following the initial EIA was to be expected following scrutiny of the document and it was right an proper that additional information be provided
• The site did not have a landscape or ecological designation, and SNH had not objected on the grounds of the likely impact on designated sites
• An independent study commissioned by the Scottish Government had concluded that wind farms had no impact on visitor numbers
• The applicants would work with other interested parties to increase access to the sites of archaeological interest around the site and to improve interpretation, building on the existing infrastructure in the area
• The iconic mountains in the area would continue to be iconic following construction of a wind farm

There being no further questions by members and no further parties wishing to speak, the Chairman declared the Hearing to be at an end and sought confirmation that the parties were satisfied with the way in which the Hearing had been conducted. The applicants’ agent and the objector confirmed that they were so satisfied.

Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner, then gave his assessment of the application based on the key issues detailed in his report, noting that the recent national energy policy statement as set out in SPP6 attached great weight to the importance of generating renewable energy. Both the Structure and Local Plan were supportive of renewable energy projects unless they had significant effects on heritage features, amenity or public health.  In summary he advised that the weight that could be attached to the impact on the scheduled monuments in the area was not sufficient to set aside the policies of the Development Plan, supportive of renewable energy.  In terms of landscape he suggested that the impact of the proposal either individually or cumulatively was not considered to be significantly adverse.  He therefore recommended that the Committee raise no objection to the application subject to the conditions and appropriate legal agreements set out in the report

During the debate the following views were expressed;

• The development did not accord with Policy E2 with regard to visual and cumulative impact
• SNH had objected to the application on the grounds of landscape and visual impact issues
• The predominant view in the area was that of the hills and the proposed turbines could potentially diminish how they sat in the landscape. The development was too large to be accommodated within the landscape, and would detract from the amenity of the area
• The development would impact on the setting of scheduled ancient monuments and therefore would not comply with the key provisions of SPP23
• While the objections to the application related to site specific issues,  the representations in support merely expressed support for renewable energy generally
• The weight of local opinion was against the development
• The economic benefits associated with the development could help secure a fragile local community, suffering from depopulation
• Dunbeath Heritage Centre could benefit by working together with the developer to promote local heritage and archaeology in the area
• In terms of cumulative impact the development should be judged on its merits
• The development represented a clear case of inappropriate siting, and combined with the existing adjacent wind farm would result in incongruous over development, and should be refused
• There were significant archaeological, natural and cultural heritage interests in the area, and the iconic views of Morven and neighbouring hills were noted throughout Scotland
• Landscape and archaeological concerns had to be balanced against economic benefits, opportunities for those involved in land use to diversify, and the contribution the development would make to renewable energy targets. Furthermore the development was close to an accessible grid connection, there was a degree of community support for the scheme, and the risk of peat slide had potentially been overstated. It should also be a condition of any permission that a local liaison committee be established.
• As a compromise, and to mitigate against the impact on the landscape and visual amenity, turbines 15, 20, 21, 22 and 23 should be removed from the development

Following further discussion Mr D Bremner seconded by Mr G Smith MOVED that the Council object to the application on the following grounds: (1) that by reason of the significantly detrimental visual impact and cumulative effect on landscape which the development would have (as had been noted in the objection by SNH), it did not accord with Structure Plan policy E2, and (2) that the terms of Historic Scotland’s objection were accepted, in that the development would have unacceptable impact on the setting of archaeological sites and did not therefore accord with Scottish Planning Policy (formerly SPP23).

Mr D Flear seconded by Mr R Durham moved as an AMENDMENT that the Council intimate to Scottish Ministers that it would not object to the application if turbines 15, 20, 21, 22 and 23 (as shown on the Predicted Wireframe and Predicted View at Figure 16g, Viewpoint 15, Croft Museum) were removed.  In the event that these turbines were not removed from the application, Scottish Ministers were to treat the Council as objecting to the application on grounds of the adverse visual and landscape impact of these five turbines.  The amendment further specified that the Council intimate to Scottish Ministers that in the event of approval of the development (whether amended or not), the Council wished the approval to be subject to the legal agreements and conditions recommended in the planning officer’s report to committee, subject to amendment of Condition 14 to add, at the end of the last sentence, the words “working in conjunction with the Dunbeath Heritage Centre if they wish.” and subject to a further condition being added to require the developer to establish a community liaison committee.

There being no further amendments, votes were cast by roll call as follows:

For the motion:  Mr D Bremner, Mr D Mackay, and Mr G Smith.

For the amendment: Mr W Fernie, Mr D Flear, Mr R Durham, Mr J McGillivray Lady M Thurso, Mr M Rattray, and Mr W Ross.

Accordingly the AMENDMENT was carried by seven votes to three and became the decision of the Committee.

Thereafter the Committee for adjourned for lunch at 2.00pm and reconvened at 2.40pm. 

Mr D Flear left the meeting at this point.

3.2 Erect 25KW Wind Turbine on 22.1m High Hydraulic Tower Including Blade, Control Gear to be Located in Nearby Steading with Underground Supply Cables to Turbine and Hydro Electric Supply at Land North East of Crocdarroch, East Clyne, Brora for Mr A Sutherland 09/00393/FULSU

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-02-10 by Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 09/00393/FULSU to erect 25KW wind turbine on 22.1m high hydraulic tower including blade, control gear to be located in nearby steading with underground supply cables to turbine and hydro electric supply at land north east of Crocdarroch, East Clyne, Brora for Mr A Sutherland 09/00393/FULSU

During discussion concern was expressed that the condition recommended by TEC Services (Environmental Health) relating to noise may be unreasonable for this type of development. 

The Committee AGREED to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report with power delegated to the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager to adjust Condition 7 relating to noise levels, in consultation with TEC Services (Environmental Health), if appropriate.

The meeting concluded at 2.50pm.