Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Special Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee held in Ross Institute, Halkirk on Tuesday 22 June 2010 at 10.00am.

Present
Mr D Mackay
Mr W Fernie
Mr G Smith
Mr D Bremner
Mr R Coghill (Item 1 only)
Mr J McGillivray
Mr R Durham

Non-Members also present:
Mr D Flear

Officials in attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr G Mooney, Principal Planner
Mrs S Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr S Young, Principal Engineer
Mr D Proudfoot, Environmental Health Officer
Ms A Macrae, Administrator

Mr D Mackay in the Chair.

1.    Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

Apologies for absence were submitted from Mr G Farlow, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Rowantree, Mrs C Wilson, Mr A Torrance, Lady M Thurso and Mr W Ross, on other Council business.

The Clerk reported that Lady M Thurso had submitted her apologies for absence having decided that, as she could be seen as having a personal interest in the application as a result of her husband’s formal objection to the application as the local MP, the terms of paragraph 7.11 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct applied and as a result she should not take part in determination of the application.

The Clerk also advised that Mr R Rowantree had declared a financial interest in Item 2 on the grounds that he was a contractor for a company with wind farm interests, and had confirmed he would not attend the meeting.

The Chairman asked if there were any further declarations of interest.

There being no further declarations made, the Clerk intimated that Mr R Coghill had been advised that his family relationship to a number of the objectors was a non-financial personal interest which a member of the public acting reasonably might consider would influence him in determining the application. 

He had accordingly been advised that pursuant to paragraph 7.11 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct he should not take part in the determination of the application.  If he elected nonetheless to participate, he might expose himself to the risk of complaint to the Standards Commission and might expose the Committee’s decision to legal challenge. 

Mr Coghill responded that as he himself had not expressed any view in relation to this particular application he had believed he would not be contravening the Code of Conduct by participating in the meeting.  However, he indicated that he had no wish to compromise the Committee’s decision in any way and would therefore accept the Clerk’s advice that he take no part in the determination of the application.

Mr Coghill then left the meeting.

Thereafter Mr R Durham took issue with the Principal Planner’s decision (stated on page 1 of the Report for Item 2) that no hearing was required as the application was not contrary to the development plan.  Mr Durham considered that it was for members, not officers, to determine whether the application was contrary to the development plan and therefore whether a hearing should be held.  The Clerk responded that it was perfectly correct for the Principal Planner, in issuing the report setting out his assessment of the application, to reach a conclusion on whether the application was a departure from the development plan and a conclusion therefore on whether a hearing was required.  It was open to members, however, to insist that a hearing be held if they so wished.

There being thereafter no motion to adjourn the meeting for a hearing, the Committee proceeded to the site inspection. 

2.     Planning Applications Determined

2.1 Electricity Act 1989 – Section 36 – Application to the Scottish Government – Erection of 30 Wind Turbines (77.5MW) with a Height of 70m to Hub and 110m to Blade Tip.  Installation of Associated Infrastructure, Site Tracks, Temporary Contractors Compound and Hard Standing, and Erection of 2 Permanent Anemometer Masts 07/00217/S36CA

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

The Committee first inspected the site from a number of selected view points, returning to the Ross Institute to determine the application at 12 noon.  

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-29-10 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that the Council not object to the application 07/00217/S36CA to the Scottish Government under the Electricity Act 1989 for the erection of 30 wind turbines (77.5MW) with a height of 70m to hub and 110m to blade tip, installation of associated infrastructure, site tracks, temporary contractors compound and hard standing, and erection of 2 permanent anemometer masts, subject to the list of conditions set out in the report.

The Principal Planner presented his report and recommendation and provided an update on the number of objections received which had risen since the report had been written.  He also clarified that the property identified as ‘Argyll” (incorrectly spelt “Argyle”) in the list of “stakeholders” (landowners) set out at paragraph 2.4 of the report was not in fact a stakeholder and should instead be added to the list of residential properties situated within 1 km of the site with no financial interest in the proposed windfarm set out at paragraph 2.5 of the report.  The owners of Argyll had also objected to the proposed windfarm.

During discussion of the application, members commented as follows

• Concern was expressed at the possible impact of shadow flicker and noise on local residents, noting that in the case of a neighbouring wind farm development the impact on local residents had been in excess of the original assessment. The question was posed therefore as to how rigorous and accurate the information provided by the developer was in regard to both issues, and the methodology used as part of that assessment.   Members heard from the Principal Planner and Environmental Health Officer on this issue, who confirmed that the methodology used by the developer had been assessed, and it was considered that conditions should be attached to any permission to allow complaints of noise etc nuisance to be investigated and, if necessary, appropriate mitigation measures taken.  These measures could include, if necessary, a requirement that the developer shut down individual turbines.

• The visual impact of the development was unacceptable and, contrary to the view expressed in the report, would be greater than the existing Causewaymire Wind Farm, given that the application site was at a higher elevation.

• The Committee should base its decision on the Council’s Highland Renewable Energy Strategy (HRES) rather than attaching greater weight to Scottish Planning Policy. The Clerk confirmed, however, that the Council was obliged to attach greater weight to the SPP.  It had already been decided at a previous Public Local Inquiry that policy E7 of HRES was incompatible with SPP6 (and therefore now incompatible with the SPP).  This was why HRES was currently under review.  She further advised that if the Committee were to rely on policy E7 of HRES as a reason for refusal of the application, it would not be possible to defend that reason for refusal in any subsequent appeal by the developer.

• The Committee should attach greater weight to Scottish Natural Heritage’s decision to object to the proposal due to the significant visual and landscape impacts on a landscape of national interest, and the adverse cumulative impacts with other existing, consented and proposed wind farms.

• The development was partly located on a site where there was a presumption against development in the Local Plan

• The development failed to accord with policy E2 of the Highland Structure Plan in relation to its cumulative and visual impact.

• The proposal would have a real and significant adverse impact on the non stakeholder properties within less than 1km of the development, and would also have an unacceptable visual and cumulative impact on the village of Spittal located within 1.2km from the nearest turbine.   SPP6 stated that development should not be within 2km of houses, and while accepting this was not site specific, it was a material consideration. It was also noted that the application for a wind farm at South Shebster had been refused at public local inquiry on the grounds that it was located within 1km of houses.

• The Committee should therefore object to the application on the basis that it did not accord with the Development Plan. 

• The Committee should object to the application on the grounds that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the A882 road which had a high amenity value to tourists, local people and daily travellers. However the proposal could be acceptable if the developer agreed to the deletion of turbines 28, 29 and 30 to mitigate the impact on the A882 and on the basis that the Scottish Government be asked to take full cognisance of SNH’s objection to the application.

• The development would be sited on one of the highest points in Caithness.  It would be visible for miles and would have an adverse impact on the Caithness landscape and on tourism.

• The Scottish Government should at this stage be asked to undertake an assessment of the overall cumulative impact on the Caithness landscape to establish whether the number of existing, consented and proposed wind farms could be sustained in the area.

Following further discussion Mr D Bremner seconded by Mr D Flear MOVED that the Council object to the application for the following reasons:

• The grounds of objection put forward by SNH are supported.  These grounds are that the proposed development will result in significant adverse landscape and visual impacts on a landscape of national interest, including adverse cumulative impacts with other existing, consented and proposed wind farms.

• The visual impact (including cumulative impact) on a number of individual residential properties within 1 km of the site and with no financial interest in the proposed wind farm, and consequently the impact on the amenity of the occupants of these properties, would also be significantly adverse, as would the impact on residential properties in the wider area.  Spittal village lies within 1.2 km of the site and would also suffer unacceptable visual impact.

• For these reasons, the proposed development would be contrary to Local Plan Policy PP3 which applies to the northern and central section of the site and which presumes against development where there are significant effects on amenity.  In addition, while it is accepted that the site itself has no formal landscape designation, SNH identify the area as a “landscape of national interest” for the reasons set out at paragraph 5.12 of the Report No PLC-29-10 to the Planning Applications Committee.  This should therefore be seen as an “important feature” within the meaning of Local Plan Policy PP2 and the proposed development should accordingly be considered to be contrary to LP Policy PP2 which applies to the remainder of the site in that it would adversely affect this important feature.

• For the same reasons, the proposed development cannot be supported under Structure Plan Policy E2, in that it would be significantly detrimental in respect of two of the criteria listed in that Policy, namely, visual impact and cumulative effects.  It is also assessed as significantly detrimental in terms of Structure Plan Policy G2 in that it would have unacceptable adverse impact on individual residential amenity at the nearby residential properties, as well as unacceptable adverse impact on landscape.

Separately, concerns were also raised by Mr Bremner over whether the developer’s predictions in relation to shadow flicker and noise had been sufficiently rigorously assessed.  Although he did not wish this expressed as a formal ground of objection he considered it merited further deliberation at any ensuing public local inquiry.

Mr G Smith moved as an AMENDMENT that the Council not object to the application if turbines 28, 29 and 30, as identified in the plan attached to the report, were deleted from the development. On failing to find a seconder the amendment fell.

The motion TO OBJECT to the application for the reasons stated by Mr D Bremner accordingly became the finding of the meeting (Mr G Smith dissenting).

The meeting concluded at 1.35pm.