• Agenda

Minute of the Special Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee commenced at 10 am on Tuesday 16 November 2010 with a site inspection for item 3.1 from selected viewpoints around Mains of Durran and thereafter adjourned to the Ross Institute, Halkirk where a Hearing on the item was held.

Committee Members Present

Mr D Bremner
Mr R Durham
Mr B Fernie
Mr D Mackay
Mr J McGillivray

Non-Committee Members Present:

Mr W MacKay

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Ms S Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr G Mooney, Senior/Principal Planner
Mr I Moncrieff, Principal Engineer, TECS
Mr C Ratter, Area Enviromental Health Manager, TECS
Mrs A MacArthur, Clerical Assistant

Mr Donnie Mackay in the Chair

Business

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies were received from Mr Robert Coghill, Mr George Farlow, Mr Martin Rattray, Mr Ian Ross, Mr Robbie Rowantree, Mr Graeme Smith, Lady Marion Thurso, Mr Alan Torrance and Mrs Carolyn Wilson.   

2. This item had been withdrawn following its determination by the Committee on 9 November 2010.

3. Planning Applications

3.1 Applicant: SSE Generations Ltd (08/00386/FULCA) (PLC-051-10 Part 1 (161kb pdf)  |  PLC-051-10 Part 2 (1383kb pdf)  |  PLC-051-10 Part 3 (1190kb pdf) ) 
Location: Land at Mains of Durran
Nature of Development: Erection of Wind Farm Comprising 13 Wind Turbines, Control and Welfare Building, Permanent Anemometry Mast, Temporary Construction Compound, Access Tracks etc

Mr W MacKay had requested and been granted a local member vote in relation to this item pursuant to Standing Order 13.2.

There had been circulated Report No PLC/051/10 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending refusal of planning permission for the reasons detailed therein.

The Chairman outlined the hearings procedure, notes on which had previously been circulated.  The following people confirmed they wished to speak:

On behalf of the Applicant
Mr Alastair Swanson (Stakeholder)
Mr John Soal (SSE Generations Ltd)

On behalf of Bower Community Council
Mr Alan Roberts

Individual Objectors
Mr John Brotherston
Mr Ben McGregor
Mrs Jackie MacMillan
Mrs Susan Hawes
Mr Kenneth Graham (RSPB)

The Senior/Principal Planner, Mr G Mooney, introduced the application providing an update on the number of representations received by the date of the meeting and outlining the nature of the representations, the consultation responses received and the policies relevant to determination of the application.

Mr A Swanson then addressed the meeting on behalf of the applicant.  In support of the application he highlighted the following points:

• The potential energy the development would generate.
• The fact that there were already a number of manmade features in the vicinity of the site.
• The reduction in the energy bills at stakeholder properties (including Mr Swanson’s farm) which the development would allow.
• The income which the development would provide to Mr Swanson’s farm and the fact that Structure Plan policies A2 and A3 supported such diversification of farm income.
• The fact that, of the chambered cairns referred to in the objection by Historic Scotland, one was entirely hidden by gorse and another was next to a manmade reservoir.

In conclusion, inviting the Committee to grant planning permission Mr Swanson submitted that the proposed development in its final form involved a much reduced number and height of turbines designed to fit in to a landscape already altered by man and to do so without unacceptable adverse impact.

Mr J Soal then addressed the meeting, raising the following points:

• With the excellent wind resource in Caithness, Durran Mains wind farm would be a highly productive renewable energy scheme.
• The scale and design of the proposal had been adapted to accommodate local sensitivities.
• SNH agreed that the site was acceptable in terms of its impact on the landscape and on visual amenity.
• The Council’s approach to cumulative impact in the past had been to determine an application in the context of wind farms which had been constructed or consented at the time of determination.  The officer’s cumulative impact assessment in paragraph 10.3 of the report, however, related to wind farms which were still at proposal stage and had not been consented.  The proposals at Spittal Hill and Hill of Lieurary should therefore be disregarded in the cumulative impact assessment.  On that basis, there would be no cumulative impact and therefore no grounds to refuse the application.
• The Council’s archaeologist had not objected to the application on grounds of impact on the setting of scheduled ancient monuments and this contrasted with the position of Historic Scotland.  The impact would not be direct physical damage.  Historic Scotland’s objection was simply because the wind farm would be visible from monuments which were between ¼ to 2 miles from the site.  The setting of the monuments, however, currently included modern housing, roads and the Olrig Hill transmitters so was already affected by modern development.  It was open to members not to accept the advice of Historic Scotland.  The Council’s planning officer, in the report on the Dunbeath wind farm proposal earlier that year, had disregarded a similar objection by Historic Scotland concluding that in assessing the various considerations impact on the setting of monuments was not a basis for refusing the scheme.  Should members take a similar view in this case, they would have the safeguard of the notification procedure to Scottish Ministers.
• There was a significant level of support for the proposal by members of the public and it was noteworthy that Halkirk Community Council had adopted a neutral stance

In conclusion, Mr Soal invited the Committee to grant planning permission for the following reasons:

1. SNH’s assessment was based on three proposals which had not yet been consented.  The Council’s established first come first served approach is to consider only those schemes with consent at the time of determination.  As neither Spittal Hill nor Hill of Lieurary were consented, an assessment of cumulative impact based on the current consented proposals concluded that the impact would be acceptable.

2. The Historic Scotland position on Scheduled Ancient Monuments had, in other cases, been shown to be incorrect.  Moreover, in the case of the Dunbeath wind farm the Council had not considered that an objection from Historic Scotland was grounds to object to the application despite the fact that objection was supported by its own archaeologist.  The Committee could adopt a consistent approach and overrule the Historic Scotland position, with the safeguard of notifying Scottish Ministers.

3. Issues raised in representations had been addressed in technical consultations.  Those technical consultations had not raised any objections and therefore there was no sound basis to refuse the application.

4. The proposal did accord with the Development Plan and should be approved.

There being no questions by members, the Bower Community Council representative, Mr A Roberts, then addressed the Committee highlighting the following points:

• The applicants’ environmental statement was not credible.  It stated the population of Bower as 50 – 150, when in fact it was 500.
• The proposed site was surrounded by houses which would be within 1 – 2 km of the turbines.
• The developer had not consulted Bower Community Council.
• The development would have serious adverse impact at site level and long term detrimental impact on nearby house occupants and was therefore contrary to Scottish Planning Policy.
• It would also create significant cumulative impact and be visible from all over Caithness.
• It would have adverse impact on tourism.
• The nearest turbine would be 300 m from a cairn which was a scheduled ancient monument and would be 350 feet higher than it.
• The wind farm would lead to noise nuisance.
• The justification of wind farms on grounds of renewable energy production was not substantiated as they operated at a maximum of 50% of their capacity and on occasion as little as 0.1% of their capacity.  They could therefore not be relied upon.

In conclusion, Mr Roberts submitted that there was no basis to support the application and urged the Committee to refuse planning permission.

The objectors were then invited to address the Committee.

Mr J Brotherston advised that he was speaking on behalf of the Gillock Community whose views were as follows:

• The small community had already had to accept wind farm developments and a fair balance was needed.  The communities of Gillock, Bower and Watten would have turbines in groups ranging from 3 to 43 visible over a wide span.  No community should be surrounded by turbines but Gillock itself would be if this development proceeded.
• The area was a hidden gem enjoyed by tourists and this would be spoiled.

Mr B McGregor then addressed the Committee expressing the following views:

• The nearest turbine would be just 1 km from his house.
• The proposed site was identified in the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy as an area to which policy E7 applied, creating a presumption against wind farms in this location.
• The development was inappropriate in a rural farming environment.
• Virtually the whole community in the vicinity of the site objected to the development.
• There were concerns about noise and shadow flicker which would be an irritation to farmers working the land.
• The proposal would be out of scale with the countryside around it.  As it would be on high ground, it would be visible from all around, dominating the skyline as seen from Thurso, Gillock, Bower and Watten.  Tourists came to the area because of the unspoilt views.
• The boundary of Mr McGregor’s wood was just 375 m from the turbines and there was a risk that wildcat living in the wood would be driven away as a result of the disturbance.  Other wildlife could also be adversely affected.
• There was no overriding national interest justifying permission of this development as its output would be just 6 MW.

Mrs J MacMillan then spoke, raising the following points:

• The original environmental statement had not recognised Durran as a community and the developer had not consulted the Durran community.
• Noise and shadow flicker were a serious concern.
• The construction haulage route would include single track roads with hedgerows and flagstone fences.  These would be affected as sections would be ripped out to allow use as a haulage route.  This would also affect wildlife.
• The wind farm would occupy a quarter of the 360 degree view from Durran.

Mrs S Hawes then addressed the Committee, making the following points:

• The proposed development would be industrialisation of Caithness.
• It was the elevation of the proposed site which concerned most people.  Whereas the wind farms at Causeymire and Camster were on low ground and visible only from certain places, a wind farm at Durran Mains would be visible everywhere.
• The adverse impact this would have on tourism was of serious concern.

Mrs Hawes then read out a submission by another objector, Mr Charles Fowler, who had been unable to attend the meeting.  Mr Fowler submitted that with Dounreay disappearing, an alternative source of employment would be needed.  The logical alternative was tourism, but tourist numbers would be likely to decline if this wind farm proceeded.

Mr K Graham then made a statement on behalf of RSPB Scotland who objected to the development.

• The Society favoured the development of renewable energy in appropriate locations to combat climate change, provided it did not compromise important birds or their habitats.  They aimed to provide independent science-based advice on any proposals which were likely to affect rare birds or their habitats.
• RSPB Scotland objected to this application due to the potential effects of both disturbance and collision risk on whooper swan and greylag goose.  Both species were qualifying interests of the internationally important Caithness Lochs Special Protection Area which the Highland Council had a duty of care to protect.
• The Society had critically examined the bird information presented in the Environmental Assessment and were concerned
  - first, that the initial surveys had missed peak periods of bird activity,
  - secondly, that the assessment of these figures provided an underestimate of risk to the SPA, and
  - thirdly, that the SPA figures used do not reflect the true status of the designated site.
• The Society believed that both alone and in combination with other sites there was an unacceptable and avoidable risk to whooper swan and greylag geese associated with the Caithness Lochs SPA.
• Scottish Planning Policy advised that national or international designations are to be given “significant protection” from major wind farm developments.  This meant that The Highland Council should only consent development which might have an adverse impact either in the absence of alternative solutions (which clearly existed in this case) or if there were imperative reasons of overriding public interest.  They noted that the proposal did not comply with either the Caithness Local Plan or The Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines, of which the Society were supportive.  Clearly, the application was not one of overriding public interest.
• RSPB Scotland urged the Council to refuse this application because:
  - There was a likely significant effect on whooper swans and greylag geese – qualifying interests of the Caithness Lochs SPA, and
  - It could not be concluded with the necessary certainty that there would be no adverse impact on SPA site integrity.
• The Society noted that SNH’s response and Mr Mooney’s recommendations to the Committee on bird-related matters were based on SNH’s position in October 2009.  The Society had been working with SNH in the interim to determine more accurately the status of the Caithness Lochs SPA.  With recent declines of more than 25% for whooper swan and more than 36% for greylag goose, it was an inescapable conclusion that the site is in unfavourable status.
• Even if the Committee were not minded to refuse planning permission, RSPB Scotland urged they insist on conditions relating to bird monitoring and research to fully assess collision and displacement impacts of the development, along similar lines and complementary to those conditions in place at Baillie Hill.

Mr Soal was then given the opportunity to respond to the matters raised in the objectors’ submissions.

With regard to the point raised about inaccuracy in local population figures in Bower, the figures given in the ES were not stated to be the total population of Bower.

Finally, he stressed that Caithness was an excellent wind resource and the applicants had put a lot of time and effort into adapting the scheme to meet the community’s concerns.

There being no questions by any member and no other member of the public who had made a timeous objection wishing to speak, the Chairman asked the applicants’ representatives and the objectors if they were satisfied with the manner in which the hearing had been conducted and they confirmed that they were so satisfied.

Mr Mooney then presented his report and recommendation that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Members then proceeded to debate the application.

Mr D Bremner commented that the site visit had been useful, particularly given the very clear conditions.   The key issue was the assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the development plan.  He had noted, however, that Mr Soal had failed to mention the development plan in defence of the application or to assess the application against it.  On balance, Mr Bremner considered that Mr Mooney’s assessment was correct and he agreed with Mr Mooney’s recommendation entirely.

Mr Bremner had some sympathy with Mr Swanson’s submission in relation to the need for diversification of farm income.  However, the benefits of farm income diversification to some had to be weighed against the adverse impact for the other people who lived in the area.  Considered on balance, Mr Bremner considered that the need to protect the amenity of the area overrode the benefits to Mr Swanson.

Mr W Mackay voiced concern over cumulative visual impact.  He considered that the proposal was in the wrong place and that wind turbines should not be erected on the hills of Caithness.  He supported the recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Mr B Fernie cautioned members that with forthcoming job losses at Dounreay and cuts elsewhere, they should give significant weight to the economic benefits of rural diversification proposals such as this.  However, he accepted the merits of the objections in this instance.

Mr R Durham contrasted the elevated site at Durran Mains with the low-lying wind farms seen during the site visit.  He considered that any further wind farm in the area should be set as low in the landscape as possible.

Finally, Mr J McGillivray expressed his agreement with Mr Fernie’s submission that significant weight should be given to the economic benefits to the area.

Following debate, the Committee unanimously agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons recommended in the report.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 2 pm.