• Agenda

Minute of the meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee held in the Strathy Hall, Strathy, Sutherland on  Tuesday, 10th May 2011 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present

Mr Robert Coghill
Mr Richard Durham
Mr George Farlow
Mr Donnie Mackay
Mr Graeme Smith

Officials in attendance:

Mr Allan Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Ms Susan Blease, Solicitor (Clerk)
Mr Ken McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr Campbell Stewart, Area Roads and Community Works Manager
Mrs Alison MacArthur, Acting Administrative Assistant

Mr Donnie Mackay in the Chair

Business

1. Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

Apologies were received from Mr David Bremner, Mr Bill Fernie, Mr Jim McGillivray, Mr Martin Rattray, Mr Ian Ross, Lady Marion Thurso and Mrs Carolyn Wilson.  

The Clerk intimated that Mr Robbie Rowantree had declared an interest in the application as his company undertook work for wind farm developers and he would therefore not be attending the meeting. 

2. Planning Applications

2.1   Applicant:   SSE Generation Ltd (07/00020/S36SU) (PLC-012-11 (1089kb pdf))
Location:  Strathy North Forest, Strathy, Sutherland
Nature of Development:  Application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a 33 Turbine Wind Farm

There had been circulated Report No PLC/012/11 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that the Council as Planning Authority raise no objection to the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to the conclusion, in advance of any decision by Scottish Ministers, of a legal agreement to secure the provision of a bonded sum for the final restoration of the site and a “wear and tear” agreement with the provision of a bonded sum to cover the costs of any damage to the local road network arising from construction traffic associated with the proposed development. 

The Committee viewed the site from various view points along the A836 before returning to the Strathy Village Hall to determine their response to Scottish Ministers on the application.

Mr Ken McCorquodale, Principal Planner outlined the application and presented the report and recommendation.

In relation to correspondence recently circulated to Members by RSPB concerning the absence of reference in the report to RSPB’s objection to the application, Mr McCorquodale explained that RSPB were treated by Scottish Government as Statutory Consultees and included them in their list of consultation responses and not in their list of third party representations received.  The Council, on the other hand, normally treated RSPB representations as third party representations and included them in their list of any such representation sent directly to them.  However, in this instance, RSPB had inadvertently been omitted from the list of representations sent to the Council and circulated with the report, although RSPB’s objection, which had been circulated by RSPB to Members direct, had in fact been taken into account in the Planning Service’s decision on its recommendation to Committee.  RSPB had also made their submission to Scottish Government and it would be taken into account by Scottish Ministers in their final decision on the application.

In relation to statutory consultations, Mr McCorquodale drew attention in particular to the responses by SNH and Marine Scotland.  He explained that while SNH were maintaining their objection to the application on nature conservation grounds they also recognised that with planning conditions and proper controls nature conservation interests could be adequately safeguarded.  Marine Scotland had indicated concern over impact on water courses but, again, with proper planning conditions, that impact could be controlled.

With regard to planning policies, as more fully detailed in the report, Mr McCorquodale stressed that these were generally supportive of wind farm development in locations where its impact would not be significantly adverse.

In relation to the Council’s Highland Renewable Energy Strategy (HRES), which raised a presumption against wind farm development at this particular site, Mr McCorquodale advised that this could be given limited weight in light of the far more detailed assessment of the site undertaken by the Applicants in their Environmental Impact Assessment.  He asked Members also to note that the approach adopted in HRES in designating “presumption against” areas had to a large extent been discredited at subsequent planning inquiries as incompatible with current Scottish Planning Policy.  As a result, the Council was in the process of developing new policy guidance on wind farm developments and this had now been approved by the Planning, Environment and Development Committee for public consultation.  The thrust of this new policy guidance was to steer development away from European and nationally designated areas but to allow for potential development outwith those designated areas.  This application site lay outwith the identified designated areas as it was within a commercial coniferous forestry plantation.  Accordingly, although full weight could not be given as yet to the new policy guidance as it was only at consultation stage, it indicated that emerging policy would support wind farm development in the location of this particular site.

Following Mr McCorquodale’s summary of his assessment of the application, as set out more fully in the report, the Chairman then invited Members to ask questions.

Mr George Farlow asked for clarification of what control the Council would have over the conditions attached to the deemed planning permission in the event that Scottish Ministers approved the application.  Mr McCorquodale advised that the conditions recommended in the report would be taken into account by the Ministers as would any representations by the public, SEPA and other statutory consultees.  The Council, as Planning Authority, would be the enforcing authority in respect of any conditions ultimately imposed by Scottish Ministers. 

Mr Farlow asked that the liaison group referred to at condition 12 be established sooner than the condition required as the Community Councils in this area didn’t meet very often.   He also asked that condition 12 be boosted to increase the remit of the community liaison group to look at all of the matters listed in condition 14 and to have input in the final decision on all of those aspects.

Mr McCorquodale stressed that the purpose of the community liaison group in all such wind farm developments was to assist communications and minimise disruption to the community during the critical phase when the site was being opened up for construction and when abnormal loads were being delivered.  He was reluctant to have this particular community liaison group’s remit extended to the other matters referred to in Condition 14 as this would place a burden on this applicant which had not been considered necessary at other wind farm sites.  In addition he advised that this applicant had a good track record of working with communities on issues of local concern.

Mr Graeme Smith noted in relation to noise issues that it was stated in the report that the owner of Braerathy Lodge was in agreement with the development but queried whether this was relevant as he had understood the issue to be the impact on the residential property rather than on any one particular owner.  Mr McCorquodale confirmed that was correct and that, consequently, the conditions controlling noise were recommended irrespective of any individual resident’s agreement to the development. 

Mr Smith also asked why it was suggested in the report that the Authority was not supportive of separate transformer housing. Mr McCorquodale advised that although developers tended to prefer external transformer housing the Authority had in the past preferred to see transformers integrated within the turbines as it reduced clutter around the turbines.

Mr Richard Durham asked for more information on the application for a wind farm at Strathy South and whether, if the Strathy North s36 application were supported by the Committee, that would set any precedent when it came to consideration of the Strathy South application.  Mr McCorquodale advised that it would not be appropriate for him to comment on the Strathy South application at this stage as it was not at a point at which the Planning Service could reach a fully informed view.  From a general perspective, however, he could advise that where a particular site was considered suitable for wind farm development, the emerging new renewable energy strategy currently out for consultation was generally supportive of allowing large scale on shore wind farm development.  A group of wind farms in a large single cluster is seen as appropriate within less visible areas, perhaps reducing the need for smaller wind farms in more visible areas.  He confirmed that the emerging policy identified this area as suitable for a larger cluster of wind farms.  The Strathy North development, if approved, would therefore be a first precedent for wind farm development in this area.

Mr Robert Coghill saw this development as leading to deforestation on a massive scale with over 900 hectares of trees to be felled.  He queried why the applicants would have no obligation to replant. 

Mr McCorquodale advised that this application had been made before the Scottish Government’s new Forestry Policy had been brought forward in 2008/09 in response to the increasing forestry loss being caused by wind farm developments.  The new policy now looked for compensatory tree planting.  However, this did not necessarily mean 1 for 1 replanting.  All the circumstances had to be looked at.  In this instance, the Strathy Forest was not the best type of woodland and was perhaps in the wrong area for commercial forestry.  It was considered preferable that it be removed and that the land be returned to wetland / moorland which was more natural in this area.  The policy allowed for compensatory tree planting to be anywhere in Scotland and not necessarily in the immediate area of the deforested area.  Although the policy did not apply here as the application predated it, a small element of replacement planting was part of the proposed mitigation.

Mr McCorquodale further advised that the precise nature of how the site was to be restored was still to be worked up by the developers in consultation with SNH and the landowners.  The aim was likely, however, to be to create a patchwork of diverse habitats to encourage biodiversity. 

There being no further questions, The Chairman invited the local member present, Mr George Farlow, to open the debate.

Mr Farlow thanked Mr McCorquodale for his helpful presentation.  He noted that the community councils in the area were not objecting to this application.  He felt the individual objections from Armadale, the neighbouring community, had been answered.  He was satisfied that there were no policy grounds to go against the recommendation and that issues of visual impact and noise had been sufficiently addressed.  Consequently, he advised that he was happy to support the recommendation to raise no objection to the application subject to the legal agreement and conditions proposed in the report.

Mr Farlow asked, however, that the developer be encouraged to maximise community benefit through local procurement and apprenticeships in the area to encourage the development of a local skills base so that developers were not forced to recruit from outwith the area.  Previous developments had made him aware of a lack of local skills and it was in the developers’ interest to develop these skills locally. 

Mr Farlow also asked that the developer be required to increase mitigation planting and that within the spirit of community benefit some consideration be given to providing firewood to local households from the felled trees. 

Finally, he had concern that the existing crossroad junction on the A836 serving Strathy Forest was already dangerous and that this danger would be increased if any traffic to and from the wind farm site were to use it.  He asked therefore that the CEMP to be submitted and approved under condition 14 include provision addressing the need to avoid use of that junction in connection with the wind farm.   However it might also be hoped that that the applicant would work with the local community and Council to improve visibility at this junction to lessen the current concerns.

On that basis, Mr Farlow moved that the Committee agree the recommendation set out in the report.  Mr Graeme Smith indicated that he seconded Mr Farlow’s motion.

Mr Robert Coghill proposed as an amendment that the Authority object to the application as he considered that in the absence of details of a proposed grid connection the application was too vague.  He also considered that the development would have unacceptable impact on landscape and that, taken with the proposed wind farm development at Bettyhill, it would lead to a wind farm landscape.

Mr Richard Durham and the Chairman indicated that they too supported Mr Farlow’s motion.  The Chairman welcomed, in particular, the concept of clustering wind farms together in large groups in less visible sites such as this to minimise their dispersal across the wider landscape.

There being no member willing to second Mr Coghill’s amendment, the Committee accordingly agreed the recommendation to raise no objection to the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to the conclusion, in advance of any decision by Scottish Ministers, of a legal agreement to secure (a) the provision of a bonded sum for the final restoration of the site and (b) a “wear and tear” agreement with the provision of a bonded sum to cover the costs of any damage to the local road network arising from construction traffic associated with the proposed development. 

Mr Robert Coghill asked that his dissent from the decision be recorded. 

There being no further business the meeting closed at 1.00 pm.