Issue - meetings

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee considered this application at a Pre Determination Hearing on 4 November 2013 and agreed to adjourn consideration of the application in order to ascertain whether or not it would be possible to frame a competent motion to approve the application and to request that the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services seek further information from the Applicant as to whether or not there would be operational constraints to the development if the two wind turbines were located further down the hill and, if so, what evidence could be advanced to detail the issues.  The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of supplementary report number 3 advising that additional supporting information had now been received from the Applicant’s Agents and that this information contained relocated turbine locations and revised photomontages in addition to a justification for the amended siting and technical requirements.  He advised that whilst the relocated wind turbines may slightly reduce visual impact from some (but not all) of the key viewpoints, the fact that they are located outwith the original application site boundary meant that the suggested revised turbine locations could not be pursued as an amendment to the current application and would require a separate application for planning permission.  Any fresh application submitted would be subject to further consultation with statutory bodies and would be open to comment by third parties and would need to be determined on its individual merits.  He advised that the department therefore considered that the proposal presented to Members at the Planning Hearing was still unacceptable in scale, visual and policy terms.  He further advised that having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations it was recommended that the current application be refused for the reason appended to supplementary report number 3.

Members were advised that only those who had attended the Hearing on 4 November 2013 could take part in the subsequent debate and determination of this application.

Motion

To agree the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission for the reason detailed in supplementary report number 3.

Moved by Councillor Colville, seconded by Councillor Kinniburgh.

Amendment

To continue consideration of this application to a future meeting to ascertain whether or not it would be possible to frame a competent Motion to approve the application.

Moved by Councillor McNaughton, seconded by Councillor McQueen.

The Amendment was carried by 5 votes to 2 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

Decision

1.        Agreed to continue consideration of this application to a future meeting to ascertain whether or not it would be possible to frame a competent Motion to approve the application; and

2.        Noted that the Head of Governance and Law would clarify whether or not the Members absent from the meeting today would be able to take part in future debate and determination of this application.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 9 April 2013, supplementary report no 1 dated 16 April 2013, supplementary report no 2 dated 12 September 2013 and supplementary report no 3 dated 5 December 2013, submitted)

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.  He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and the Head of Governance and Law identified those who wished to speak. 

Planning

Brian Close presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.  He advised that this revised application was submitted in December 2012 and he provided some planning background to this proposal.  He advised that VG Energy first approached the department in February 2012 for a screening opinion on the erection of two wind turbines in a similar position to the application before Members today.  He advised that whilst the department considered that the proposal would not require an Environmental Impact Assessment the Applicants were informed that the proposed wind turbines would be located in an area that could potentially have a detrimental impact on the setting and character of the Garden and Designed Landscape of Castle Toward and that the turbines would also be highly visible from many viewpoints along the A815, Toward and Innellan settlements.  Notwithstanding this advice an application (ref: 12/01536/PP) was submitted in July 2012 but withdrawn in September 2012 due to issues of landscape and visual impact of inappropriate scale and siting.  He also advised that VG Energy submitted a similar screening opinion for a single wind turbine beside Toward Farm close to the application site (ref: 12/000372/PP).  An application (ref: 12/01415/PP) for a single 225kw wind turbine (47.02 metres to blade tip) west of Toward Farm, 1.5 km south west of the proposed turbines was submitted in June 2012 but withdrawn in August 2012 due to similar issues of landscape and visual impact by virtue of inappropriate scale and siting.  Despite discussions with the department the same proposal was resubmitted (ref: 13/00472/PP) in March 2013 and withdrawn in May 2013.  This was an identical resubmission of the previous scheme that was withdrawn due to similar issues of landscape and visual impact on Toward Castle and Castle Toward Area of Panoramic Quality by virtue of inappropriate scale and siting.  This single turbine attracted many objections from Bute residents similar to the scheme before Members today.  This turbine was the same model as those proposed at Toward Taynuilt Farm and submitted by the same agents VG Energy.  He advised that on two farms within a range of 1.8km, VG Energy were proposing 3 x 47 metre high wind turbines which the department had considered to be inappropriate and inconsistent with the Council’s adopted Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Statement (LWECS).  Following withdrawal of these applications Mr Close advised that he met with VG Energy in November 2012 to discuss solutions to reduce the visual impact.  VG Energy had advised that they could not go below the size and model of turbine proposed and that the single turbine at Toward was not in the best location.  He advised that VG Energy were willing to bring their turbines downhill slightly and this was produced as a photomontage.  He advised that when it came to resubmitting the proposal as a ‘free shot’ VG were reluctant to submit a fresh planning fee for the revised scheme which was outwith the original red line boundary and instead opted to submit a revised scheme which proposed to site the same turbines but on land 5 metres lower than previously proposed.  Mr Close went on to discuss the detail of the proposal and advised that within the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan the two wind turbines, the upper part of the access track, the crane hardstandings and the electrical control buildings were all located within Very Sensitive Countryside with the lower part of the access track located within Sensitive Countryside.  The site was also close to an Area of Panoramic Quality.  He advised that within the LWECS the application site was located within the Cowal Ridges and categorised as ‘Steep Ridgeland and Mountains’ which have ‘high to medium’ sensitivity for larger turbine development as they are particularly prominent in important views.  He advised that smaller turbines could introduce clutter to more remote and less developed areas and could have similar effects as large turbines on complex landform.  He advised that the application site was at the lower extremity of the ‘Steep Ridgeland and Mountain’ Character type and very close to ‘Rolling Farmland with Estates’ which increased sensitivity even further.  He advised that wind turbines greater than 35 metres in height were not encouraged in such landscapes.  Mr Close referred to a slide highlighting the planning history for wind turbines in this part of the Cowal peninsula and surrounding areas.  He advised that turbines permitted so far did not exceed 25 metres in height to blade tip and tended to be located close to the buildings or uses they intended to serve.  He advised that the proposed turbines would be twice the height of the highest wind turbines approved and 20 times the generating capacity.  He advised that larger turbines on higher ground have been historically refused due to inappropriate scale and siting in what was a constrained area with high visual impact.  He advised that the proposed turbines would be erected on high grazing farmland north of Toward Taynuilt Farm and 0.6 km west of Newton Park, Innellan.  He advised that the turbines would be located on the southern slopes on Innellan hill overlooking the settlements of Toward and Toward Point.  He advised that there were currently two MOD mast installations north of Toward Taynuilt Farm and they were reached by an access track from the A815.  He advised that it was proposed to extend this access track and erect two wind turbines on land at the northern boundary of the farmland close to plantation forestry which covered the hillside but was due to be felled and replanted in the near future.  He highlighted on slides the access track leading to the turbine locations and also showed slides illustrating both turbines with associated crane hardstanding areas and meter houses.  He then referred to a slide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3