Agenda and minutes
PDF 82 KBVenue: Kilmelford Village Hall, Kilmelford
Contact: Melissa Stewart Tel. No. 01546 604331
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair welcomed everyone to the hearing and asked his colleagues to introduce themselves. The Head of Governance and Law spoke to the procedure that would be followed at the meeting and asked the parties who wished to speak at the meeting to identify themselves. Planning Authority Ms Knox advised that there had been additional information submitted by the applicant and that as a result of this the Planning Authority had complied a supplementary report. She briefly outlined the issues raised advising that none of these issues raised would affect the recommendation that the application be refused. Ms Knox then referred to a late representation from Tony Ms Knox opened her presentation by discussing the undulating terrain within which it was proposed to locate the wind farm. The proposal itself was for 15, 115m turbines (125m to the blade tip) with a total capacity of 45 megawatt (each turbine having a 3 megawatt capacity) and ancillary development. She advised that the design and ancillary development of the proposed wind farm was generally acceptable, the exception being the sub-station which she considered to be unsympathetic. However, the design of this could be covered by condition and therefore was not included within the reasons for refusal of the application. She made reference to the representations received in response to the application which totalled 277 (32 in support, 238 objecting and 7 general observations). The reasons for support included the acceptable impact, layout and Government targets for tackling climate change. Some of the reasons for objection related to planning policy, inappropriate siting, layout and design, visual impact, grid connection, noise vibration, ecology and built heritage. Ms Knox advised that a consultation exercise had taken place which resulted in objections being lodged from Seil and Easdale and Kilmelford and Kilninver Community Councils. Ms Knox then discussed the development plan and the fact that the proposed site was within a constrained area of sensitive landscape, namely the). This designation had caused concerns for SNH who had in turn recommended refusal of the application on the basis of the significant adverse impact on the landscape character. Mr Kerr discussed the impact of the landscape and the objection by SNH in relation to the adverse impact on the Scarba, Lunga and the Garvallachs National Scenic Area. He advised that while the site was not within the designation the views would be affected. The site itself was within a sensitive countryside zone and an area of panoramic quality (APQ). He discussed the landscape character which was of a coastal craggy upland type. He commented that the views expressed by SNH were endorsed by himself and that the location, by virtue of height, would cause a commanding presence on the landscape. Mr Kerr then discussed the areas where there would be direct
visual impact, stating that Members of the Committee had been to see various
view points prior to this meeting.
These view points ranged from Kames Farm to Mr Kerr then discussed the potential impacts on tourism in an area where tourists visited to appreciate the land and seascape and of a recent case in Calarach & Black Cairn where Reporters had afforded weight to the impacts on tourism. In conclusion Mr Kerr advised that there were inappropriate environmental consequences, the development was not sustainable and was inconsistent with the Development Plan. The issues could not be overcome by a section 75 Agreement or by Conditions and there were no material circumstances to overcome the recommendation for refusal. Applicant Ms Fox thanked the Committee for the opportunity to respond. She commented that she did not feel there were any sufficient reasons to justify refusal and that on balance, the Committee could approve the development. She stated that the impacts were acceptable or could be mitigated advising she felt that the method for assessing the application by SNH was incorrectly based on the site being a coastal location. Ms Fox advised in her opinion it was unusual for a Local Authority to rely on the opinion of SNH and not seek an opinion from a Landscape Architect. She then discussed how the site in question had been selected and how they had taken into account the environmental constraints and the Local Plan. She advised the landscape and seascape were considered and the APQ recognised. However, she advised that the Clachan Flats wind farm was also located within an APQ. The design of the wind farm reflected the constrained area. Ms Fox stated that it had never been claimed the wind farm would not be seen from any particular location. The impact had been minimised by a reduction in turbines from 40 down to 15. She considered that the proposal was consistent with LP ENV 1. Ms Fox then discussed the concerns raised during the consultation state. She considered many of these could be covered by condition such as the objection by the Forestry to felling of trees, noise levels, proximity to water location or sources, impact on eagles, height of turbines and visibility from the main tourist routes which she considered to be on a short, intermittent basis. She considered the negative impacts had been overstated and that there would be positive opportunities to incorporate mountain biking and walking routes. Ms Wilson advised she would comment regarding the criticisms from SNH regarding the quality of the visualisations. She stated that all of the documents produced were undertaken and developed with SNH guidance. She explained that there was industry standard software packages which could accurately represent views from 40 locations. With regard to the 2 particular viewpoints which concerned SNH (viewpoints 13 and 14 which were east of Kilmelford and Kames ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |