Agenda and minutes

Venue: Tayinloan Village Hall, Tayinloan

Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392 

Items
No. Item

1.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mary Jean Devon, George Freeman, David Kinniburgh, Robert G MacIntyre and Richard Trail.

2.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

3.

NORTH BEACHMORE LLP: ERECTION OF AN 84M HIGH (TO BLADE TIP) WIND TURBINE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING ACCESS TRACKS, CONTROL BUILDING AND ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE, CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND, LAYDOWN AREAS AND CRANE PAD: LAND SOUTH/SOUTH EAST OF NORTH BEACHMORE, MUASDALE (REF: 11/02521/PP) pdf icon PDF 60 KB

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.  Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law outlined the procedure that would be followed during the meeting and invited any parties who wished to speak at the meeting to make them selves known; advising that only parties who had previously submitted a representation to the Planning Authority would be entitled to speak.

 

Planning

 

Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer advised of the location of the site and that there was already a 50m anemometer mast present on the site.  She advised that the application was for an 84m high wind turbine, formation of access track, upgrading of existing track, formation of a crane hard standing area at the base of the turbine to facilitate installation, the erection of a control building and a temporary construction compound.  Ms Knox advised of the dimensions of the turbine and the layout of the substation.  She told the Committee that there had been a total of 137 representations received, 64 in support and 73 against, which included a petition with 11 signatures.  She gave an overview of the comments received in support of the application and of the issues raised in the representations made in objection to the proposal.  The Committee were advised of an extensive consultation exercise that had been undertaken in respect of the proposal and an overview was given of parties who had been consulted and the comments that had been made in response.  Ms Knox advised that the proposal was consistent with Development Plan Policy in terms of ecological impact, ornithological impact, hydrological and hydrogeological impact, management of peat, noise, shadow flicker, television reception, aircraft safety, aerodromes and technical sites, electromagnetic interference with telecommunications systems, road traffic impact, infrastructure; and decommissioning, which could be controlled by a condition and a Section 75 agreement where appropriate.  Members were advised that the issues with the proposal were that of effects of the development on landscape character, visual impact, cumulative impact; and build heritage and archaeological impact.  Each of these issues were explained in detail and Members were shown a number of slides containing images of viewpoints and photo montages to assist with this.  In conclusion Ms Knox advised that overall the proposal was inconsistent with the provision of the Development Plan.  She advised that the material considerations in support of the application did not overcome the significant adverse impact and the consequences of the scale and location of the development upon landscape character, visual, cumulative and built heritage and archaeology impact which could not be mitigated by conditions or by way of a legal agreement.  She advised that there was no justifiable reason for a departure from the Development Plan.  She strongly recommended that planning permission was refused in accordance with the reasons for refusal specified by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services in his report.

 

Applicant

 

Nicholas Gubbins introduced himself as Chief Executive of Community Energy Scotland (CES) and advised that he would be speaking on behalf of the applicants.  He advised that Zofia Sloan, Applicant would first provide the Committee with their reasoning for pursuing the project.

 

Mrs Sloan advised that her husband had lived in Kintyre all his life, she had lived there for 20 years and gave some background to their business.  She advised that the proposal was intended to contribute to sustainable living in Kintyre.  She advised that their intentions were to use the power from the wind turbine to fuel a mini mill which would process alpaca wool and she added that they had hoped to also create a business selling highland cattle meat.  Mrs Sloan highlighted that the proposal was a joint venture with CES to set up a sustainable business in Kintyre which would create jobs and make the most of the opportunities available in a rural area.

 

Mr Gubbins advised that Community Energy Scotland (CES) currently supported 300 community groups in Scotland, 30 of which were in Argyll and Bute and he also gave a background to his own employment history.  Mr Gubbins advised that in his opinion insufficient weight had been given to the benefits that would come from the proposal and that the adverse visual effects of the proposal had been over exaggerated.  Mr Gubbins advised that CES had a long track record of sustainability in Argyll and Bute and that the project was vital to the sustainability of CES in the area through the sale of the turbine.  He told the Committee that the cost of maintaining CES’ presence in Argyll and Bute was approximately £60K per annum. He advised that CES had put £1.8M into Argyll and Bute through direct funding of projects and currently there were 24 live projects in the area.  Mr Gubbins then addressed each of the Planning Officers reasons for refusal.  He advised that the applicants had done their best to minimise environmental impact by moving the turbine as far up the hill and as close to the forest as possible.  He advised that in his opinion the Landscape Capacity Study was there to assist judgement not used as statutory guidance and had been used as a red card to prevent projects. He added that the impact on the landscape would be very modest and that he felt the impact had been over exaggerated in the Study as the proposal was not to be sited on a small or complex hill.  In terms of visual impact he advised that most folk when passing the site would be appreciating the sea views rather than the hills and the effect on the rocky mosaic landscape would be minimal.  In terms of the zone of theoretical visibility he advised the proposal would only be visible to 15% of the surrounding area which was a very small proportion and would mostly be seen set against the coniferous landscape.  Mr Gubbins advised that views from the A83 had been assessed as slight to moderate while views from the B8024 had been assessed as slight to negligible.  He contested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.