Agenda and minutes

Report by Head of Planning

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked the Committee Members to introduce themselves.  He asked Mr Reppke, Head of Democratic Services and Governance, to outline the procedure that would be followed at the meeting with reference to the procedure note, outlined the running order for presentations, and confirmed with those present that they understood the process.

 

PLANNING SERVICES

 

Mr Gilmour, Head of Planning, advised that if approved, the application would be subject to referral to Scottish Ministers and an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required.  He then spoke regarding material and non-material considerations advising that the application must be judged solely on land use and planning merits.

 

Mr Kerr presented the Planning report advising that the application before Members was significantly reduced from the applicant’s original proposals for the site which were to have had 40 turbines.  He reported that the size of the turbines stood at 115m to the tip of the vertical blade which in context would be twice the size of the Beinn an Turic development and nine times the size of the newly built sports hall in Lochgilphead.

 

Mr Kerr advised that if the development went ahead approximately half a hectare of land would be developed to construct an adequate access and a further six hectares of blanket bog would also require to be destroyed.  He advised that a borrow pit would also require to be constructed which would require a mineral consent application.

 

Mr Kerr then spoke regarding the adverse visual impact that the proposal would have and showed the Committee photographs of the various views from a number of locations where the impact would be most prominent.

 

Mr Kerr then summarised the objections to the proposal which were raised by statutory consultees and which are contained within the report by the Head of Planning dated 27 August 2007.

 

Mr Gilmour advised the Committee of the grounds for refusal contained within his report, highlighting his main concern which was in relation to the adverse visual impact.  He considered the development would be an industrial intrusion which would have significant impact for local communities.  He stated that while the Planning Service were generally supportive of renewable developments, this should not be to the detriment of the surrounding environment.  In support of this statement, Mr Gilmour advised of the Council’s newly published renewable energy strategy which highlights three areas of search for development of wind farms over 20 mega watts.  It was noted that two of the three sites were in Mid Argyll.

 

APPLICANTS

 

Mr Frank Park, on behalf of the applicants, NPower Renewables, spoke to the application advising of the need to reduce Co2 emissions and other such harmful gases  significantly.  He advised that there would be negligible carbon emissions in terms of transporting equipment onsite to be installed.

 

He spoke regarding subsidies for renewable companies advising there were no such things.  It was the energy companies responsibility to procure and they were required to re-invest monies to encourage further growth.

 

He discussed potential problems relating to tourism advising that evidence had shown that where an expected adverse impact was expected, when the development became reality the concerns were not realised.

 

Mr Park advised that following earlier discussions with his company, they were now prepared to offer to reduce the number of proposed turbines on this site from 14 to 12.  This would be achieved by removal of the two most prominent turbines from the application site.

 

With regard to the Inverneill montage shown during the presentation by the Council’s Planning Service, he reported that by his estimation the forestry would have grown by approximately 12 feet by the time construction would have taken place thereby having a minimising effect on the visual impacts.  He invited Members to approve the application.

 

CONSULTEES

 

Mr Phillips and Mr Buchan (regarding any landscape concerns) appeared on behalf of SNH.

 

Mr Phillips advised that in responding to statutory consultations such as in this case, SNH had supported 77% of the wind farm proposals although in Argyll this figure was slightly lower at 70%.  He reported on the main issues of complaint which related to adverse landscape and visual impacts.  Other concerns they had were relating to Golden Eagles, Hen Harriers, Black-Throated Divers, blanket bogs and the colour of the wind turbines but he considered these could be resolved by way of suitable conditions.

 

Mr Buchan advised that the landscape concerns could be summarised in six bullet points:

 

·       Contrary to Local Plan

·       Increase the dispersal of wind farms

·       Considered a poor landscape fit

·       Visual effects and prominence

·       Cumulative landscape and visual impacts

·       Effect on landscape character

 

Mr Buchan then demonstrated the visual effects of the development on key points within Argyll, emphasising that the visualisations had been increased for ease of viewing and not in an attempt to influence the Committee.

 

Mr Philips then spoke regarding the loss of habitat to Golden Eagles advising that there were no breeding pairs on site but that this area was used mainly by single adults and foraging juveniles.  He considered that the collision risk impact on adult birds was low, moderate in juveniles.  The loss of foraging could be covered by a legal agreement as could the habitat management plan for Hen Harriers.

 

With regard to blanket bogs, the conditions suggested were:

1. Design plan of drainage infrastructure to be agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH.  Mitigation to be carried out should also be detailed. 

2. Mitigation measures contained within the peat slide risk assessment are to be implemented in full.

 

Mr Edward Laughton, Chairman of Ardrishaig Community Council, spoke to the terms of their objection.  He advised that while people were generally supportive of wind farm proposals, the majority did not want a wind farm at this particular site as they felt it couldn’t have been more visible.  The opinion of the Community Council was that this cut across a number of policies and was within a constrained area of sensitive landside.  Other issues of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.