Officer Report A. Development Plan Policies Neath Port Talbot Unitary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Officer Report a. Development Plan Policies Neath Port Talbot Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV1 Development in the Countryside Policy ENV3 Impact on the Landscape Policy ENV5 Nature Conservation Policy ENV17 General Considerations Policy IE4 Renewable Energy Policy M6 Borrow Pits b. Other Policies Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 8 (TAN 8): Planning for Renewable Energy c. Relevant Planning History 2004/1381 Community wind farm consisting of 4 turbines (as opposed to 5 previously), sub station, met mast and access road and additional works including borrow pits. Planning permission refused September 2005. Appeal dismissed September 2006. Judicial Review draft judgement October 2007, which held that the appeal be dismissed. d. Responses to Consultations A total of 13 site notices were posted at Rhydyfro, Cwmgors, Gwaun Cae Gurwen, Tairgwaith, Brynamman and Cwmllynfell. The proposal was advertised in the press. Number of properties consulted: 0 Number of replies received: 482 Letters of objection have been received from Cwmllynfell Community Council, Caergurwen & Penlle’rfedwen Commoners Association, Pontardawe Town Council, The Gower Society and Cyngor Cymuned Mawr Community Council, and the issues raised can be summarised as follows: Page 1 of 48 Officer Report 1. The area is geologically unstable due to considerable mining in the area. 2. No suitable access roads to enable the movement of wind turbine parts to and from the site. 3. Alien visible impact to the landscape. 4. Disturbance of natural habitat. 5. Detrimental effect on watercourses and natural springs that the local farmers rely on. 6. The current application is similar to that dismissed at appeal and refused by the High Court. 7. Whilst the number of turbines has been reduced, the impact on the area will remain. 8. The proposal is for industrial development, partly on common land, and conflicts with a number of the Council’s policies. 9. Cefn Gwrhyd is under consideration by CCW as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and it would be inappropriate for this development to be granted planning permission until the designation has been fully considered. The grounds of objection contained in the letters of objection are wide and varied, but can be summarised as follows: 1. Whilst the number of turbines has been reduced, the size of the remaining two turbines has not changed and will still have a significant adverse visual impact on the area. 2. The turbines will be amongst the largest in Wales and their visual impact would be prominent, dominant and overwhelming, and would be completely out of keeping with their surroundings. 3. The access to the proposed development has not changed, and the access to the borrow pits, sub-station, met mast and the two turbines will still cause major upheaval to the mountain and surrounding area. 4. The planning approval for 16 turbines on Mynydd Betws would exacerbate the adverse visual impact of the proposal as 8 of these turbines would be visible from Tairgwaith. 5. The proposal would affect property values in the area. 6. The proposal continues to be outside the TAN8 area – Pontardawe SSA, as identified in the Appeal decision dated September 2006. 7. The proposal conflicts with existing and emerging local planning policies which seek to protect the countryside, significant skylines and panoramas. It does not accord with local policies relating to renewable energy. Page 2 of 48 Officer Report 8. The addendum to the Environmental Statement does not mention refusal of their appeal against the Inspectors Decision by the High Court. 9. The two turbines with the greatest visual impact remain. 10. The size of the sub-station has not been reduced from the original application. 11. The proposal would have an adverse effect on wildlife and ecology. 12. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the quality of life of the surrounding communities. 13. The development consisting of two turbines would be even more incongruous and would harm a landscape that is evaluated as being high quality in LANDMAP. 14. The application would require the granting of a Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Such an application has already been made by AAT to the National Assembly for Wales and has been refused. 15. Tourism is important in the area and any damaging effect would be harmful to the local economy. 16. The Planning Committee should protect the local community and refuse this application. 17. Such an application has already been rejected by the High Court and a further application should not be allowed. 18. Two turbines will not produce any useful power and would not contribute significantly to renewable energy production. 19. The widening of the access road would have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 20. The A474 is already a busy road and the road works and increased traffic would compromise highway safety. 21. Grazing rights over the common exist. 22. How many pylons will be constructed, what will their size and position be and what is involved in their construction? 23. What is the Council’s position regarding horses and riders who may be injured as a result of the turbines? 24. What will be put in place to cover the decommissioning of the turbines and reinstatement of the common land? 25. The site is a designated open access under the CROW Act and is much used by walkers, birdwatchers, cyclists, horse riders and other recreational purposes. 26. There is no necessity for AAT to site turbines on the Gwrhyd Mountain in order to maintain themselves. The objective could be Page 3 of 48 Officer Report achieved by siting the turbines on a more appropriate brownfield site. 27. The access will result in major destruction of the mountain, the surrounding hedgerows and archaeological sites 28. The area has been extensively used for mining and quarrying, and is therefore potentially unsafe for the construction and operation of a windfarm. 29. The water table may be disturbed, and since it is the main source of water for local farms, have the developers made provision to cover the cost of installing a water supply? 30. What about the potential noise nuisance during construction in addition to the effects of ultra low frequency noise on local residents. 31. There are historical footpaths and rights of way which will be cut off by this development. Statutory Consultees: Countryside Council for Wales – Request further information in respect of an updated bird survey, clarification of the badger sett (as mitigation and a licence maybe needed to permit any development to proceed) and a hydrological survey that takes into account the implications of the widened and extended access track. On balance, however, it is not considered that the potential impact to interests of acknowledged importance is sufficient to warrant objection, providing appropriate conditions are attached. RSPB Cymru – The RSPB Cymru objects to the application as it is informed by a deficient EIA and is therefore contrary to Planning Policy. Several bird surveys were not undertaken and several other surveys are out of date or have not been undertaken to the required standard. There are further concerns that have not been addressed in the ecological chapter, such as that of mitigation and habitat enhancement. Environment Agency – No objection to the proposal, subject to conditions. Brecon Beacons National Park – The National Park Authority objects to the proposal at this stage due to a lack of sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the special qualities of the National Park for which the designation is intended to protect. Page 4 of 48 Officer Report Head of Business Management, Environmental Health & Trading Standards – No objection regarding noise implications. The number of turbines has been significantly reduced, which will result in noise levels being reduced to below those specified in the DTI document ETSU-R-97 – The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. Head of Engineering and Transport (Drainage) – No objection subject to drainage observations. Head of Engineering and Transport (Highways) – No objection subject to conditions. e. Applicant’s Supporting Statement The supporting statement can be summarised as follows: The Trustees had, as a matter of principle, decided not to seek letters or e-mails of support for the project. There had been a full and detailed consultation regarding the project and a community referendum which was managed by the independent Electoral Reform Services, which found in favour of the proposed development. This process is described in detail in the Environmental Statement. AAT has also won numerous awards for its work in developing energy efficiency and micro renewables in the community. Furthermore, seeking letters of support is extremely time consuming for staff and volunteers. Given the finite resources, AAT needed to concentrate on the development of its new zero carbon Energy Centre. It is therefore anticipated that the application will be determined on the basis of the Environmental Statement, Planning Policies, and its capacity to support regeneration in the upper Amman and Swansea Valleys. APPRAISAL The Proposal Page 5 of 48 Officer Report Full planning permission is sought for a community wind farm consisting of 2 turbines, sub station, met mast and access track, together with temporary works including borrow pits, on land at Mynydd y Gwrhyd. The proposal relates to the installation of two wind turbine generators, each having a generating capacity of up to 2MW and which are three- bladed design with a maximum height of 60m to the rotor hub and a maximum rotor diameter of 80m resulting in an overall height of 100m. The amount of energy produced by the windfarm would be 10,479 MWhrs, which means that the wind farm will be able to supply the equivalent of 1,995 households.