ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 12 JANUARY 2016

15/00418/PPW – APPLICATION TO INSTALL 1 NO. LELY AIRCON 30 KW WIND TURBINE, ON AN 18M GALVANISED STEEL FOLD-DOWN TOWER. HEIGHT TO TIP 25.8M, AT 15 PORTVOLLER, POINT, ISLE OF LEWIS

Report by Director of Development

PURPOSE OF REPORT Since the planning application has been the subject of more than six representations the planning application cannot be dealt with under delegated powers and is presented to Committee for a decision. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendation being implemented.

SUMMARY 2.1 This is a planning application by Dr Alan Fish, 15 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis for planning permission to install 1 no. Lely Aircon 30 kW wind turbine, on an 18 metre fold- down tower, with a tip height of 25.8 metres at 15 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis. 2.2 A Report on the case was previously presented to the meeting of the Environment and Protective Services on 24 November 2015 when it reconvened on 1 December 2015. The decision of the Committee was that the application be deferred until a meeting of the Committee in mid-January 2016 when it was expected that further information would be available from Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. 2.3 The application is within the settlement of Portvoller. Twelve representations were received from third parties – 10 representations and one petition objecting to the development (the petition having nine signatories, four of which are also numbered in the 10 individual representations) and one supporting the development. A further representation was received from the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) on 6 January 2016. A summary and assessment of the representations is set out in the Report. Those opposing the development are mainly highlighting impacts relating to noise, visual impact, landscape impact, scale of the turbine, wildlife impacts, and aviation impacts. The representation supporting the development detailed impacts relating to benefits of renewable energy development, specifically in relation to global temperature rises and benefit to the island in relation to becoming ‘carbon neutral’. The MCA cite adverse impact on radio transmission to and from their Portnaguran mast which could significantly reduce their mandated capability and in turn pose an unacceptable risk to maritime safety in the area. 2.4 The MCA representation raises a material planning issue of some weight as the maintenance and protection of maritime safety infrastructure is in the public interest (Appendix 2). This representation indicates an unacceptable adverse impact on telecommunications transmitting and receiving systems such that the development would be contrary to that element of Policy 19 of the Development Plan. It is therefore concluded that in order to allow sufficient time for the applicant to consider the MCA objection and the Planning Service in turn to conclude an assessment of the potential telecommunications interference, a decision on the application be deferred until the meeting of the Committee on 9 February 2016.

RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that consideration of the application be DEFERRED until the meeting of the Committee on 9 February 2016.

Contact Officer: Helen MacDonald Tel: 01851 822 690 Email: [email protected] Appendix: 1 Site Plan 2 Letter from Maritime & Coastguard Agency received 6 January 2016 Background Papers: None DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 4.1 This is a planning application by Dr Alan Fish, 15 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis for planning permission to install 1 no. Lely Aircon 30 kW wind turbine, on an 18 metre fold- down tower, with a tip height of 25.8 metres at 15 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis. 4.2 The site is located in the village of Portvoller on the south side of the A866 which runs the length of the Eye Peninsula. The village is linear in pattern, though a number of properties are set somewhat back from the main line of settlement. These are more in line with the houses on the Portvoller village road which runs perpendicular to the housing accessed directly from the A866. 15 Portvoller and the site of the turbine sits approximately 160 metres back from the main road. The site consists of the existing house at 15 Portvoller and sits within the garden ground for the development. 4.3 The proposed turbine is 18.83 metres to the hub, and 25.8 metres to the tip. The turbine is sited approximately 25 metres from the gable of the applicant’s own house which is approximately 5.5m in height to the ridge.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES 5.1 The planning application by Dr. Allan Fish, 15 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis, was registered on 07 October 2015. 5.2 The planning application was advertised for public comment in the public notices section of the Stornoway Gazette in the publication dated 22 October 2015, as required by regulations. 5.3 A Report on the case was previously presented to the meeting of the Environment and Protective Services on 24 November 2015 when it reconvened on 1 December 2015. The decision of the Committee was that the application be deferred until a meeting of the Committee in mid-January 2016 when it was expected that further information would be available from Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2011 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 apply to this proposal. 6.2 The proposed development is Schedule 2 Development – Category: 3(i) in terms of the 2011 Regulations. 6.3 Having assessed the characteristics and location of the development and the characteristics of the potential impact as set out in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations, the Director of Development, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar on 19 November 2015 issued a Screening Opinion stating that the proposed development is not considered likely to have a significant impact on the environment and that the submission of an Environmental Statement is not required.

PREVIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS RELATING TO THE SITE 7.1 The following planning history relates to the site: Ref. No. Description Decision Date 15/00418/SCR_L Installation of 1 no. 30 kW Wind No EIA 19.11.2015 Turbine, on 18m galv. steel fold- Required down tower. Height to tip 25.8m.

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 8.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultations by the Planning Authority can be read on file at the Development Department. The following is a summary of those relevant to the determination of the application.

COMHAIRLE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE 8.2 ‘Based on the noise data provided by the company and the location of the nearest properties, other than the developer’s, I would advise attaching the standard noise conditions to the development. I would also advise that given the proximity of the proposed turbine to the developers own house they are likely to be affected by noise from the turbine.’

OFCOM 8.3 Awaited. CONNECTED COMMUNITIES 8.4 ‘The MOD has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.’

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 8.5 ‘…the MOD has no objection to the proposal’.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS AIRPORTS LTD 8.6 7 December 2015 – ‘Regarding HIAL's previous response to application 15/00418/PPW… We have now received written confirmation from NATS that the airport navigation aids would not be affected. Therefore HIAL will withdraw its objection to this development.’ 8.7 21 October 2015 - ‘This development falls inside the safeguarded areas for Stornoway Airport. The turbine lies adjacent to the approach procedures and has the potential to affect the performance of electronic aeronautical systems for the airport. HIAL would not wish to see a degradation of any of these services. Assurances would need to be obtained from NATS that the navigation aids would not be affected, particularly the VOR installation which is located to the South west of the development on the Eye peninsular. HIAL would object to this development until these assurances can be obtained from NATS.’ Note: HIAL require to secure clearance from NATS (Air Traffic Engineering) on navigation aids.

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE (NATS ) (EN ROUTE ) 8.8 ‘The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal’.

REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 Representations against the proposal have been received from the following: • The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA), 105 Commercial Road, Southhampton, (see Appendix 2); • Alan Smith, 12 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Claire Walker, ‘Aros’, 6 Broker, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Conan Macleod, 11 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Ronald MacAlpine, 4B Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Jayne Watson, 6 Broker, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Kathryn G Macleod, 10A Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Ian Kennedy, 3 Old Mill, North Kessock, Inverness (and 19 Portvoller); • Christine Bestwick, ‘Shalom’, 10 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Michael WA and Catherine M Dunn, 13 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Jaclyn Campbell, ‘Charlyn’, 7b Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Alan Smith, 12 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis (9 person petition – including 4 persons submitting representations noted above). Representations in support of the proposal have been received from the following: • Christian Wagner, 22 Portvoller, Point, Isle of Lewis.

9.2 The full terms of the Representations can be read on the file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows: • Noise. • Visual impact. • Landscape impact. • Loss of (residential) amenity. • Scale. • Turbine could prevent future development (by sterilizing land). • Light pollution potential if red-obstacle light is required. • Alternative renewable energy options would be better suited. • Wildlife impact – including protected species, such as sea eagles. • Impact on (human) health, specifically affecting sleep. • Impact on animal health. • Health and Safety issues relating to siting and scale – e.g. blade throw. • Adverse impact on radio communications to and from the existing MCA Radio tower at Portnaguran, part of the MCA’s national communications infrastructure.

VIEWS OF THE APPLICANT 10.1 Views submitted: • Visual Impact …The writers seem to be thinking of the large turbines you see on the moor, which can be on towers of 100m or more. The proposed tower is only 18m high, and the location was chosen to be unobtrusive from most locations in the village. Actually, many people consider wind turbines to be beautiful objects. The neighbours whose view will be most affected (the Wagners at 22 Portvoller) have recorded their support for the application. • Noise … The Lely Aircon 30, with no gears, is one of the quietest turbines available. • Danger… The Lely Aircon 30 is designed to withstand sustained winds of 135mph, and has failsafe mechanisms. As regards aviation, NATS have already commented that they have no objections. [Note: the response referred to is from NATS En Route] • Ecology … Wind turbines do very occasionally have birdstrikes but there is definitely no White-Tailed Eagle on Point (sic). In other respects it seems perverse to object to a wind turbine on the grounds of ecological damage, when it will be generating clean energy for the island. • Precedent … Each application should be judged on its own merit, but in any case the idea that this would pave the way for many other turbines is misguided. Now that the UK government has abolished the feed-in tariffs, this will be the last opportunity for many years to exploit wind power on Point. ASSESSMENT OF EIA 11.1 The proposed nature, scale, and location are such that an EIA is not required.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material planning considerations, prior to a conclusion and recommendation as to the determination.

12.2 Policy 1 – Development Strategy

Development proposals within Rural Settlement will be assessed against all of the following: a) a siting and design appropriate to the rural character, distinctiveness and settlement pattern of the local area in line with Siting & Design Policy 4 and Landscape Policy; b) a lower level of density that accords with those set out with those set out in Housing Policy 13 and the landscape character of the individual settlement c) demonstration of how development at the edge of the settlement physically and visually integrates with the existing settlement pattern and characteristics, and consolidates the existing edge; d) new development does not erode the character which forms the distinctiveness of the rural settlement e) the development of better quality inbye croft land does not threaten the continuation of crofting

12.3 The development complies with Policy 1 Rural Settlements because the location of the site is appropriate to the character, distinctiveness and settlement pattern of the local area, and sufficiently complies with Landscape Policy 5. The development will not appear as overly dominant and will not adversely affect neighbouring amenity, given the distance from the nearest noise sensitive property of over 140 metres. The development does not evidently threaten the continuation of crofting within this location. The siting, scale, and design of the turbine is, while not ideal, assessed as acceptable given the localised landscape impact and visual impact, the development is visible from the southern point of the village road in views north towards the development site and from a small number of houses but at an acceptable distance.

12.4 Policy 2 – Assessment of Development

Underpinning each of the policies in the Plan is a requirement to demonstrate that development proposals: a) will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests and, where possible, result in an enhancement of these interests (The online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit should be consulted for general advice and good practice on habitats and species, and the NBN Gateway for site specific biodiversity data); b) will not result in pollution or discharges outwith prescribed limits to the air, land, freshwater or sea; c) have been designed to take account of the requirements of safeguarding zones notified by the Health and Safety Executive, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services, Ministry of Defence, Marine Consultation Areas, relevant Harbour Authorities and Marine Protected Areas. All development will be assessed for its impacts individually, incrementally and cumulatively to ensure no significant detrimental effects arise.

12.5 It is considered that a turbine of this scale will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests of the site. The site is not within any designated areas and there is no site specific evidence of protected species. There should be no pollution or discharges outwith prescribed limits to the air, land, fresh water or sea. In terms of safeguarding HIAL, NATS (En Route) & MOD have been consulted. NATS (En Route) & MOD have no objection to the development. HIAL had initially objected on the basis of potential impact on the NATS (Air Traffic Engineering) instrumentation but subsequently withdrew that objection. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy 2.

12.6 Policy 5 - Landscape Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. The Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (WI-LCA) will be taken into account in determining applications and developers should refer to Appendix 1 of this plan for a summary of this guidance. 12.7 The application site sits within the village of Portvoller, to the south of the main road and just beyond the main settlement line, immediately adjacent to an existing house. The landscape character in the vicinity is Crofting 1 and on the edge of Boggy Moorland. 12.8 Reference has been made to the Landscape capacity study for onshore wind energy development in the Western Isles to aid this assessment. 12.9 Crofting 1 describes settlements predominantly (but not exclusively) in Northern Lewis where crofts sit on open, exposed moorland edges and sweep down to the sea and the strips are very linear and uniform. 12.10 In terms of physical criteria, the underlying landscape of this type is large to medium scale, open and simple. The settlement follows a dispersed pattern along the roads all through these areas. The scale contrast between the large open landscape and the small dwellings is great as there are very few or no medium scale elements in these landscapes. Introduction of such elements in the form of turbines would reduce this contrast. 12.11 In terms of perceptual criteria, Crofting 1 is located within the rolling, open, medium to large-scale landscapes between the coast and Boggy Moor. This landscape type has a strong rationale for domestic and community scale wind energy development due to the association with isolated dwellings and townships. 12.12 Within the wider landscape visibility of these areas is generally not significantly high; however, due to the general openness, local visibility is much higher. This turbine would be visible and viewed within the local area and from ferries into Stornoway. 12.13 On landscape grounds the overall sensitivity of Crofting 1 is rated at medium sensitivity. Whilst not fragile this Landscape Character Type has a vulnerability to development and adherence to the following guidance would help to reduce impact. ‘…Domestic scale turbines could be associated with individual dwellings and this would relate in scale and function to this Crofting type being in a very exposed landscape. The numbers of domestic turbines is harder to judge. If every dwelling had one, for example, it would be likely to cause a significant character change. Similarly with community scale turbines (20m) which need to be sited occasionally rather than regularly to avoid significant change. This scale of turbine could be sited singly or in very small groups, three or five at the most. They should also be sited in more open areas which whilst still providing the functional link with communities, avoid disparities in scale with small dwellings.’ 12.14 The development due to its scale is more in keeping with the scale of what is termed a ‘community scaled’ turbine being in excess of 20m. In this case while it is located part way down a croft at about 160m from the main concentration of linear development, it is sited next to a small house, and not in an open area. It’s siting so close to a small house does therefore introduce a disparity in scale with the adjoining small dwelling. 12.15 The applicant has submitted photomontages which illustrate the scale of the turbine in the localised context and its proximity to the dwelling it is intended to serve. 12.16 The siting is therefore not in line with the guidance provided within the landscape capacity study. It is however visible within a localised context only. 12.17 There is therefore an element of concern in terms of its siting but as it is a single turbine within the settlement of Portvoller, the overall integrity of landscape character is unlikely to be damaged by the siting and as such, it is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy 5.

12.18 Policy 19 – Energy resources The Comhairle will support proposals that contribute to meeting the targets and objectives of the National Planning Framework 2, the Climate Change Act, and the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan in relation to electricity grid reinforcement, infrastructure and renewable energy generation. Proposals for onshore renewable energy projects and oil and gas operations (including extensions to existing or proposed developments and land based infrastructure associated with offshore projects) will be assessed against the details below and be required to demonstrate all the following: a) appropriate location, siting and design including the technical rationale for the choice of site; b) no unacceptable adverse impact (including cumulative) on: landscape, townscape and visual aspects, natural, built and cultural heritage resources; the water environment; peatlands; aviation, defence and telecommunications transmitting and receiving systems e.g. broadband; public health and safety, and amenity (including noise and shadow flicker as appropriate); neighbouring land uses, transport management and core paths; c) acceptable decommissioning and site reinstatement arrangements; The type, scale and size of the proposed development will have a significant effect on the way the Comhairle will consider an application and the level of accompanying information that will be required. Conditions and, where necessary, a planning agreement may be used to control the detail of the development. Non- permanent elements of a development will be granted permission consistent with their lifespan and/or projected period of use.

12.19 This is a single turbine, with a hub height of 18.83m and tip height of 24.8m sited within an established crofting settlement. The turbine will provide electricity which should reduce energy costs and the carbon footprint of the applicant’s home, and is located within close proximity which will reduce transmission loss. It is located in an open area with wind-catch – it is considered that it has a technically sound rationale. 12.20 It is considered that the location, siting and design is appropriate for the type of development and that, on balance, it is not evident that there would be unacceptable adverse impacts arising from the development – including cumulative impacts; landscape; settlement; natural, built and cultural heritage; water environment; peatlands; aviation and defence. Whilst no details are contained within the application detail regarding acceptable decommission and site reinstatement this could be managed by planning condition 12.21 However a representation by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) received on 6 January 2016 cites concerns that the proposed turbine is sited within 500m of the existing MCA telecommunications mast at Portnaguran and that the effect of reflections from the rotating blades on transmitted and received signals could significantly reduce their mandated capability and in turn pose an unacceptable risk to maritime safety in the area. The MCA mast is a 22m high lattice tower with radio antenna on-top and is located within circa 480m of the proposed turbine. 12.22 This representation indicates an unacceptable adverse impact on telecommunications transmitting and receiving systems such that the development would be contrary to an element of criteria b) of Policy 19.

12.23 Policy 20 – Small / Micro Renewables In addition to satisfying criteria (a) to (c) for Policy 19 (Energy Resources), micro generation renewable energy* proposals will be required to meet all the following criteria: a) the proposal does not have an unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative impact on residential amenity; b) colour, form, finish and height are appropriate to the setting and are designed to minimise visual impact and distraction; c) sufficient information is provided to enable a balanced assessment of any other likely effects of the development. The Comhairle will assess such proposals against the Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development.

12.24 The proposal for a single turbine, with no other turbines in the vicinity, is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. 12.25 The white blades and dull, galvanized steel tower would be suitable for the skyline views of the turbine, which would dominate given the height and siting of the turbine in relation to the majority of public views. 12.26 Its form is standard for the development type, and its height is considered ‘Small’ scale in terms of policy definitions. A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), noise data and visualisations were provided to aid in the assessment of the turbine. 12.27 Overall, the development is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy 20 with the exception of satisfying criteria b) of Policy 19.

SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE ASSESSMENT 12.28 Supplementary Guidance: Wind Energy Development 12.29 This application is for a single turbine, which is less than 20m to hub height and has a capacity of less than 50kW – the development is ‘Small’ scale and thus considered under ‘Micro’ development as defined within the Supplementary Guidance and must be assessed against the following: • LDP Policies 19 and 20 Energy Resources, (assessed above); and • Supplementary Guidance Policy 3: Micro scale development. 12.30 The development falls under the Micro/Small Generation category within the Comhairle Supplementary Guidance - Wind Energy Development. The proposal has thus been assessed against Local Development Plan Policy 20 and LDP policies relating particularly to siting, design, landscape and visual impact, natural and built heritage interests. The development complies with Supplementary Guidance Policy 3 and Appendix 3 of the Comhairle Supplementary Guidance - Wind Energy Development. 12.31 A ZTV was submitted in accordance with Supplementary Guidance Policy 3 and followed up with visuals. This allowed assessment of Landscape and Visual impact as set out above. 12.32 The proposal has been assessed and found to be able to comply with these policies.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12.34 Having carried out an assessment against the Development Plan, the proposal is despite some concern regarding the siting, considered to accord with the provisions of the Plan and on balance considered acceptable in terms of the Plan.

MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 13.1 Having carried out an assessment against the Development Plan, the Planning Authority requires to identify and consider other relevant material considerations, for and against the proposal, and assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the Development Plan. The weight to be attached to any relevant material consideration is for the judgment of the decision-maker. SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY 13.2 Scottish Planning Policy is a material Planning Consideration. This includes policy statements from the Scottish Government. 13.3 Paragraph 187 of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states that Planning Authorities should support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be addressed. SPP therefore supports a decision being taken in accordance with the Development Plan. ONSHORE WIND TURBINES – UPDATED 28 MAY 2014 13.4 The Scottish Government has produced online advice on on-shore wind turbines. This advice sets out typical planning considerations in determining planning applications for turbines and includes impact on landscape, communities - noise, shadow flicker; historic environment and aviation and defence. These issues have been taken into account during the determination of this application and have been discussed in detail above. CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY POLICY 13.5 Climate change is seen as the main challenge to deliver future development that is sustainable. The principal area of agreement concerns the urgent need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. In Scotland it is the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 that sets out the Government's commitment to reduce green-house gas emissions and reduce Scotland's vulnerability to the impacts of Climate Change. The Act introduces ambitious, world leading legislation to reduce emissions by at least 80% by 2050. 13.6 An increase in the amount of renewable energy generation (electricity and heat) as a means of reducing carbon emissions in support of efforts to tackle climate change is supported. The Scottish Government's Climate Change Act sets a world-leading interim target for a 42% cut in emissions by 2020.

PLANNING HISTORY 14.1 Other than the Environmental Screening Opinion issued in relation to this application, there is no planning history on the application site.

REPRESENTATIONS 15.1 The issues considered below were raised in representations are assessed for their planning merits. Statements of support 15.2 One statement of support for the application was received. 15.3 The content of the statement highlights the benefits of renewable energies. Objections 15.4 All objections received related to a variety of aspects of the proposed turbine, with multiple representations relating to noise, scale and visual impact. 15.5 Noise impact This has been considered under Policies 19 and 20 at sections 12.18 - 12.27 above. It is considered a material planning consideration. The noise data provided has been considered in consultation with Environmental Health. It is assessed that there is not a significant likelihood of undue noise impact from the proposed turbine as sited. The turbine model is expected to be able to comply with the provisions of the recommended planning conditions and the assessment and proposed conditions would be considered sufficient mitigation to protect the interests of noise sensitive premises in the vicinity.

15.6 Scale and visual impact As detailed in 12.18 - 12.27 above, it is considered that the linked considerations of scale and visual impact, while not wholly characteristic of the area, are not such that they would contravene Policy 5. The submitted ZTV and visualisations show the turbine would be in excess of 120 metres from all surrounding properties. In short views, the turbine would be visible in some views from a number of neighbouring properties. However private views are not a material planning consideration. The longer views are from the main road and the Portvoller road indicate that this will be a single tall structure introduced to a landscape that is largely dominated by small scale buildings. The township has some vertical structures at its east and west extremities, Tiumpan Head Lighthouse and a telecoms mast. The turbine, whilst acknowledged as unacceptable by some, is however unlikely to unduly dominate the landscape or change the character of the settlement as a whole. The visual impact arising from the turbine’s scale is therefore of insufficient weight to merit a refusal of the application. 15.7 Turbine could prevent future development (by sterilizing land) While this is possible, there is no policy or precedent to protect non-designated development sites. There are no consented development sites within the noise sensitive zone of the turbine. 15.8 Light pollution potential if red-obstacle light is required If an obstacle light were required, the light emitted would clearly be seen and would therefore introduce a light not previously present but in the context of a village with a number of houses with internal and external lighting, it is unlikely to create any excessive or undue impact on the residential area. There are numerous obstacle lights visible from dense and sparsely populated areas within the island and there is no evidence of undue negative amenity impacts as a result. 15.9 Alternative renewable energy options would be better suited The Planning Authority must consider the proposal submitted by the developer. There is no scope for requiring the assessment of alternative developments on a development of this scale. 15.10 Wildlife impact – including protected species, such as sea eagles Impact on ecology and protected species is a material planning consideration. Reviewing available information from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the site is not within and designated, protected or known area for protected species. While bird-strike is always a possibility with turbine development, SNH standing guidance would not advise against a single small scale turbine with no cumulative impacts arising from other existing or consented turbines. 15.11 Impact on (human) health, specifically affecting sleep The development has been considered in relation to potential for noise disturbances, and exceeds the minimum distance required to nearby noise sensitive premises. Noise impact is the main quantifiable known health issues arising from wind turbine proximity to housing. The scale and singular number of turbines is such that this matter carries insufficient weight to merit refusal of the development. 15.12 Impact on animal health There are no quantifiable health issues for animals arising from wind turbine development and this is unlikely to be a material planning consideration of any weight. 15.13 Health and Safety issues relating to siting and scale – e.g. blade throw Matters relating to general health and safety are not controlled by the planning process. The only property with potential adverse impact is that of the applicant.

15.14 Maritime and Coastal Safety The proposed turbine is sited within 500m of the existing MCA telecommunications mast. The MCA provide a 24-hour maritime search and rescue service around the UK coast, and international search and rescue through HM Coastguard. The mast at Portnaguran is a 22m high lattice framework with radio antenna on-top. The short range radio equipment operates on the VHF marine band frequency range of 156-162 Mhz. The MCA state that the provision of an effective radio communications infrastructure is a vital component and underpins their service. The proposed turbine is circa 480m from the mast site and the MCA, through their national Communications Infrastructure Manager, state that that the effect of reflections from the rotating blades on transmitted and received signals could significantly reduce their mandated capability and in turn pose an unacceptable risk to maritime safety in the area. This is a material planning consideration carrying a degree of weight that would weigh against an approval of the application.

CONCLUSION 16.1 The proposal is considered to be in compliance with most of the relevant provisions of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, with the exception potentially of the telecommunications interference issue which is the subject of an objection by the MCA and would indicate non-compliance with Policy 19 part b). Consideration has been given in Section 15 above to material planning considerations and what weight should be given to these in making a determination other than in accordance with the Plan. 16.2 Of these, the key considerations to be weighed up against the provisions of the Plan are noise, landscape and visual impact and potential for interference with telecommunications infrastructure. Representations on the grounds of noise do not carry weight in the determination as the only property with the potential to be affected is that of the applicant which is sited within close proximity of the site and would benefit directly from the power generated. Representations against the potential visual and landscape impacts have been considered and whilst the concerns in relation to landscape impact are acknowledged the impact is localised and unlikely to change the character of the area. Impacts on the visual amenity of the area have also been assessed and, on balance, are considered to be acceptable. 16.3 The representation by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) however raises concerns the effect of reflections from the rotating blades on radio signal transmission to and from the MCA radio communications tower nearby could significantly reduce the mandated capability (maritime search and rescue service around the UK coast, and international search and rescue through HM Coastguard) and in turn pose an unacceptable risk to maritime safety in the area. 16.4 This latter issue is a material planning consideration carrying a degree of weight that would weigh against an approval of the application. However as the objection was submitted on 6 January 2016 the applicant has not been afforded sufficient time to consider whether there is any mitigation that could be employed.

RECOMMENDATION AND REASONS 17.1 It is therefore concluded that in order to allow sufficient time for the applicant to consider the MCA objection and the planning service in turn to conclude on the assessment of the potential telecommunications interference, a decision on the application be deferred until the meeting of the Committee on 9 February 2016. APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2