For Enquiries on This Agenda Please Contact
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the MAIN HALL, ROTHESAY PAVILION, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE on TUESDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair) Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor George Freeman Councillor James McQueen Councillor Robert G MacIntyre Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Roderick McCuish Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Sandra Davies, Area Team Leader Steven Gove, Planning Officer Jim Osborne, Bute Community Power – Applicant Iain MacLean, Locogen – on behalf of Applicant Richard Gorman, Environmental Health Officer – Consultee Reeni Kennedy, Supporter Mick Common, Supporter Adam Ellis Jones, Objector David Irving, Objector Jean MacLeod Moffat, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Gordon Blair, Rory Colville, Alistair MacDougall and Neil MacIntyre. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. BUTE COMMUNITY POWER: INSTALLATION OF 2 WIND TURBINES (47 METRES HIGH TO TIP HEIGHT), FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS, HARDSTANDING AND ERECTION OF SUBSTATION BUILDING: AUCHENTIRRIE FARM, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE (REF: 15/00951/PP) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. Thereafter he advised of the procedure that would be followed and the Head of Governance and Law identified those present who wished to speak. PLANNING The Area Team Leader presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services. Before going on to the main part of her presentation on this application she advised Members of further late letters of objection received from Greg Fisher, Mara Fisher, Arthur Edwards, Malcolm Calder, Sandra Calder, Ian Shaw and Robert McArthur, all from Rothesay and from a representation from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland commenting on the impact of the proposal on Stewart Hall. She confirmed that these additional representations did not contain any new issues which would change the recommendation contained within the original report of handling. She also referred to supplementary planning report number 3 which referred to a communication from Mick Common which is listed as an objection. She confirmed that this should be a representation. With the aid of presentation slides, Mrs Davies confirmed that planning permission was sought for the erection of 2 wind turbines measuring 47 metres to tip height, the formation of a vehicular access, hardstanding and erection of a substation building. The site was located on open moorland north of Auchentirrie Farm approximately 3km to the west of Rothesay. With regard to the Local Development Plan, the site was located within the countryside zone. The turbines were within very sensitive countryside while the access would be within sensitive countryside. The existing access from the public road was located within a Rural Opportunity Area. None of these policy designations would preclude the development of wind turbines. The development would use the existing access to Auchentirrie Farm to a point just to the south of the farmhouse, thereafter an access track would be formed to the turbines. Referring to the elevation of the proposed turbines she confirmed that they would be 47 metres to tip and 30.5 metres to hub. The diameter of the rotor would measure 33 metres. She referred to a slide showing the Zone of Theoretical Visibility or ZTV for the proposed development and confirmed that the concentric rings were at 5km intervals. The area shaded green indicated that 1 turbine was theoretically visible while the area shaded blue indicated that 2 were theoretically visible. She then referred to a number of slides showing the location of the proposed turbines from a number of viewpoints She then presented a slide showing the landscape character types found within the Councils “Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS)” This document identifies those areas in Argyll and Bute which are likely to have capacity for wind turbines and those which do not. Whilst this study only addresses landscape considerations, following its approval by the Council, it is a significant material consideration albeit of lesser weight than development plan policy. In the context of the LWECS, turbines of the size proposed would fall within the definition of small/medium that is between 35 and 50 metres to tip height. The site lies within Landscape Character type 5a known as “Bute Open Ridgeland”. The higher ground of this character type is open and features rough pasture and moorland while small farms and enclosed pastures fringe lower slopes. These small hills are important in the contribution they make to the overall diversity of the landscape found on the Isle of Bute. Within this area there would be high-medium sensitivity to the small-medium typology. The constraints within this landscape type are: The relatively low elevation of the southern hills and the presence of nearby small buildings which could be dominated by larger turbines. The prominence of higher hill tops seen in views from roads and settlement within Bute and also from the wider Firth of Clyde; The presence of extensive broadleaved woodlands and the setting this landscape provides to Ettrick Bay, Lochs Fad and Quien and the designed landscape of Kames Castle in the adjacent “Bute Rolling Farmland with Estates” character type. The setting of archaeological features found particularly within the southern hills. The opportunity identified for development within this landscape is defined as the gentler hill slopes with a less diverse vegetation pattern which provides opportunities particularly for smaller typologies. The LWECS study states that there was likely to be very limited scope for the small to medium typology turbines and that they should not be sited on prominent hill tops or steep slopes. She advised that it was considered that the siting of these two turbines at 47 metres in height to blade tip in such a prominent location would exert a disproportionate influence over the receiving environment, where they would appear to be out of scale with their landscape context. The scale, location and motion of the wind turbines would impinge on adjacent small scale and settled landscapes and would adversely affect the highly sensitive Area of Panoramic Quality, which was recognised for its regional value and scenic qualities. Referring to a slide showing the visualisation from Barone Hill Mrs Davies confirmed that the West of Scotland Archaeology Service was consulted on this application and has advised that there are concerns that the development would have an adverse impact upon the setting at Barone Hill which is a scheduled ancient monument. This has been cited as a reason for refusal of this application. Mrs Davies confirmed that as of last night 247 objections and 96 letters of support had been received in respect of this planning application. A range of points for and against the proposal have been made and were summarised in the report. Other aspects which have been considered but do not form part of the reason for refusal include the following: Cumulative Impact – it was not considered that there was either cumulative landscape or visual impact reasons for refusal in the circumstances of this case; Ecological Impact – no habitat sensitivities have been identified and it was not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on protected species. Ornithological Impact – the proposal would not have an adverse impact on ornithological issues subject to the imposition of conditions if Members were minded to approve. Hydrological and Hydrogeological Impact – it should be possible to protect groundwater, however, if Members were minded to approve the application it would be necessary to impose conditions requiring the implementation of the mitigation measures identified by the agent. Management of Peat / Soil – the development site was not considered to be within an area associated with peatland habitats and was unlikely to include carbon rich soils. Tourism Impact - given that the magnitude of the impact upon tourism cannot be estimated reliably, it has not been cited specifically as a reason for refusal. Clearly adverse landscape and visual impacts were likely to impinge upon the tourism sector which was of importance in the context of the Argyll and Bute economy. Noise and Air quality – the Environmental Health service was consulted and has advised that there would be no concerns with noise subject to the imposition of a planning condition. In addition there were no concerns in terms of construction noise. Road Traffic Impact – the Roads Officer has recommended that if Members were minded to approve the application a full traffic management plan including vehicle swept path analysis should be submitted and approved prior to any work commencing. In addition, conditions would be required relating to visibility sightlines, junction standard and access gradients. In conclusion, Mrs Davies confirmed this application was being recommended for refusal for three reasons. Firstly, the proposal would occupy a prominent location with a sensitive and highly valued landscape character type where it would be open to views from ferry and recreational boat traffic and from roads and recreational destinations on the island of Bute. The particular value of the landscape surrounding the application site has been accorded regional status by being designation as an APQ in the Council’s LDP. Supported by the findings of the LWECS, it was considered that turbines of this height would be out of scale with their immediate and wider landscape context. By virtue of their scale and eye catching rotation, they would introduce dominant features which would impinge on adjacent, small scale and settled landscapes and adversely affect highly sensitive key panoramas and views. This would be contrary to development plan policy and the material considerations noted in the report. The second reason for refusal related to the scale disparity between the height of the turbine and the hill on which they would be sited.