Minutes of East Worlington Parish Council Meeting held on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 at 7.30pm in the Parish Hall. Chaired by:- Councillor T Wall Clerked by:- Sue Squire Present:- Councillors Agenda:- Pubic Meeting. To hear representations from the public Mrs F Mills in respect of Minute No. 4. P Risdon Apologies Mrs J Smyth Declarations of Interest T Wall Planning D Webber 51 members of the public Action 18. Public Meeting. Representations were heard from the public in respect of Planning Application 54053 - erection of one 50 kW wind turbine (height 34.2m, height to hub 24.6m, blade diameter 19.2) at land at East Burrow Farm, East Worlington. Councillors had the opportunity to speak first in respect of the following headings: 1. Planning Policies 2. Benefit 3. Landscape and Environment 4. Residential Amenity 5. Transport 6. Cumulative impact with other turbines Councillor Risdon declared a Prejudicial interest, left the table and sat in the public gallery. Councillor Mrs Mills addressed the meeting feeling that the turbine would have an impact on the landscape, there would be no immediate benefit to community, she questioned the scale of the turbine and would favour a smaller turbine suited to the Devon landscape. Councillor Webber felt the turbine was too near too many dwellings meaning others will lose out financially. Councillor Mrs Smyth was more than aware of the impact it would have. Other North Devon villages have to accommodate landfill sites and biodegradable energy and the community has to give something. She felt care should be taken not to have something intrusive in the landscape. Councillor Wall was not 100% convinced of the need or desire of the applicant and is bigger than what is needed. He hoped the applicant would be able to assist. Representations were heard from members of the public. The Agent, Mr Tonks of Energy Descent went into details of the issues made by Councillors, covering the scale and the reason it could not be smaller. The next smaller is a 12kw turbine and it would not work for two reasons: no investment in technology and too low to the ground. As regards being too close to dwellings, this was acknowledged, as are a lot of turbines of this scale. If they were further away a bigger turbine would be required. He did not feel it would be intrusive and further deliberations would be held with the 2 East Worlington Public Meeting and Parish Council Meeting 04.07.12 Planning Officer to try and come to an agreement. Need. The Government says it is not necessary to show need. Mr Tonks' firm work with many high energy users in the UK and gave examples. Councillor Mrs Mills responded by commenting that a lot of need identified is in towns and cities. Councillors had the opportunity to comment on a public contribution. Terry Carter, Morchard Bishop asked: How much power contributes to ITV. Answer: They use the Government figure of 50/50 output. Member of the Public questioned the amount of power used. Answer: 200k units a year. Adrian Forward, East Burrow House. If the proposal proceeds it will be at the bottom of his garden. He was concerned about a number of factors: policy documents; the development falling outside the guidelines; strong precedent; scale of development against energy demand of applicant, negative effect on landscape; landscape and visual issues; not fit for purpose; weak proposal; impact of noise on dwellings. Dr P Bratby, retired Energy Consultatant and Vice Chairman of North Devon CPRE (Campaign for the Rural Protection of England). Of the 30-40 Applications he had looked at, he considered this was the worst. He agreed with Mr Forward and gave examples of the poor way in which the Application was submitted. Francis Lister, Meshaw commented on the impact Applications have on the community and was of the opinion that turbines are divisive and spoke about the value of property and destruction of habitat. He considered that it gave a reward to those who have a subsidy. Adam Frankel, Cheldon House. There have been 3 Applications in 7 months and he has spent many hours making representations with 120 objections in respect of the last Application. He was concerned about the cumulative effect, old technology and the fact that a precedent could be set. He felt the Parish Council should should made a statement to the Local Authority. K Marriott, Chawleigh spoke about the cumulative effect and was concerned about potential industrialisation in this part of North Devon, considered not satisfactory. He circulated a map of distribution of turbines and applications in Mid Devon District Council, North Devon Council and Torridge District Council areas. It was slightly out of date as there have been a lot of Applications since. He commented on noise impact and loss of house value. Steve Bates, Morchard Bishop has land holding nearby and asked What pre application consultation has been carried out with local people? Answer: The firm did not have any and it does not make any difference. Mr Bates asked for a show of hands for those in support and against reminding Councillors they are representing their community. The Chairman said the request was appropriate and would be done at the end of the public meeting. Mr Bates continued: Page 15 of the Design and Access Statement in relation to decommissioning. He did not understand part of it and this was clarified with a speculative statement. He also made point that North Devon Council has a Sustainability Officer, who has 3 East Worlington Public Meeting and Parish Council Meeting 04.07.12 listed failing of the Application. Councillor Wall asked the plan as a Company of its Decommissioning Policy in 25 years time. Answer: The asset will be owned by Energy Descent. It will be taken away and the site put back to what it was by whoever the owner is. Rowland Smith, Nymet Rowland spoke about the Application with regard to no landscape and visual assessment; no assessment made of cultural heritage; the impact on Listed Buildings has been ignored and there is no evidence to support the claim to support local habitat. Sally Burton, Gidley House. She lives close by and considered the turbine would maybe have impact on rental revenue of property. She also had cumulative effect concerns. She asked: Why is western power not the energy company and why it is independent energy companies? Councillor Wall advised that they do have a say and upgrades would be needed. Jeff Souch, Borne Head advised that the turbine would be within the line of sight and asked the developer if he could explain the benefits to us. There was no answer from the developer. He continued: The benefit is electric where power stations are closed down and the down side is that we are subsidising by feeding tariffs as we have to pay more for electric. Councillor Webber asked how many houses it would supply: Answer: 40 – 45 homes. Councillor Mrs Smyth asked if the turbine had to be silver or camouflage. Answer: It would be off white, the background changes the colour of environment and it is not designed to match the colour of anything. Adam Frankel: Man cannot store electricity as with water. The turbine is outside the area of search for wind in the DCC Structure Plan. Here it is 18-20%, others 25% and is intermittent. The farm will receive money, backed by a power station. David Body Lower Park, Witheridge asked how many houses are within 2 miles of the development? Answer: No idea, power is going on to a three phase line. Councillor Wall could not see the line on the plan and was told it would go under the road. Steve Bates asked if the landowners were present and this was confirmed. Mindful of the comments passed, what are the views on the comments that have been passed? Councillor Wall felt the issue should not be pressed. The landowner advised that a statement had been prepared and it was realised that people were against the development. People who support it do not come to such Meetings. She read the statement giving the reasons for the Application. She wants to make it a viable family farm again; the land has been drained of nutrients; they want to restore quality of soil with few chemicals. At present cannot sustain enough animals to make it viable. They receive a small amount of support from the Single Farm Payment which is expected to go in a few years. She was concerned about the noise and a minimum 4 East Worlington Public Meeting and Parish Council Meeting 04.07.12 distance of 250metres from other dwellings and had been assured by the Agent. Councillor Wall then invited a show a hands: In favour: None. Against: A unanimous majority. 19. Apologies. Councillors G Butt and Mrs S Fryer, County Councillor R Edgell, 20. Declarations of Interest. Councillor Risdon had declared a Prejudicial Interest at the start of the Meeting and had left the table, sitting in the public gallery. 21. Planning. Clerk 3.1 Application 54053 - Erection of one 50 kW wind turbine (height 34.2m height to hub 24.6m, blade diameter 19.2m) at land at East Burrow Farm, East Worlington. It was resolved to recommend refusal for the following reasons: The application was flawed in many areas, Reported that the development falls outside the development guidelines, There was no public consultation Would create a strong precedent; The scale of development was against energy demand of applicant, Negative effect on landscape with landscape and visual issues which would change the character of the area, Not fit for purpose, Weak proposal, Impact of noise on nearby dwellings.