Agenda item

7.1  19C1174/FR – Enterprise Park, Holyhead

7.2   20C102L/EIA/RE – Rhyd y Groes Wind Farm, Rhosgoch

7.3   28C257A – Bryn Maelog, Llanfaelog

7.1       19C1174/FR – Full application for change of use of land to place 103 containers for storage purposes at Enterprise Park, Holyhead

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the land that forms the application site is owned by the Local Authority.

At its meeting held on 6th July, 2016, the Committee resolved to visit the site prior to determining the application and the site visit took place on 20th July, 2016.

The Planning Development Team Leader informed the Committee that since the site visit took place Welsh Water have submitted comments in respect of the siting of the proposed containers in relation to the main water supply. Discussions are taking place with regard to the placement of the containers and taking account of the current scheme and the distances which Welsh Water require around its supply pipes, further consideration needs to be given to the scheme as proposed  before a recommendation is made to the Committee. It is therefore recommended that consideration of the application be deferred pending the outcome of the discussions.

It was resolved to defer consideration of the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation for the reason given.

7.2       20C102L/EIA/RE – Full application for the erection of 11 wind turbines comprising of 6 up to 900kw wind turbines with a maximum hub height of up to 55 m, rotor diameter of up to 52m, and a maximum upright vertical tip height of up to 79m, and 3 up to 900kw wind turbines with a maximum hub height of up to 45m, rotor diameter of up to 52m, and a maximum upright vertical tip height of up to 70m, and 2 up to 900kw wind turbines with a maximum hub height of up to 45m, rotor diameter of up to 52m, and a maximum upright vertical tip height of up to 66m above ground together with the creation of crane pads, foundations, underground electricity cables, improvements to part of the existing track, works to the highway, the creation of new access tracks, an extension to the existing 33kv substation, the erection of a new 11kv substation, the erection of an anemometer and temporary construction and storage compounds and batching plant (which would also entail de-commissioning of the existing wind farm) at Rhyd y Groes Wind Farm, Rhosgoch

The application is for the repowering of the existing Rhys y Groes wind farm. The application is an EIA application and as such must be referred to the Planning and Orders Committee for determination.

The application has been delayed in being presented to the Committee to allow the applicant to respond to objections and requests for further information from Natural Resources Wales, the Council, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and the Welsh Government with regard to the issues outlined in the report. The applicant’s response has resulted in the scheme being amended and a scheme amendment statement was received in June, 2016 which removes turbines 12 and 13 at the eastern extent of the site and reduces the height of turbines 3, 4 and 11.

Mr Roger Dobson, a public speaker and an objector to the proposal said that he spoke for many of the residents of North Anglesey based on a public meeting held in Cemaes and the results of a survey which produced 9,000 responses favouring restrictions on new turbines to a maximum height of 50m. He cited four main reasons for opposing the development relating to the visual impact on the landscape, the effect of noise upon people over a larger area, safety, and the context of other energy developments and he elaborated thereon. He referred to the potential impact of the development on tourism which is a key industry for Anglesey as well as issues regarding the safety aspects of wind turbine technology and he gave examples of incidents involving wind turbines and the public. Mr Dobson said there are also concerns about the wind turbines impacting on human health due to exposure to noise and flicker effects. The whole of Cemaes is already affected by the existing wind farm and the effects would likely be greater as a result of the proposed development. Mr Dobson said that Anglesey has already done more than its fair share for the North Wales economy and Britain’s low carbon electricity and that the creeping industrialisation of the landscape on top of Wylfa is unreasonable in a small community.

There were no questions by the Committee to Mr Dobson.

Ms Ffion Edwards, an employee of Natural Power addressed the Committee in favour of the proposal and she highlighted that following consultation the scheme has been amended by the removal of two turbines and by reducing the height of another three thereby ameliorating the effects on the AONB, the area’s cultural and heritage assets and lessening the visual effects on Cemaes. Natural Resources Wales and other consultees as well as the community councils have since confirmed they do not object to the scheme. The Isle of Anglesey County Council is also satisfied as to the acceptability of the proposal. The proposal complies with renewable energy planning policy which advocates the repowering of wind turbines as long as there are no unacceptable effects on the landscape. The proposal brings with it numerous benefits including a renewable energy supply of 20.8m kilowatt per hour equating to over 4,000 homes, a commitment to the Heritage Management Plan and improvements to the coastal path; a boost to the local economy through investment and job creation, and the payment of a dividend of £4k per megawatt which for the proposed scheme is equivalent to 39k per annum to the local community. In summary the proposed scheme is better designed, is more productive and is time limited to a period of 25 years.

The Committee asked Ms Edwards a series of questions in clarification of the following issues:

•           The nature and extent of the employment opportunities it is envisaged the proposal will create. The Committee was informed that it is anticipated that work opportunities might arise both at the construction stage of the proposed new wind farm as well as from the de-commissioning of the existing wind farm. Other ancillary opportunities could occur locally in production and supply and also in security during the construction phase.

•           The benefit to the community. The Committee was informed that the scheme as proposed will produce £4k per megawatt or £39k per annum which is index linked giving around £1m over the lifetime of the development. There will be discussion with the local community as regards the criteria for the distribution and allocation of monies.

•           The possible impact of the proposal on the landscape being situated at a distance of 900m from the coast and on the AONB, and by implication on tourism. The Committee was informed that there have been extensive discussions with the Local Planning Authority as regards the effects of the proposal particularly on the AONB and several assessments of the landscape impact have been carried out. NRW has no objection in connection with the AONB and it is not considered that it would have significant adverse effects on the AONB. No study has evidenced any significant impact on tourism from wind farm sites and the proposal is restricted to 25 years unlike the existing wind farm which is not subject to time limited consent.

•           The Committee sought reassurance that the existing wind farm will be phased out as the new scheme comes into operation and that the two will not be in production simultaneously. The Committee was informed that the existing wind farm will not be operative at the same time as the repowered wind farm. The proposed scheme provides for the decommissioning of the existing turbines but because the site is in two parts - the eastern and western areas, the decommissioning process will involve a phased approach whereby one area will be decommissioned in preparation for the new scheme whilst the existing scheme will still be operating in the other area.

•           The rationale for repowering the existing wind farm in the context of the proposed Wylfa Newydd nuclear build. The Committee was informed that the proposal is a renewable energy project which is unrelated to nuclear energy.

The Development Team Leader updated the Committee as regards representations received and she confirmed receipt of correspondence by Llanbadrig Community Council withdrawing its objection to the proposal and a letter by Llaneilian Community Council in support of the standpoint taken by Llanbadrig. Letters of objection have also been received including one from the Member of Parliament on behalf of some of the local residents. The Officer referred to the reason for reporting the application to the Committee as set out in the report and clarified that although there has been a more recent decision to revert to the position whereby wind turbine application are determined under delegated powers, because this is an EIA application and because it has been called in, it has to be presented to the Committee for determination.

Mr John Hall, Amec Foster Wheeler and Case Officer for the application clarified what the application as presented entailed and he outlined the context to the application. The Officer referred to the main planning considerations in relation to the principle of the development; the landscape and visual impact; the impact from a Cultural Heritage perspective; and residential amenity and he elaborated thereon giving details of the elements in mitigation of the scheme’s effects including by the attachment of planning conditions. The Officer highlighted the fact that although current policies and guidance supporting wind farm repowering weigh against the treatment of wind farms as temporary, in this case the proposal’s reversibility is given significant weight; in being restricted to a 25 year period the wind farm’s life will be subject to planning control in contrast to the existing wind farm which as things stand could remain in perpetuity. Two conditions seek to reinforce this namely draft condition 4 which seeks to ensure the decommissioning of the existing wind farm in tandem with the construction of the repowered wind farm. The applicant has agreed the principle of a phasing scheme to ensure that demolition proceeds in a way that aggressively reduces the number of turbines in the site. Draft condition 5 seeks to ensure the removal of the proposed wind farm after 25 years of operation. The application is being recommended for approval because of the short-term benefits in the form of the generation of power, the control over environmental effects and the removal of the existing turbines but in a way that produces effects that are not so significant to outweigh the benefits. In the long term the scheme provides for the removal of all turbines on the site in a prominent location thereby securing an improvement to the setting of the AONB.

Councillor W.T. Hughes spoke as a Local Member. The Legal Services Manager clarified that notwithstanding Councillor Hughes had declared a prejudicial interest, the Members' Code of Conduct allows him to participate on the same basis and to the same extent as a member of the public and to withdraw from the meeting having made his representations. Councillor Hughes having addressed the Committee subsequently withdrew from the meeting.

Councillor John Griffith, a Member of the Committee gave his views also as a member for a neighbouring electoral area and he raised concerns regarding the proposal on account of its visual impact on the nature and character of the surrounding landscape and its proximity to the AONB. He cited a series of policies which he believed the proposal contravened particularly in terms of being unacceptable because of its detrimental effect on the landscape and he referred to the adverse cumulative effects of the current proposal along with other wind farm developments in the area.

The Committee considered the information presented and in the ensuing discussion it sought assurance regarding the arrangements for decommissioning the existing wind farm and their enforcement as well issues in relation to noise impact. The Planning Development Team Leader said that further work will be undertaken on the conditions relating to phasing out the existing wind farm. The Environmental Health Operations Manager explained the position with regard to managing noise effects.

The majority of the Committee’s Members were on balance supportive of the application based on planning grounds; due to there being an existing wind farm on site and because of the amendment to the scheme and the mitigation of effects which this provided. Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be approved and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes, Councillor John Griffith proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation; there was no seconder to the proposal.

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions set out in the written report. (Councillor Victor Hughes abstained from voting) 

7.3       28C257A – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling together with full details of the vehicular access on land adjacent to Bryn Maelog, Llanfaelog

The application has been called in for the Planning and Orders Committee’s determination by Councillor Richard Dew. At its meeting held on 6th July, 2016, the Committee resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation because it deemed it to be compliant with Policy 50; because the proposal is an infill application on a brownfield site; because the proposal does not impact upon the amenities of adjoining occupiers and because the proposal will improve the appearance and amenities of the locality.

The Planning Development Team Leader reported that it is the Officers’ view that the principle of residential development is unacceptable as the development conflicts with Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan. The development of the site would likely set a precedent and lead to pressure for additional housing development in the vicinity. The brownfield nature of the site is not considered sufficient of itself to overcome the policy objection. The recommendation therefore remains one of refusal.

Councillor Richard Dew, a Local Member confirmed that he did not wish to add to the comments he had made at the previous meeting.

The Committee reiterated its previous support for the application. Councillor Victor Hughes said that his view regarding the suitability of the site for residential development and as likely to improve the appearance of the locality remained unchanged and he proposed that the Committee re-affirm its approval of the application. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes.

It was resolved to re-affirm the Committee’s previous approval of the application subject to appropriate conditions to be determined by the Officers. (Councillor John Griffith did not vote on the matter as he had not been present at the previous meeting)

The Legal Services Manager advised at this juncture that as the Committee had now been in session for three hours (Applications 12.1 and 12.2 having been considered under Item 5 – Public Speaking), under the provisions of paragraph 4.1.10 of the Council’s Constitution, a resolution was required by the majority of those Members of the Committee present to agree to continue with the meeting. It was resolved that the meeting should continue.