Agenda item

13.1 – 38C185C – Maes Mawr, Llanfechell

13.2 – 38C236A – Tyddyn Paul, Llanfechell

13.1 38C185C – Full application for the erection of one wind turbine with a maximum hub height of up to 24.6m, rotor diameter of up to 19.2m and a maximum upright vertical tip height of up to 34.2m on land at Maes Mawr, Llanfechell

The application was originally reported to the committee as it has been decided that delegated powers will not be used in connection with wind turbine developments. The applicant was at the time also a councillor of the Isle of Anglesey Council. The application was scrutinised by the Monitoring officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Constitution.

Having declared an interest in this application, Councillor Kenneth Hughes withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the discussion and voting thereon.

The Planning Development Manager explained that the Planning and Orders Committee resolved to approve the application in November, 2012. Planning permission was not formally released whilst formal complaints were considered by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. A legal challenge was subsequently made to the High Court which remains on-going. In the course of the above events the applicant appealed for non-determination which appeal has been validated meaning that that jurisdiction over the application now lies with the Planning Inspectorate who will determine the application. The Officer went on to say that the application is being reported back to the Committee for a number of reasons as set out in the report including for information; to assess the effect of the supplementary planning Guidance (SPG) on onshore wind energy adopted in January, 2013, and in response to correspondence received following the resolution to grant planning permission. The report addresses these matters in detail. The Committee is now being asked to come to a resolution regarding the Local Planning Authority’s position in relation to the appeal. The Officers consider the proposal to be acceptable in terms of the principle of development; visual and residential amenities; shadow flicker/ reflected light; noise and the effects on the AONB. Whilst Officers do recognise that the proposed development would have an impact locally and would be prominent structure they do not judge those effects to be overbearing. The Officer’s original recommendation was one of approval and the recommendation at this meeting is that the Planning Inspectorate is informed that the Local Planning Authority does not wish to contest the appeal and that if the Inspectorate is minded to approve the appeal, that the conditions set out in the report are attached to the consent.

The Legal Services Manager reiterated that the application is not presented to the Committee for determination as the right of determination now resides with the Planning Inspectorate. The Committee is asked to give a lead on the stance to be taken with regard to the appeal .The Officer’s recommendation remains one of approval; however  there have since been changes by virtue of  the SPG although these do not affect the recommendation.

In the subsequent discussion on this matter, Members of the Committee raised the following issues regarding which they sought further explanation –

·         The status of the SPG and specifically the provision relating to the separation distance between wind turbines and residential and/or tourist properties. There were a number of questions regarding the weight that could be attached to this provision given that this and certain other additional amendments made at the County Council meeting on 24^th January, 2013 when the SPG was adopted had not been subject to public consultation. There were also questions regarding going out to consultation on the additional amendments.

·         Whether the Officers were satisfied with regard to the point that the proposed wind turbine will be closer to the nearest residential property than the 500m which the SPG advocates as the local approach and whether recommending approval based on a separation distance of 312m sets a precedent for the distance to be thus reduced in the SPG.

·         Members sought further clarification of their position as a Committee with regard to what was expected of them in relation to the application. Some Members stated they found it difficult to come a conclusion without being apprised of the broader background and context of the proposal and were minded to defer consideration of the matter in order to receive further information.

The Planning Development Manager responded to the matters raised by explaining that the report addresses the issue of the weight that can be given to the provision within the SPG in relation to separation distance. There have been several appeals where the planning inspectors have stated that they attach little weight to the provision given that the amendments made have not been subject to the public consultation process. The Officers have assessed the position professionally as regards the potential effects which the proposal might have on neighbouring properties and have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence or planning reasons on that basis to refuse the application.

The Legal Services Manager further clarified the position and the expectations on the Committee by saying that the SPG has been adopted by the full Council as guidelines. Planning Inspectors state that the additional amendments made at the meeting of the Council held on 24 January when the SPG was adopted have not been subject to public consultation which is deemed by the Inspectors to be a shortcoming. Consequently less weight is given by the Inspectors to the provisions made by amendment at the 24^th January meeting including the provision in relation to separation distance. There is no further process available through which the SPG can be taken unless the Council decides that it wishes to amend the Guidance. With reference to separation distances, the Legal Services Manager said the SPG is to be used as a guideline rather than as a prescription and each application must be considered on its own merits within its own particular context and environment since what is appropriate in one case might not be in another. In terms of the Committee’s position, the Legal Services Manager advised that should the Committee wish to defer coming to a decision on the matter , then it would be expected to specify what further information it wishes the officers to report back on. If Members feel that they do not agree with the application, then it is open for them to come to resolution to that effect and to detail the planning grounds on which they object to the application.

Following further discussion, Councillor Vaughan Hughes stated that given he had voted against the application previously he believed he should adhere to that position in the interest of consistency. Councillor Lewis Davies said that he felt likewise and he proposed that the Committee’s position on the application be one of refusal. i.e. to contest the appeal. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes. The reasons given for the Committee’s position were the proposal’s adverse effects on the landscape; detrimental visual effects; effects on amenities; potential health effects and its proximity to residential properties.

The Planning Development Manager said in response that Planning Officers would not be able to defend those reasons at appeal.

The Legal Services Manager subsequently advised that as a way forward the matter might be deferred to the next meeting to allow the Officers to report back to the Committee on the reasons given for the Committee’s position on the matter and to allow the Committee to consider whether it wishes to reaffirm its decision. He believed the appeal timetable would allow that course of action to be taken.

It was resolved –

·         Not to endorse the Office’s recommendation that the Planning Inspectorate be informed that the Local Planning Authority does not wish to contest the appeal on the grounds that the Committee rejects the application for reason of its adverse effects on the landscape; detrimental visual effects, effects on amenities; potential health effects and its proximity to residential properties.

·         That the matter be deferred to the next meeting to allow the Officers to report back on the reasons for the Committee’s position of refusal.

13.2 38C236A – Application to determine whether prior approval is required for the erection of an agricultural shed for storage purposes at Tyddyn Paul, Llanfechell

The applicant is related to a member of staff.

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that prior approval of the Local of the Local Planning Authority was not required for the above development and that it constituted permitted development.

It was resolved to note the information presented.