Agenda item

7.1 – 20C277 – Tai Hen, Rhosgoch (9)

 

7.2 – 44C292 – Llety, Rhosybol (34)

7.1 20C277 Full application for the erection of one wind turbine with a maximum hub height of up to 44m, rotor diameter of up to 56m and a maximum upright vertical tip height of up to 72m together with the erection of a transformer station, utility housing and new access track and hardstanding land at Tai Hen, Rhosgoch.

 

The application was reported to the Committee as it had been decided that delegated powers will not be used in connection with wind turbine developments. A site visit was carried out in August 2012.

 

Prior to the Committee’s considering the application, the Legal Services Manager reminded the Committee that changes in the Planning Matters Procedure Rules had been in effect on a  12 month pilot basis, the two major changes affecting this Committee being the prohibiting of a Local Member on the Committee from proposing, seconding or voting on an application in his/her electoral ward, and that a Member of the Committee had to be present during every previous consideration of an application including a site visit in order to participate in the consideration and determination of the application  subsequently. The pilot had come to an end last month and a report on the matter with a view to implementing the changes permanently is to be considered by the County Council on the 6^th December. The Executive in its deliberation on the issue has recommended a further 12 month trial period. The Legal Services Manager advised Members that technically therefore this meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee is operating under the old Planning Matters procedure rules in force before the pilot changes. However it is a matter for the Members as individuals to decide at their own discretion whether they wish to adhere to the changed rules even though technically those are not in force but having regard to the recommendation to be made to the County Council. 

 

The Chair invited Mairede Thomas, an objector to the application to address the Committee.

 

Mairede Thomas informed the Committee that she was speaking on behalf of the owners of Ty’n y Gors and she proceeded to draw Members’ attention to the following issues in respect of the application:

 

·           The proximity to Tyn y Gors of the group of turbines at the back of the property, the nearest turbine being 46m high and situated at a distance of 520 metres from the House. The resultant effect when standing in the garden is overbearing.

·           The comparative scale of the current application which is for a 72m high turbine at a distance of 445m from the property. 

·           Tyn y Gors is surrounded on one side by the 24 turbines of the Rhyd y Groes wind farm; there are 15 turbines to the North East; four to the North and another 5 to the North West. To the South the Llyn Alaw wind farm can be glimpsed and two further turbines have been approved to the Southeast.

·           The owners of Tyn y Gors have spent the last 7 years extending and reorientating their property so that most of the rooms have windows giving a prospect to the South West which is the one direction which is free of turbines. Approving the current application would mean that these 7 years would have been wasted and would mean the property is surrounded by turbines. However, none of the existing turbines are so large or so close or as overpowering as the subject of the application today.

·           The effects on amenity of the noise and flicker generated by the turbines already in situ. Video footage of the flicker shown to her by the owners shows that it is unpleasant and they have explained that they are disturbed by the noise. The nearest turbines are to the North so the prevailing wind carries the noise away from the house. The subject of the current application however is directly in the path of the prevailing south westerlies meaning that there is nothing in the landscape to prevent the noise reaching the house. It would give rise to severe noise disturbance and would produce flicker for more of the time. These are health hazards.

·           No mitigation for the noise and flicker other than the application of a condition compelling the developers to purchase the property of Tyn y Gors at market price in compensation.

·           Refusal is possible on the grounds that the Welsh Government Planning Guidance suggests a minimum separation distance of 500m between turbines and homes.

·           Admission by the developers that both nearby properties would be substantially affected.

·           Overwhelming loss of amenity for the occupants of Tyn y Gors coupled with real danger from turbine noise are compelling reasons to use the Welsh Government Guidance and Local Plan to reject the application.

 

There were no questions from the Committee’s Members on the submission given.

 

Mr James Merrigan was then invited by the Chair to address the Committee in support of the application.

 

Mr Merrigan cited the following reasons as grounds for approving the application-

 

·           A community benefit payment to be made available at a rate of £5,000 per annum. 

·           Income generated from the turbine will help sustain the applicant’s farm and will be invested back into the local economy.

·           The limited degree of impact the turbine would have is significantly outweighed by the benefits it offers. It would also be viewed in the context of the nearby existing Rhyd y Groes wind farm located a couple of fields away.

·           The proposal is fully in accordance with Development Plan and governmental energy policy. Based on the planning merits of the proposal, the application should be approved.

·           The majority of people support the proposal. Whilst the Council received 40 letters of objection, 240 letters of support were received during the same timeframe.

 

Mr Merrigan concluded by saying that should the Committee grant the application, it would allow the applicant the opportunity to help fund his farming activities and to maintain the rural landscape by farming it as well as releasing £5,000 per annum to enable community benefits. In return, there will be a wind turbine on the landscape for a temporary period of 25 years. The benefits of the proposal therefore clearly outweigh any potential harm.

 

There were no questions to Mr Merrigan from the Committee’s Members

 

The Development Control Manager drew Members’ attention to the written report

setting out the application and the associated considerations. At the time of writing

the report the applicants had submitted an appeal against non-determination but that

had yet to be validated. The Officer informed Members that the Planning Inspectorate

had now validated the appeal meaning that the local Planning Authority is not able to

determine the planning application as per the recommendation of the report.

However the Inspectorate has confirmed that the application can be presented to the

Committee for its recommendation only and not for determination. The Committee

can only make a resolution on the Local Planning Authority’s position in the

and is therefore being asked to state its view in respect of the Officer’s recommendation.The Officer then proceeded to refer Members to pages 22

and 24 of the report which describes the setting of the listed building of St Peirio

Church, Rhosbeirio. Whilst an assessment of the impact on the building was

undertaken at the time a fuller assessment has since been carried out by the

Authority’s Conservation Officer. In his opinion the impact on the listed building is

significant graduating to moderate which can be mitigated by landscaping.

It was the intention to stipulate a condition to that effect. Although the Officer

recommendation is one of approval, the validation of the appeal against non

determination means that the Planning Inspectorate will now deal with the application

as one that has been refused. Given that in this instance the officers cannot defend a

refusal there are two options available to the Committee, namely to confirm its

support for the recommendation of approval thereby confirming to the Inspectorate

that the Authority will not be contesting the appeal, or to state that it does not support

the recommendation and is supportive of the Authority’s contesting the appeal. In

such a situation, it would be for the Committee to defend that position at appeal.

 

 

Councillor Clive McGregor said that had the application been presented for

determination his view would be to reject it on the grounds that he believed the

proposal constitutes a step too far in terms of the scale of the development within a

rural area and its impact on the listed building of St Peirio church and the surrounding

landscape. The proposed turbine will generate 500kw of power which is on a larger

scale than any previous proposal of this kind and which he believed to be to more

than what is required for farming needs alone and is for financial profit. On that basis

he proposed that the Committee does not support the recommendation of

approval. Councillor Eric Roberts concurred with the views expressed by Councillor

McGregor and he said that it was his view that the community benefits in this case

did not outweigh the harm which the development would occasion. He therefore

seconded Councillor McGregor’s proposal. There were also doubts expressed as to

whether landscaping would ameliorate the impact of the development on the listed

building of the church.

 

Councillors Lewis Davies, Jim Evans, Clive McGregor, Eric Roberts and Vaughan

Hughes voted in favour of not endorsing the Officer’s recommendation of approval. 

 

It was resolved not to endorse the Officer’s recommendation of approval on the grounds that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape of the area and also on the listed building of St Peirio Church.

 

The Development Control Manager indicated that pursuant to the Rules, Councillors Clive McGregor and Eric Roberts would be the ones to defend the decision on appeal.

 

7.2 44C292 Erection of one wind turbine with a maximum hub height of up to 44m, rotor diameter of up to 56m and a maximum upright vertical blade tip height of up to 72m together with the erection of a transformer station and utility housing, formation of a new access track and hardstanding and formation of a new link road near the junction with the B5111 on land associated with Llety, O.S. field numbers 0268 and 6366, Rhosybol

 

The application was reported to the Committee as it had been decided that delegated powers will not be used in connection with wind turbine developments. A site visit was undertaken in August 2012.

 

Ms Bethan Griffiths, an objector to the proposal was invited by the Chair to address the Committee. Ms Griffiths highlighted the following issues as grounds for objecting to the application –

 

·           The manner in which the application was presented and the fact that the original applicant submitting the application had said that he owned the land of four other people which information was amended by e-mail only when it was understood by objectors to the application that the information was inaccurate. The application should have been presented anew with the correct plans otherwise it is not founded on true information and should not go ahead in law.

·           The proximity of the proposal to nearby properties. The Welsh Government guidance advisesthat wind turbines should not be located within 500m of residential properties. The current proposal is for a turbine situated at 338m from the nearest property and is within 450m to three other properties.

·           Concerns regarding the location of the proposed turbine on a road close to the main highway between Rhosybol and Llanerchymedd. A turbine as large as the one proposed will draw attention on a road that is already hazardous.

·           The suitability of the single road to sustain the engines and lorries necessary to erect andservice the turbine.

·           Effects on amenity in terms of noise and potential effects on health which are contentious issues.

·           Approval of the application could have repercussions for the wildlife in the vicinity.

·           The Residential Amenity report is misleading and incorrect and states that the turbine would be visible from only one room in the property nearest to it whereas it would be visible from 4 rooms.

·           The turbine would be visible from a wide area as it would be located on a hill. Anglesey is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A report undertaken shows wind turbine density on Anglesey is at least 7 times greater than the national average. There were no questions to Ms Griffiths from Members of the Committee. On the invitation of the Chair, Mr James Merrigan addressed the Committee in support of the application and he made the following points –

 

·           Aside from the community benefit payment of £5,000 per annum and the clear benefits associated with the income generated being invested back into the local farm, the perceived impacts of the turbine are acceptable and that the limited degree of impact the development would have in terms of where it can be viewed from are significantly outweighed by the benefits it offers.

 

·           Out of the statutory and internal consultees requested to provide an opinion by the Council, the officer’s report highlights that only two out of a potential twelve objected. These were the Community Council and the Built Environment Section based on potential landscape impact and visual amenity considerations associated with one nearby house.

·           The property in question is a bungalow located around 346m from the proposed turbine. Barring small evergreen trees in the front garden, the house would have a view of the proposal. However, the property does already have clear views of pylons spanning from Wylfa Power Station. It also has views of the existing Trysglwyn Wind Farm.

·           The closest home to Trysglwyn Wind Farm with open views of turbines is located around 270m away from the closest turbine which is 76m closer than the closest property in question in this instance.

·           In the context of existing pylons and an existing wind farm therefore, he did not believe that there would be an unacceptable impact in terms of landscape concerns or residential visual amenity. The turbine would not be overbearing.

·           The benefits of the proposal as regards providing community and economic benefits far outweigh any temporary concerns that could result in refusal. The development is for a limited period of 25 years.

 

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that the circumstances of this application were similar to that of 7.1 in that the applicants had submitted an appeal against non-determination which had now been validated by the Planning Inspectorate. However in this instance the Officer recommendation is one of refusal of the application meaning that the Officers can, and are prepared to defend the position of refusal. Should the Committee disagree with the recommendation it can state that it does not wish the Authority to contest the appeal and that it would have approved the application had it been in a position to do so.

 

Councillor Aled Morris Jones addressed the Committee as Local Member. He informed Members at the outset that he had previously declared an interest in this matter and had sought legal advice which had confirmed that the interest was personal and not prejudicial. He thanked the Committee for visiting the site and viewing the proposed location of the wind turbine and he stated that the proposal is within Llandyfrydog rather than Rhosybol. He said that he was concerned by the number of wind turbine applications that exist within the areas of Llandyfrydog and Rhosybol. He had asked for a map to be shown indicating the locations where wind turbines had been giving planning consent, the current wind turbine farm at Trysglwyn along with proposed wind turbine sites. He believed that consideration had to be given to the density of such developments and that he was concerned that they were beginning to surround the areas of Llandyfrydog and Rhosybol. He made specific reference to the assessment of the impact of the development on the visual amenity of the residents of the property known as Rhosydd Bungalow as documented in the written report which the Officer state would be substantially affected to an overbearing and overwhelming degree for the

reasons outlined. He asked Members to endorse the Officer’s position on the application and said that the overriding concern was the scale of the proposed development wherever it would be sited in the area.

 

Councillors Clive McGregor and Vaughan Hughes sought advice on their position given that they had not been present at the site visit when it was carried out in August. The Legal Services Manager confirmed that the period during which changes to the Planning Matters Procedure Rules had been piloted and were in force had now come to an end and had not been extended as yet meaning that the Committee was in a period of interregnum. It was therefore open to those Members to participate in the discussion although they had not been present on the site visit and especially bearing in mind the Officer’s advice that the Committee is not able to come to a determination on the application.

 

 Councillor Clive McGregor indicated that his view was the same as with the previous application and that he believed the current proposal represented a step too far. Councillor Eric Roberts proposed that the recommendation of refusal be endorsed and he was seconded by Councillor R.L.Owen.

 

It was resolved to support the Officer’s recommendation of refusal of the application for the reasons given.

 

(Councillors Clive McGregor and Vaughan Hughes did not vote on the matter)