Erect 2 wind turbines 57m to the hub with total height of 92.5m (instead of 115m) to the tip of the blade (Maximum output 5Mw) together with track, building and associated equipment.
Local Member: Councillor Elwyn Edwards
Minutes:
Full application to erect two
57m wind turbines with a total height of 92.5m (instead of 115m) to the top of
the blades (maximum output of 5MW) together with a track, building and
ancillary equipment.
Members of the Committee had visited the
site before the meeting.
(a)
The Senior Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the application
included the construction of foundations, a transformer, underground cabling, construction
of an electrical substation, creation of access track, creation of temporary
security compound and a storage yard. An environmental assessment had been
submitted with the application which considered the potential impacts of the
development. Reference was made to the main policies and public consultations
that had been noted in the report. Attention was drawn to the principal policy,
namely policy C26 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan as well as relevant
criteria that dealt with wind turbine developments. As the proposed development
would be able to generate 5MW, it was noted that the application was on the
threshold of what was acceptable within the policy of the Unitary Development
Plan and attention was drawn to the fact that Technical Advice Note 8 stated
that it was acceptable to refuse planning applications for developments over
5MW. The Committee’s attention was drawn
to the fact that there was a need to carefully balance whether or not the proposed
plan was acceptable in terms of the policy relating to developments outside the
Strategic Search Areas as the main aim of the policy was to protect the
landscape.
It was considered that it was possible to manage ancillary
developments and decommissioning with relevant conditions. It was noted that
neither the Biodiversity Unit nor Natural Resources Wales had any objection to
the development except for relevant conditions and completion of the
development in accordance with the environmental statement.
In terms of residential and general amenities, it was
noted that a number of objections had been received regarding noise but the
Public Protection Unit had not objected to the proposal and that it would be
possible to manage this through relevant conditions. Should the application be
approved, appropriate conditions would be required to ensure that the turbines
were switched off at times if moving shadows were to cause problems.
The main concern of the planning officers was the impact
on the residential amenities of neighbouring houses namely Cistfaen
and Cae Iago and in response to this concern the
applicant’s agent had submitted two wireframe plans to show the scale of the
potential impact of the turbines on both properties. Reference was also made to
nearby wind turbines in Syrior and the potential
impact of the cumulative noise of the turbine which was the subject of this
application on the neighbouring houses.
In relation to highways and transportation matters, it was
noted that many objections had been received based on the concern of highway
safety especially during the construction period. Mitigation measures had been
included in the environmental assessment which included a traffic management
plan but in response to this no objection had been received from the Council’s Transportation
Unit. Since the report had been written, the Welsh Government’s Trunk Road
Department had submitted observations stating that granting a permission was
not permitted until additional information would be received from the
applicant.
Attention was drawn to the number of listed ancient
monuments near the site with CADW and Gwynedd Archaeological Trust objecting to
the application based on the impact of the development on the setting of the
ancient monuments. In addition, reference was made to a listed Chapel in Bethel
where the front of the chapel faced the site.
In terms of impact on the landscape, it was noted that the
turbines would be visible from the Snowdonia National Park and the AONB. It was
noted that Natural Resources Wales had raised a concern about the local impact
but they did not object based on wider views from the designated
landscapes.
In terms of impact on the landscape, although the National
Park had objected to the application, it was noted that Natural Resources Wales
and the local authority had assessed the application and were of the opinion
that although it did not have a harmful impact on the National Park or the AONB
it would have an impact on the local landscape and appearance in the landscape.
It was emphasised that the landscape character of Bethel and Glanrafon valley could substantially change as a result of
the proposal. Also, in terms of the cumulative impact of wind turbines and in
accordance with the guidance of TAN8, wind turbine developments should not
cause a substantial change to the landscape character.
The planning officers’ recommendation was to refuse the
application based on the impact on:
·
Local
landscape
·
Setting
of listed buildings
·
Setting
of listed ancient monuments
·
Residential
amenities
(b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:
·
That
the proposed application was contrary to the Council’s planning guidance on
wind turbine developments from the start, especially policy C26 which noted
that only small or domestic community based developments would be granted
permission – the application before the committee was not a small development.
·
There
was substantial specialist evidence noting that the development would have a
detrimental impact on the landscape which contradicted the applicant's
allegation that it would not have a cumulative impact with the developments
that already existed.
·
The
above argument had been refused by CADW and also in the specialist report.
·
Also,
that a recent report by the Gillespies company had
concluded that the area had no capacity for further wind energy developments
and acted as a buffer between the surrounding protected landscapes.
·
It
was also noted in the report that the application was contrary to TAN8
guidelines which noted that outside search areas there should be no substantial
change to landscape deriving from wind turbines – there would certainly be a
substantial change deriving from this application.
·
The
Ministry of Defence had requested for red lighting to be fitted at the top of
the masts which would flash 60 times per minute – this would certainly change
the landscape character.
·
Bearing
in mind the disturbance which would derive from the main construction work,
then a track, crane and permanent outbuildings as well as the wind turbines,
this would industrialize open countryside of high quality and there was no room
for such a development in a beautiful part of Gwynedd.
(c)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s Agent noted the following main
points:
·
Planning
officers were thanked for the constructive process in dealing with the
application and it was felt that the company had come up with a plan that
managed to avoid impacts on the National Park and the AONB.
·
The
only matters that caused a concern between the applicant and the planning
officers were local matters. Whilst the Agent did not deny that there would be
a substantial local impact, given the context of climate change and the
national order for renewable energy which had recently been submitted by the
Minister for Natural Resources, Welsh Government, it was felt that local
impacts were not sufficient enough to outweigh the positive recommendation to
approve the application.
·
In
terms of impact on nearby residential properties, it was noted that the landowner
who promoted the scheme owned one of the properties and from the wireframes
that had been produced it was clear that only the front of the blades could be
seen and that the turbines would be screened well in terms of topography.
·
It
was realised that CADW was concerned in terms of historic ancient monuments,
but they were not certain whether or not the ancient monuments were
pre-historic or medieval which suggested that it would be difficult to define
the location and also the importance of the location.
·
CADW
also recognised the impacts of climate change on historic ancient monuments.
(ch) The Local Member (a member of this Planning Committee) noted
the following main points:
·
That
it was difficult for him to object to the application as he had supported a 94m
high wind turbine application in Braich Ddu
·
Attention
was drawn to the fact that the Community Council objected to the application.
·
The
Chapel in Bethel had been empty for at least 20 years and was in poor
condition.
·
The
Company was offering a substantial financial contribution to the community.
(d)
In
response to the observation made regarding a financial contribution, the Senior
Solicitor advised the Planning Committee that this should not be considered at
all as it was outside the planning system.
(dd) It was proposed and
seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the officers’
recommendation.
(e)
The following observations were noted contrary
to refusing the recommendation:
·
That
the application was similar to the Braich Du wind
turbines planning application which had been granted permission.
·
The
Minister for Natural Resources, Welsh Government was supportive of wind turbine
developments.
·
Should
the applicant refer the decision to an appeal, a concern about the likelihood
that the authority would lose the appeal.
RESOLVED: To
refuse for the following reasons:
1.
The proposal individually and jointly with turbines
that are already close to the site would be harmful to the character and appearance
of the local area due to the size, location and prominence of the proposed
development and that it would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring
residents' visual amenities and those who use the site and surrounding area for
leisure/amenity purposes. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to
policies B23 and C26, Onshore Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance and
guidance in TAN 8.
2.
Due to its size, location and prominence the proposal
would have a detrimental impact on the location of the Grade II listed building
known as Bethel Chapel. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is
contrary to policies C26 and B3 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan,
Chapter 6 Planning Policy Wales, Section 66(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act and the Welsh Office Circular 61/96 - Planning and the
Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas.
3.
Due to its size, location and prominence the proposal
would have a detrimental impact on the location of the Registered Ancient
Monuments known as Clostir Mynydd
Mynyllod, Gwersyll Euni, Cylchoedd Cerrig Caer Euni
and Carnedd Gron Cern Caer Euni.
It is not clear either whether the development will have a detrimental impact
on archaeology that has not been identified and whether impacts could be
adequately mitigated. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is
contrary to policies C26 and B7 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan,
Chapter 6 Planning Policy Wales and the Welsh Office Circular 61/96 - Planning
and the Historic Environment: Archaeology.
4.
As there is no sufficient information about the impact
on residential amenities in terms of visual impacts which are specifically
related to the properties known as ‘Cistfaen’ and ‘Cae Iago’, it is considered that the application is
contrary to policies C26 and B23 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan.
Supporting documents: