Agenda item

Erection of turbine no. 1 a 46.3m tip height turbine with associated access and sub-station (one of two turbines sought under two planning applications).

The Chairman proposed, and the Committee agreed, that this and the following application on the agenda be considered together for the purposes of presentations and representations because they were similar applications but at slightly different locations.  The Committee would then vote individually on each application.

 

The Committee considered reports of the Senior Planning Officer for the following applications:

·       DM/15/02064/FPA – Erection of turbine number 1 a 43.6m tip height with associated access and sub-station, and

·       DM/15/02063/FPA - Erection of turbine number 1 a 43.6m tip height with associated access and sub-station

atPundergill, Rutherford Lane, Brignall, Barnard Castle (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

H Jones, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the applications which included photographs of the site and photo montages of the proposed turbines.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that since the production of the report a further noise assessment report had been received from the applicant.  This had been considered by Environmental Health and Consumer Protection who maintained their objection and continued to have concerns regarding the adequacy of reports submitted.  Additionally, one extra letter of objection had been received.

 

Councillor Rowlandson, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the applications.  He considered that the proposed turbines were in the wrong place and would stand out in their surroundings.  They would be visible from many miles as well as from the Bowes Museum and other heritage sites.  Councillor Rowlandson agreed with the officers recommendation that both applications should be refused.

 

Councillor Davidson informed the Committee that Councillor R Bell, Local Member was unable to attend the meeting but had submitted the following which he had asked be read out at the meeting.

 

The development sits very close to the border of the Barnard Castle East and West divisions.  I support the officer's recommendation for refusal due to the adverse visual impact, and the adverse impact to the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

It is disappointing also that an application which has been in the pipeline for many months still does not contain sufficient detail to properly assess the noise effects, and impact on heritage assets.

 

It would therefore seem to be unjustifiable to disagree with the report's recommendation to refuse permission

 

Keith Alexander of South Teesdale Action Group (STAG) addressed the Committee to object to the applications.  He informed the Committee that he was representing residents who lived within 800 metres of the proposed development at Punder Gill and who had all objected.  These were South Flatts, Timpton Hill Farm, Timpton Hill Barn, Dent House, Ox Pasture and Kilmond Wood.  Most of these residents lived and worked at their properties and many had lived in Teesdale for generations.

 

The local community had this development hanging over it for the last 5 years and had spent hundreds of hours dealing with a development that it believed was in the wrong place.  As a small community it had felt very vulnerable that its voice would not be heard.

 

Although not against renewable energy schemes in principle, but they had to be sited in the right locations.  Punder Gill, which sat within a unique landscape, was rich in ecology and heritage, and was quite simply the wrong location on which to build two 46 metre turbines.  These views were in line with the Senior Planning Officer. 

 

Both the Design and Conservation officer and the Landscape officer stated that the impact of this proposed development was wholly negative.  The impacts of this scheme could not be made acceptable.

 

The pre-application consultation highlighted the community’s concerns regarding the effect on landscape, heritage, residential amenity and ecology.  Despite this the applicants stated that no further modifications had been made to their proposal as a result of pre-application consultation.  Furthermore none had been made since, despite the fact that the proposals had received 41 letters of objection.  As a result the planning impacts identified by the local community had not been fully addressed and the applications did not have their backing, which was a key material consideration.

 

The turbines, at 46-metres, twice the height of the Angel of the North, would be extremely prominent and completely out of scale with the surrounding landscape.  There were no other man-made developments on this scale in this area, which was a very special landscape:

 

Punder Gill was less than 2 kilometres from the North Pennines AONB and would be seen in views both to and from it.  The site was in an Area of High Landscape Value, with extensive views down the Tees Valley and across to the Yorkshire Dales National Park. 

 

The turbines would impact on views of Kilmond Scar, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which lay within 700 metres of the site.  STAG agreed with the County’s Landscape officer that the landscape and visual effects of the proposals, both together and singly, would be unacceptable and in clear conflict with landscape related policies.  Correctly presented visualisations from more appropriate agreed viewpoints, and a fuller analysis of the effects, would only make this more apparent.

 

Timpton Hill Barn was only 240 metres from T1 and STAG agreed with the County Council officer that the turbines would be overbearing to this property.  Timpton Hill Barn had planning permission to be converted into a home for a young family.  However, STAG differed from the officer views in his conclusion that because the barn was not yet occupied the negative impact of the turbines should not be seen as a material planning consideration.  The planning permission predated this application and it was wrong that the plans and investment to develop a house on a family farm could be derailed simply because the house was not yet occupied.  Despite the proximity of the turbines to Timpton Hill Barn, the applicants had completely ignored this property and as a result it had not been assessed in relation to residential amenity, noise and visual impact.

 

Contrary to the applicants’ statement that only one objector lives within 500 metres of the nearest turbine, South Flatts, Dent House and Timpton Hill Farm were all situated within this distance and all 7 residents had objected to the schemes.

 

The occupier of Timpton Hill Farm was concerned about the impact on ecology and had stated the turbines would destroy years of careful practice on adjacent fields which were only 50 metres from T1.  Timpton Hill was an award winning farm in a higher level stewardship scheme, with the main objective being the protection of wading birds, their chicks and their habitat, especially curlews which congregated in large numbers during staging and migration periods.

Mr Alexander lived at South Flatts and was very concerned that the turbines would be too close to his home and be overbearing in the landscape.  Having moved to South Flatts some 26 years ago, he was attracted by the openness of the landscape.  There was no doubt that the turbines would be prominent features and very dominant from South Flatts which had ten windows and doors which would have clear views of T1, which would be difficult to avoid.  His family spend a large amount of time outdoors, with his garden and land extending 100 metres eastwards towards T2, making it only 295 metres away.   His concerns were amplified by the lack of a set-back distance and he urged Councillors to include a separation distance between turbines and residential properties in the new County Plan.

The owner of Ox Pasture which was some 700 metres from the turbines was very concerned about the impact on wildlife and on her holiday businesses.  Although tourism was not considered a material planning consideration, anecdotally some of her guests had said that should the turbines be built in this area they would not return.

The owner of Kilmond Wood Farm, 700 metres from the turbines had stated that the turbines were out of scale with other structures in the area and would spoil the special nature of the landscape.

 

The area had a rich heritage including The Bowes Museum.  As the turbines would be sited directly in front of the Museum and its listed gardens, they would be seen in views both to and from it.  One of the core principles of the NPPF was to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their setting, so that they could be enjoyed both now and in the future.  There was little doubt that the turbines would have a negative impact on this regionally significant building.  STAG agreed with the County’s Design and Conservation Officer who stated that even if a more appropriate heritage statement was submitted the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development would be wholly negative.

 

The turbines would create noise by day and night.  While the applicants had stated that the noise from the A66 was constant there was no evidence provided to support this claim as raw noise data had not been released.  Residents living next to the A66 knew that the level of traffic on the road was not constant and the road was very quiet in the evenings, during the night and some holidays.

 

The NPPF stated that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs as long as they respected the character of the countryside.  These schemes did neither.  The schemes would not create any new jobs but would simply help to maintain 1 part-time post.  Other jobs created would be short-term and related to the construction of the turbines themselves.  No community benefits had been identified in the applications.  The benefits to the local economy were nil and did not warrant the harm the development would cause to the area.

 

All in all there was nothing to recommend these schemes.  Their contribution to cutting greenhouse gases was outweighed by the unacceptable harm to the area.  The developments were in conflict with Teesdale’s Saved Local Plan, they were not within an area identified as being suitable for wind energy development.  Mr Alexander on behalf of STAG asked the Committee to agree with the local community, Councillor Bell, Parish Councils, The Bowes Museum, the AONB and the County Council’s officers by refusing planning permission for both applications.

 

Paul Bailey, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.

 

This application was not an application from an electricity generating company or an institutional investor.  It was an application from two local landowners who were looking to diversify their farm and raise money to invest in it because it had been neglected since their father’s death several years ago

 

The turbines were small-scale commercial wind turbines which would generate electricity to power almost 400 homes, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help address the effects of climate change, improve the capacity of the grid locally and provide opportunities and jobs for local contractors amongst other benefits to local economy.

 

It was accepted that although there would be some landscape and visual impact as there was with all wind turbines it was not considered that impact was seriously adverse to such an extent that this harm clearly outweighed the benefits.  There would be impact, particularly at near distance, but evidence provided showed that the turbines would not be overbearing so as to affect residential amenity.  The view from the A66 would be a transient one and the view from the AONB would be at long distance, where it would be seen as a relatively diminutive feature from a small and very specific area of the protected landscape.

 

The applicant had sited the turbines close to the A66 which already exerted an urban influence upon the area.  They had reduced the scale of the scheme from 5 to 2 turbines following consultation and they had sited the turbines in a relatively low lying area where they benefited from the screening effects of trees against the background hills from key viewpoint.  Furthermore, the choice of grey rather than white for the turbine colour would help to make them less conspicuous and further assimilate them into the wider landscape.

 

Landscape impact was subjective and involved a fine and delicate balancing exercise.  However, this was not the most sensitive site and the scale of the proposal was relatively small in comparison to other developments.  The characteristics of the site and the surrounding landscape offered some enclosure and helped towards mitigating visual impact.  Sites such as these where impacts could be satisfactorily addressed should be supported.

 

There was concern that the officer’s report seemed to suggest that the applicant was not forthcoming with further information to assist officers in reaching a decision.  This could not be further from the truth.  Since January of this year the application had been waiting for a decision and as each week and month has gone by the applicant had pushed for a determination date and had continually asked whether or not any further information was required to make a decision.

 

The applicant was therefore surprised to find out only a few days before Committee that there were still outstanding objections from both Environmental Health with regard to noise impact and from Design and Conservation with regard to Heritage assets.  Additional information could easily have been provided anytime over the last 8 months between December and now to assist the appraisal process.  Further photomontages had already been supplied to supplement the LVIA in response to comments made by the AONB officer, and further line of sight assessments and visuals sent in response to comments made by the Landscape Officer.

 

The applicant was also concerned that the AONB officer and the landscape officer did not appear to have been re-consulted following the submission of additional reports and supplementary photomontages submitted to address their concerns and following a half day meeting with the AONB officer to examine the proposal on site in more detail.

 

The comments made in the officer report appeared to be taken from the consultation replies dated 8 September and 8 October, prior to the meeting held with the AONB officer on 13 November and before further reports were submitted to the case officer on 26 November.  The applicant had not been made aware of any other responses received from these consultees after this date, and none appeared on the applications web page, even though the applicant urged them to re-send comments following our meeting.

 

In view of this, if Members felt they were not in a position to grant approval for this proposal today, the applicant respectfully asked that the matter be deferred until next Committee so further responses could be obtained from the relevant consultees which were critical to the decision-making and grant the applicant more time so that they could provide further information regarding noise and potential impact on heritage assets, in particular Bowes Museum and Dent House Farm.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to issues raised during the presentations.  Referring to the processes of consultation, re-consultation had been carried out after the resubmission of further reports from the applicant around Christmas 2015.  The applications were being recommended for refusal on the following three grounds and these can be considered to be the key outstanding matters:

·       Regarding heritage the level of detail summited with the applications was not sufficient to fully assess potential impacts upon the significance of heritage assets potentially impacted on by the developments and the applicant had previously in response to this stated that they considered their submissions were acceptable.

·       Visual and Landscape Impact-  Landscape officers originally stated that any additional and more accurate visualisations would only result in clearer demonstration of harm

·       Noise – the recently submitted noise assessment report had been considered by Environmental Health and Consumer Protection who maintained their objection and continued to have concerns regarding the adequacy of reports submitted.  There had been opportunities for the applicant to submit further information, however, there came a point when the application needed to be determined and the issues raised with this application could not be addressed with further work.

 

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that usually he was normally supportive of renewable energy schemes.  However, having attended the site visit and viewed the proposed location of the turbines, he considered that this was the wrong area to site them.  There were no other turbines in this area, which was an area of natural beauty.  The saved Local Plan was robust and it was clear that such turbines were unacceptable, with this being supported by the NPPF.  He agreed with the officer report and moved refusal of each application.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee he objected to the proposed siting of the turbines.  County Durham already had a high proportion of wind turbines and more than 70% of households were now supplied with electricity from renewable sources.  In 2012 Phil Wilson MP had stated that the landscape in County Durham was to capacity with wind turbines and planning permission for more had been granted since this time.  Councillor Boyes seconded refusal of each application.

 

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that he agreed with the views expressed by STAG, Councillor Holland and Councillor Boyes and he supported the recommendation in both reports.

 

DM/15/02064/FPA - Erection of turbine no. 1 a 46.3m tip height turbine with associated access and sub-station.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons contained in the report.

 

DM/15/02063/FPA - Erection of turbine no. 1 a 46.3m tip height turbine with associated access and sub-station.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons contained in the report.

 

Councillor J Robinson withdrew as a substitute Member of the Committee.