Agenda item

Erection of 5 no. Wind Turbines (max tip height 115m) and associated infrastructure including crane hard-standings, a substation and control building, transformers, underground cabling, access tracks, and a meteorological mast

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 5 wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 115 metres and associated infrastructure including crane hard-standings, a substation and control building, transformers, underground cabling, access tracks and a meteorological mast on land at Wingate Grange Farm situated to the west of Wingate, south east of Wheatley Hill, north of Deaf Hill on the southern side of the A181 (for copy see file of minutes).

Chris Shields, Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

George Wheatley, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the proposal.  He informed the Committee that the maps and photographic views presented by the Senior Planning Officer were all from the south of the proposed site and did not show the proximity of the 5 turbines to his house, nor did they show the 19 wind turbines already in view.  While consideration was given to wildlife and historic sites when considering such applications, the views of local residents seemed to be ignored.  Lord Deben, the chairman of the committee that advised the Government on reducing greenhouse gas emission, had confirmed that there was currently enough wind turbines built, or in the planning system, to meet climate change targets for 2020.

Cliff Walker, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The emerging County Durham Plan required turbines to be located in excess of six times their height from properties, however, this proposal would result in a wind turbine being 500 metres from his property, which would be overbearing.  The cumulative impact of the development also needed to be considered when determining the application.  A British Geological Survey carried out in the area in 2004 had identified two magnesian limestone faults running through West Green Farm and one fault running along the A181 where two of the turbines were proposed, making this a potentially dangerous siting.  The residents of Wingate, Wheatley Hill and Trimdon urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Tim Mockeridge of Infinis, the applicant, addressed the Committee.  He informed the Committee that this was a high quality application which was supported by both national and local policy.  The two reasons for recommendation of refusal were that the ecological survey data was insufficient and also the cumulative impact of the proposal.  Mr Mockeridge informed the Committee that Natural England had raised no objection to the proposal and that the cumulative impact of the development was a matter if judgement, with a landscape architect commissioned by Infinis drawing a different conclusion to that contained within the report.

Additionally, Infinis was keen to maximise the socio-economic benefits of the proposals for the communities immediately around the site and had committed to a partnership with not-for-profit bodies that would both benefit from and maximise the socio-economic benefit of the development to local communities, including an Employability Fund of £62,500 per annum with East Durham College, an initiative to help people into work with East Durham Employability Trust worth some £30,000 during construction, and subsidised energy costs for the community centres in Wingate, Wheatley Hill and Trimdon to the value of £63,000.

Suzanne Duncan, Principal and Chief Executive Officer of East Durham College addressed the Committee and provided further details about the proposed Employability Fund.  The Fund would assist up to 500 residents in the Wards of Wingate, Wheatley Hill and Thornley and its spend would be established by stakeholder groups.  The Fund would provide £62,500 per annum over a 20 year period.  The Fund would be open to all people of a working age in the identified Wards and close working would take place with East Durham Employment Trust and Community Centres.

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that this was a finely balanced application to consider.  On balance, however, he supported the application, not only because of the economic benefits it brought with it but also because it would create up to 500 jobs, had attracted no objection from Natural England and had received two letters of support.

Councillor Marshall, in seconding approval of the application, informed the Committee that there would be a significant community and economic benefit from the project.  The economic benefit had been well designed to provide funds into local communities and to link in to local need.  The detriment to the environment and amenity did not outweigh this benefit.

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that the concern about this and the previous application was the cumulative impact of wind turbines.  Although the Council was charged to considerably increase renewable energy sources within the next 10 to 20 years, there was a need in this application to balance between environmental impact and economic benefits.

Councillor Davidson asked Councillor Boyes about his statement that the development would create 500 jobs.  Councillor Boyes replied that this had been referred to in the statement made by the Principal and Chief Executive Officer of East Durham College.  The Principal and Chief Executive Officer of East Durham College clarified that the Employability Fund would benefit up to 500 local people.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that he had seen the cumulative impact of wind turbines and their impact on residents,  The decision to be made was whether the community benefits arising from this application outweighed that cumulative impact, and he was tending to support the recommendation in the report that the application be refused.  He sought clarification around how the proposed subsidising of energy costs for the three community centres would operate.

Mr Mockeridge replied that the community centres would be asked to provide copies of their energy bills for the preceding year and a contribution would be made towards this.  This contribution would be outside of the s106 agreement, but could be included within it if so requested.

Councillor Hall sought clarification around the level of the proposed contribution per megawatt and added that the proposed location for the wind turbines was in breach of the emerging County Durham Plan.

The Senior Planning Officer replied that while other wind farms applications had proposed £2,000 per megawatt, this application proposed a contribution of £5,000 per megawatt, and a s106 agreement would guarantee these funds.

Councillor Lumsdon, referring to the subsidised energy costs, asked whether this would be for the period of the project.  Mr Mockeridge replied that £63,000 would be provided for the three community centres to draw down until the fund was used.

Councillor Lumsdon agreed with Councillor Dixon that this was a difficult application to consider, but on balance she agreed with Councillor Dixon that the application should be refused.

Councillor Taylor informed the Committee that while the application was contrary to planning policies, he considered there was a compelling argument for approval.

Councillor Davidson informed the Committee that he was leaning towards refusing the application based on cumulative effect.  Councillor Richardson agreed that it was the cumulative effect of the application which would cause him to not support it.

Councillor Davidson informed the Committee that it had been moved by Councillor Boyes and seconded by Councillor Marshall that the application be approved.  L Rennaudon, Planning and Property Solicitor, advised the Committee that because the report stated that there was insufficient information to ascertain whether a protected species licence was needed, it could only be minded to approve the application.  On the completion of an ecology survey, if no issues were identified then the Committee could delegate authority to Planning Officers to grant planning permission, if issues were identified then the application could be brought back to Committee for further consideration.

Upon a vote being taken the proposed approval of the application was defeated.

Upon a further vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report