Agenda item

Proposed wind turbine of 36.6m maximum tip height with associated meter house and access track

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for a wind turbine of 36.6m maximum tip height with associated meter house and access track (for copy see file of Minutes).

P Herbert, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.

Mr Paul Townley addressed the Committee on behalf of Thorpe with Wycliffe Parish Meeting and local resident Mr Laidler.

He advised that on 25 June 2015 he had sent a letter on behalf of the Parish Meeting to all residents on the Planning Notification list to seek their views on the proposed wind turbine. Of the 40 responses received, 26 were in opposition and 14 were in favour, thereby demonstrating that 65% of the local community were opposed to the scheme. The Planning Officer had argued that as only 26 had offered their objections it followed that the rest of the community were in favour, but he disagreed as it could equally be argued that only 12% were in support.

In view of this he could not agree that the number of objectors and supporters was finely balanced, nor could it be said that community concern had been satisfied by this level of opposition. It had also been said that very few residents had been contacted but all those on the notification list had received the letter.

Mr Townley then proceeded to summarise a letter from a resident of Hutton Magna, Mr R Laidler.

In the letter Mr Laidler stressed that his personal feelings towards the applicant, which happened to be admiration and respect, were totally irrelevant to the planning application and his comments would be directed solely to the proposals.

The applicant sought to off-set the costs of running a pumping station, now his responsibility, following the Environment Agency relinquishing their ownership of it.

His objection to the proposal was not based on the principle of the solution, but the size of the turbine. He believed it to be an over-engineered solution, which would create unnecessary visual harm.

In their pre-application consultation letter, Earthmill had stated that the pumps used a large amount of electricity but did not provide any details.

The Environment Agency had provided details of annual electricity consumption by the pumps, during their last 5 years of ownership. In a dry year the site used as little as 5000 kWh, whereas in a wet year the consumption could be as high as 26,000 kWh. Over the last five years of service the average appeared to be around the 13,000 to 16,000 kWh mark.

In Mr Laidler’s original letter of objection he had pointed out that a much smaller machine would meet the known demand, and had suggested an alternative model because its own performance data revealed a capability of between 5,000kwh and 30,000kwh per annum. The machine had a hub height of 9m and tip height of 11.8m.

He was surprised by the statement in paragraph 54 of the report that small machines such as this were inefficient. The paragraph also suggested that such a machine would produce insufficient power for the pumps, but this was contradicted by the machine's performance data which was published by the manufacturer and the applicant's agent themselves.

In summary he believed that the proposed machine was far larger than needed for the stated purpose, and that the acknowledged visual harm it would create could be almost completely eliminated with a smaller one, while still providing a solution for the applicant.

He asked Members to refuse the application on the grounds of excess and the unnecessary creation of avoidable harm, and that the applicant be advised that a proposal for a machine which was proportionate would be acceptable in principle.

Tori Heating of Earthmill addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. She advised that Van Farm was an independent third generation family-run business, with mainly arable land. Originally proposals were for 2 much larger turbines and Earthmill had worked with Planning Officers to produce a mutually acceptable scheme.

The pumps used large amounts of water, draining over 100 acres of her client’s land and that of his neighbour. Without the pumps the land would be waterlogged. Surplus electricity from the turbine would feed back into the Grid Network for local use. The viability of the farm would be at risk without these pumps. 

An objector had suggested that a smaller wind turbine would be more acceptable but research had shown that these were not as reliable. Wind turbine technology had improved in recent years, which was supported by the number of domestic wind turbines in use today.

This application was about balancing landscape impact against the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate.

The number of objectors and supporters was finely balanced. Even if it had been shown that there were more residents in opposition to the scheme, the overall number of objections was still relatively small.

There was Government support for renewables and she urged the Committee to support the local family and local business.

C Cuskin, Solicitor – Planning and Development referred to the suggestion that a smaller wind turbine would be more appropriate but advised Members that this was not for consideration by the Committee. The application should be determined based on the merits of the submitted scheme on material planning grounds. 

In response to a question from Councillor Dixon, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed wind turbine was twice the size of the Angel of the North. In responding to the comments of objectors he advised that in accordance with planning policy and guidance, need did not have to be demonstrated. However if the proposals would result in fundamental visual harm, this would have to be balanced against the needs of the farmer. Planning Officers were of the view that there was no significant visual harm.

Turning to the consultation carried out by the Parish Meeting he advised that 26 objections did not constitute overwhelming opposition. It could be argued that people would be more likely to respond to a consultation if they were opposed to what was proposed. He noted the technical data provided by Mr Laidler but the detailed information submitted by the applicant had to be accepted. 

Councillor Kay commented on the responses received to the consultation by the Parish Meeting and considered that the use of percentages could be misleading when dealing with such a small group of respondents. The Solicitor had advised that the Committee could only consider the size of the wind turbine submitted by the applicant, and therefore the comments about a smaller turbine were not relevant. He felt that the applicant should be supported; the turbine was a considerable distance from Hutton Magna and he could not envisage that it would be intrusive in the landscape.

In response to questions from the Member, the Senior Planning Officer advised that due to a change in funding arrangements, the Environment Agency was no longer able to maintain the pumps and the responsibility had been assumed by the farmer. The operation of the pumps avoided localised flooding in periods of wet weather.

Councillor Davidson noted the different arguments about the level of opposition and support to the proposals, and that 112 people had been consulted, however he felt that paragraphs 2 and 4 in the report demonstrated that the turbine would not impact upon many residents at all. The Member also noted the comments made with regard to the size of the turbine and the relevance of this to the Committee’s determination of the application.

Councillor Richardson advised that the proposed wind turbine was within his electoral division. He found the statistics presented by Mr Townley on behalf of Mr Laidler to be confusing. This turbine was not as large as some which had greater impact on the landscape. He was familiar with the use of pumps on agricultural land and confirmed that maintenance and running costs now rested with farmers who had to decide whether to take on this responsibility or deal with the effects of flooding. In reaching a decision this should be weighed against the visual impact of the turbine which would be easily visible from the A66.

Councillor Patterson noted that the turbine was not small, however she appreciated that a smaller turbine was not for consideration by Members. Shadow flicker was often an issue for residents but there were no properties within the relevant distance to be affected by this. The Member also appreciated that the turbine was necessary for the farmer’s business.

It was moved by Councillor Kay and seconded by Councillor Davidson that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.