Agenda item

Erection of 1 No. Wind Turbine, contractors compound and associated works (Amended Proposal) including increased site area to facilitate permanent tracks to connect Turbine with Pesspool Lane; and occasional deployment of a temporary access matting area to support construction and other works which require the use of heavy vehicles and plant.

Erection of 1 No. Wind Turbine, contractors compound and associated works (Amended Proposal) including increased site area to facilitate permanent tracks to connect Turbine with Pesspool Lane; and occasional deployment of a temporary access matting areas to support construction and other works which require the use of heavy vehicles and plant.

The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team), Grant Folley gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies of which had been circulated.  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs and photomontages of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting and had viewed the site from several viewpoints including Easington Village and several of the nearby properties.

During his presentation the Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team) provided the following updates received since the reports had been prepared and provided responses where necessary:

• There had been no objections from statutory and internal consultees, including the major airports at Newcastle and Durham/Tees Valley
• Easington Village Parish Council had noted their objections to the application on grounds of: Impact on the setting of listed buildings, St. Mary’s Church and Seaton Holme; Impact on the Easington Village Conservation Area; Impact on residential amenity for nearby residents; concern about the precedent the proposal would set for further development; as Durham had already met its renewable energy targets, planning permission should be refused.
• There had been 1 letter of support from the public and 18 letters of objection.

The Committee were informed that planning policy supported the application; however one property was located close to the proposed site, approximately 375m away.  The Officer explained that existing tree planting at the site, protected by a Tree Preservation Order, sufficiently mitigated the impact on residential amenity.

The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team)concluded by informing the Committee that the recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions were as set out in the report.

The Chair asked the spokesperson for Easington Village Parish Council, their Chair, Parish Councillor Len Morton to speak in relation to the Application.

Parish Councillor Len Morton thanked the Chair and the Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Parish Council and the Residents of Easington Village. 

Parish Councillor Len Morton noted that the photomontages did not include an image from South Hetton Road leading into Easington Village, one of the more visually impressive views of the Village, and the Parish felt that view would be compromised by the proposal.  The Committee were asked to note that many of the Residents would be affected by the proposed Turbine were many and that there would be considerable detriment to amenity through issues such as shadow flicker at nearby properties at Rymers Close and Hallfield Drive.  Members were informed that the Parish Council had consulted on the issue of the Application and the vast majority of Residents were in objection to the proposal, the Planning Officer’s Report reinforcing this, with 18 letters of objection to only one letter of support.  Parish Councillor Len Morton added that views to the North, South and West already had views of several existing Turbines and that the only view from Easington Village without a Turbine was East, out over the North Sea in his opinion perhaps a more preferable location for such Turbines.  

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Len Morton and asked the spokesperson for the Applicant, British Telecom (BT), Mr Tom Martin (Head of Partnership Development) to speak, having 5 minutes to address the Committee. 

Mr Tom Martin explained that the Application had undergone significant scrutiny over the past 3 years prior to coming before Committee in this simplified and viable form.  Members were asked to note that there had been consultation with Durham County Council (DCC), Statutory Organisations and with the Residents via a public meeting and visits to individual Residents.  Mr Tom Martin acknowledged the excellent contribution to renewable energy made by DCC, adding that there was a need to identify where there was capacity for additional Turbines and that the lack of objections from the DCC Internal Consultees was evidence that the proposed site was a viable option.  The Committee were asked to note that BT did understand the concerns of Residents and indeed took on board concerns to amend the original scheme for 3 Turbines and the revised scheme for a single Turbine took onboard the views of the nearby Parachute Club.  Mr Tom Martin added that BT was a large company with a large energy use and that they were committed to reducing their carbon footprint with a target of obtaining 25% of its energy need from renewable sources.  Mr Tom Martin concluded by noting that the proposal was in accordance with planning policy, had measures to safeguard the visual amenity of nearby Residents in place and supported the Planning Officers recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Planning Officer’s Report. 

The Chair thanked Mr Tom Martin for his comments in support of the Application and opened the debate up to Members of the Committee.

Councillor D Boyes noted, as one of the Local Members for Easington, that based upon the Officers Report together with comments from the Parish Council and Applicant he could not support the approval of the Application. 

Councillor D Boyes noted that the Application was contrary to Local Plan Policy (LPP) 1 in relation to safeguarding of visual amenity and LPP 35 in relation to no severe detriment to those living or working adjacent to a proposed application.

Councillor D Boyes reminded the Committee that there was a Private Members Bill currently at Parliament which sought a minimum distance of 1,500m between the site of a Turbine and any residential properties.  Members were also reminded that the guidance at DCC was 500m and that the nearest property in this case was less than 375m.  Councillor D Boyes reiterated that the Application was within the Easington Village Conservation Area and that views of the listed buildings, St Mary Church and Seaton Holme would be negatively affected.  Councillor D Boyes noted that the area, and Durham in general, had seen a proliferation of Turbines and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) had voiced their concerns about the cumulative effects of several turbines sites within an area.  Councillor D Boyes produced a map showing the many Turbines and proposed Turbines within County Durham and with the agreement of the Chair circulated copies to the Committee.  Members were informed that the Association of North East Councils (ANEC) commissioned a report by Arup entitled “Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: East Durham Limestone and Tees Plain” that highlighted the cumulative effects of multiple Turbine sites within an area.  Councillor D Boyes concluded by stating that he would question the logic of approving more Turbines on the Coastal Limestone Plateau.

Councillor M Dixon noted the Planning Officer’s Report and the arguments put forward on both sides and expressed disappointment that the consultation as referred to by the representative from BT had not been explicitly set out within the Report.  Councillor M Dixon asked whether there had been any transparent “community benefit” stipulated within the Report.   Councillor M Dixon also noted that whilst there was already a significant blot on the landscape due to electricity pylons and that a single Turbine was relatively inoffensive, he agreed that the cumulative effect of more Turbines in an area already populated by several sites in all directions was an issue and did not wish to see County Durham as a “dumping ground” for Turbines.

Councillor N Martin noted that he lived approximately 8-10km away from a number of Turbines and thought that the view was a delight, but appreciated that this opinion would be in the eye of the beholder.  Councillor N Martin did note that the without wishing to be blunt, the view facing over the A19 from Easington to the proposed site was not the most scenic and it was rather the impact upon day to day life that would be important, for example the potential for shadow flicker and at what level and how often would this occur.  Councillor N Martin noted that on balance, he supported the Application.

Councillor P Charlton noted that she had mixed feelings about the application with the impact of one Turbine not being significant however, understanding the concerns of a cumulative effect of several Turbine sites together; Councillor P Charlton noted she was tending towards refusal. 

Councillor G Richardson noted he supported the Local Member’s comments in respect of the cumulative effect of multiple Turbine sites and noted the large number of sites in County Durham.  Councillor C Walker agreed with Members that the map circulated by Councillor D Boyes demonstrated the large number of Turbine sites already within the area and the County as a whole and wondered why BT and other companies were not pursuing off-shore wind farms rather than having further Turbines on-shore.

The Chair asked the Officers if they could be more specific as regards issues of television reception and shadow flicker.  The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team) explained that Condition 12 within the report set out the investigation and mitigation that would be undertaken in respect of impact upon television reception.  The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team) added that in relation to shadow flicker, rather than being able to quantify an amount of time per day and on which days, as weather can affect whether there would be shadow flicker, the calculation as regards which properties would be affected was based upon those within 10 times the rotor height, which gave 710m.  The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team) explained that this meant that 6 properties were potentially affected, however several mitigation measures would be put in place by Condition 23, including screening and potential to shut down the Turbine via software if the screening was not sufficient, a standard condition for this type of Application.

The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team) explained that in relation to the objections from Easington Village Parish Council as regards detriment to the view from St. Mary’s Church, Seaton Holme and the Easington Conservation Area, paragraphs 150 – 154 of the Report set out that the Council’s Design and Conservation Section had not raised any concerns.  The Committee were referred to paragraph 136 of the Report that noted that the distances to the properties located within Easington Village were sufficient that the Turbine was not considered to be overbearing.  In answer to concerns regarding the proliferation of Turbines in the area, Members were referred to paragraphs 139 – 144 which noted that whilst there may be some evidence of proliferation taken in the context of the existing “visual confusion” of prominent industrial buildings, major highways and meandering transmission lines it would be difficult to sustain an objection on those grounds given the overriding planning policy support for wind turbine development.

Councillor M Dixon asked again if in normal practise, Developers would not incorporate some element of community benefit into their scheme for a Turbine.  Mr Tom Martin noted that BT would be more than happy to discuss such matters with the local community.  The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team) noted that such community benefit was usually between a Developer and Residents and was outside of Planning and felt that the issues raised as regards the proliferation of Turbines in the area and the North East in general was not sufficient to override Government policy relating to Turbine development.

Councillor D Boyes noted his disappointment that Officers felt that the cumulative impact of many Turbine developments was not a planning concern.  The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team) explained that it was an issue, however, in this case of a single Turbine Officers felt that it was not sufficient to warrant a recommendation for refusal. 

The Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Team) added that whilst Officers felt that there was still capacity for further Turbines within the area, a point would be reached where Officers would be minded to recommend refusal of applications on the grounds of cumulative impact.

Councillor D Boyes moved that the application be refused; he was seconded by Councillor P Charlton.  

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED on the grounds of:

(i)         Due to the location and scale of the proposed wind turbine, it is considered that the proposed development would have a significant visual impact on nearby residential occupants.  Due to their proximity to residential properties at Four Winds and Rymers Farm the proposed wind turbine will appear as obtrusive and dominating features in the landscape to the detriment of residential amenity.  The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies 1 and 35 of the District of Easington Local Plan.

(ii)       The cumulative impact of the wind turbine when viewed alongside operating turbines in the surrounding area would have a significant visual impact on the locality.  Due to the extent of the wind turbine development in the surrounding area the proposed development would contribute to a significant and unacceptable visual impact on the locality.  The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies 1 and 35 of the District of Easington Local Plan