Agenda item

Erection of 1 no. wind turbine on 35m tower with overall height of 60.75m

Erection of 1 no. wind turbine on 35m tower with overall height of 60.75m

Consideration was given to the report submitted in relation to the above application, a copy of which had been circulated.

Members having visited the site before the meeting and being familiar with the location and setting, A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site. He requested that, if Members were minded to approve the application, an additional condition be added to those in the report in relation to controlling the size of vehicles and access routes during construction.

Councillor E Murphy, one of the Divisional Members, addressed the Committee.

He had called the application to Committee because of the impact of the turbine on visual amenity and the view from the town.  It was a matter of judgement as to the impact it would have, however it would be seen from the market place and he felt that it should not be.

He said that he had not been notified that the application was to be heard by the Committee, and expressed his concern that he had not received the report in sufficient time to study it in detail.

In his opinion many of the issues covered in the report required further explanation or investigation, as did a number of the recommended conditions.  Wind farm operators had been taken to court in other areas of the country due to excessive noise generated and the Renewable Energy Foundation had found that noise from turbines could have a devastating affect on nearby residents.  The solution to this problem was to increase separation distances. A noise issue at Barnard Castle was currently being investigated and this application should not be considered until the outcome of that case was known.

The turbine would be 3 times higher than the Angel of the North and nearly the height of Durham Cathedral.  The area was riddled with mine workings which could affect the stability of the turbine and, of 400 members of the Golf Club, only one supported the proposal.  There were other renewable energy solutions, and in this case there were issues which required further investigation and explanation and the application should be deferred until these matters had been resolved.

Mr Hall then addressed the Committee, objecting to the proposal.  He explained that he was a local resident and that the turbine would affect the quality of life of residents.  Due to the significance of the application the hundreds of people affected should have been informed.

The proposed turbine would be sited too close to residential properties; a House of Lords Bill to be heard in May 2012 would require a turbine in this location to be 1500m from homes, whereas this one will be only 387m.  There had been a number of recorded accidents involving turbines, the main causes being fire and blade failure.  Health implications caused by turbines had been proven, noise issues were prevalent at night and there was no bat survey despite there being a registered roost in the area.

Although the Club had made an offer of support to the sporting community of the district, Mr Hall felt that an offer of compensation to those affected would be more reasonable.

Approval of the application would set a precedent and of the 47 letters of support, many came from outside County Durham.  Of 400 Club members, only 12% of members had responded to support the application.

The application was not required to meet the requirements of the County Durham Strategic Plan with regard to renewable energy and there was strong objection to the proposal.  The Committee should take these into account and refuse the application.

Mrs Hall then spoke to object to the application.  She lived in South Terrace and house prices would be affected; her home was currently up for sale and she had had to declare the proposed turbine, losing potential buyers as a result.  In other areas, the presence of a turbine had resulted in council tax discounts being applied which confirmed the devaluation of house prices.  She therefore asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr Race addressed the Committee supporting the proposal.  He had been chairman of the Golf Club for 15 years, and the Club was one of the oldest in the region.  The Club had 400 members, and attracted a further 2000 users annually to play golf and 5000 per year to events such as weddings and christenings. Charities were supported by free use of the course and fund raising within the Club. 

The Club had not set out to upset neighbours, but as a Community Amateur Sports Club, had a responsibility to ensure continuing success and viability.  This was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and the site chosen was a suitable for a turbine.  The electricity generated would be fed into the local grid and used by the people of Crook. 

The Planners felt that the proposal complied with Policy, 11 jobs would be protected and he hoped the Committee would support the application.

In responding to issues raised by speakers the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that a condition was proposed to control noise, the noise data was based on scientific models, the turbine fell comfortably within the recommended distances from properties, the location was felt to be acceptable in terms of wildlife and ecology and the Coal Authority had offered no objection.

In considering the application some Members questioned the need for a turbine as County Durham’s target for renewable energy had been exceeded.  A number of Members felt that the turbine would be visually prominent, overbearing, too close to residential properties and built on land riddled with mine workings.  There were also concerns over noise issues, with Councillor Shuttleworth citing an example of a turbine near his home which generated noise when wind speeds were high.

Other Members however noted that the application was for a single turbine, not a wind farm, and did not agree that it would have a detrimental impact. A number of other turbines featured around the area and there was a Government presumption in favour of this type of development.  It was commented that the report covered all considerations in detail, and that it would be difficult to sustain a refusal of the application on appeal.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out in the report, together with the following additional condition:

15.       Prior to the commencement of development, a statement and plans showing the maximum length of loaded delivery vehicles and confirming the proposed access routes to the site including swept vehicle paths shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter delivery vehicles shall only access the site by the agreed route and in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interests of the highway safety to comply with Policies T1 and GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan as amended by the Saved and Expired Policies September 2007.