Minutes:
Application No: P/2014/0672
Grid Ref: 313083.41 260357.03
Valid Date: 14/07/2014
Officer: Andrew Metcalfe [Planning Consultant]
Community Council: New Radnor Community Council
Applicant: Hendy Wind Farm Limited
Location: Land off A44 SW of Llandegley, Llandrindod Wells, Powys
Proposal: Full: Construct and operate 7 wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 110m and maximum hub height of 69m together with ancillary development comprising substation, control building, new and upgraded access points and tracks, hardstanding and temporary compound and associated works
Application Type: Application for Full Planning Permission
The Chair advised that the Committee had undertaken a site visit that morning to look at various viewpoints. The Chair advised that he would take questions after each section of the officer’s presentation.
The Chair noted that questions had been raised as to why the application was being considered prior to the local elections i.e. during “purdah”. The Solicitor advised that he had discussed this issue with the Solicitor to the Council and the Head of Democratic Services. It was lawful for the Committee to proceed because this was a Regulatory Committee which based its decisions on policy, procedure and advice and politics had nothing to do with the decisions of the Committee. The Welsh Local Government Association had issued Purdah Guidance which stated that “you are allowed to continue to determine planning applications even if controversial.”
Councillor N. Dodman spoke on behalf of New Radnor Community Council.
Councillor S. Travena spoke on behalf of Glaswcm Community Council.
Mr J. St Clair spoke on behalf of objectors.
Mr P. Frampton spoke on behalf of the applicant.
Landscape and visual impact
Councillors indicated that the site visit was extremely enlightening. In response to a question the Professional Lead for Development Management confirmed that respondents including CADW, CPAT, Campaign to Protect Rural Wales, and some community councils objected to the application due to its adverse landscape and visual impact. However, he advised that the Planning Consultant considered that on balance the need for renewable energy outweighed this adverse impact.
It was noted that the communities surrounding this area also had real concerns about the impact of the development in comparison to the amount of energy produced. It was noted that 234 objections had been received and 6 letters of support. The Committee noted that the development would have a huge impact on “receptors” using bridleways and the A44.
Councillor B. Mills left the meeting.
Cultural heritage
In response to comments the Professional Lead for Development Management advised that although consultees such as CADW and CPAT objected to the application due to its adverse impact on cultural heritage, a report was commissioned by Development Management to secure an overview of all cultural heritage issues as the aforementioned consultee bodies each focussed on specific issues within their own remits. This report concluded that the proposed development would have significant and unacceptable impacts on the setting of a number of heritage assets.
The Professional Lead for Development Management advised that Planning Policy Wales 2016 stated that only in exceptional circumstances should planning permission be granted to a development that would result in an adverse impact on a scheduled ancient monument or has a significantly damaging effect upon its setting. He advised that he was not aware of any case law where this ‘exceptional circumstances’ requirement had been tested and that it was a judgement call for the Committee. However, the Planning Inspector’s decision regarding Bryn Blaen windfarm was a material consideration. It was noted that the Planning Inspector had allowed the appeal, in respect of Bryn Blaen, as he considered that the need for renewable energy outweighed the large adverse impact on cultural heritage. In addition, it was noted that the Garreg Llwyd wind farm proposals that was also allowed at appeal had a significant impact on an ancient monument but this site was located in a Strategic Search Area [SSA]. The Committee noted that the application, being considered by the Committee, was outside the SSA.
The Committee questioned the exceptional circumstances for the officer to recommend approval when a range of consultees had raised strong objections on the grounds of adverse impact on a special landscape. In response the Professional Lead for Development Management advised that Development Management rarely, where a recommendation for approval was made, also included reasons for refusal. He advised however, that this application was so finely balanced that he considered it was appropriate to do so. He advised however, that for this application the impact was considered to be significant and therefore the Committee had to weigh this against the need for renewable energy.
Noise
In response to questions the Professional Lead for Development Management advised that if the Committee were minded to approve the application conditions would be attached regarding noise levels. If complaints were received after construction, noise levels would be assessed over a period of time at sensitive receptors. If it was found that levels were unacceptable the developer would have to meet the conditions and introduce mitigation measures. The Committee noted that cumulative noise levels were assessed and were not considered significant and that the nearest property not in the ownership of the applicant was approx. 980 metres from the nearest turbine.
Common land and Rights of Way
In response to questions the Definitive Map and Commons Registration Officer advised that the use of the Common Land was dealt with under separate legislation. If the application were approved, the developer would have to apply to the Welsh Government to for consent for works, or to deregister the affected area of common land and provide exchange land instead. The developer could not start construction work until it had received such approval from the Welsh Government. The officer advised that if an application was received by the Welsh Government, it would be a requirement that the landlord and commoners be consulted.
The Countryside Access Officer advised that as the location of some turbines did not meet the Council’s guidance for distances from rights of ways the applicant had offered some permissive routes.
Transportation
The Highways Authority advised that based on the surveys from the applicant, the turbines could be transported under the railway bridge at Crossgates. He advised that if the application were approved a trial transportation run would be undertaken along the whole transport route with a police escort. In response to questions he was not aware of any proposed route via England and if such a route was proposed the applicant would need to seek approval from the Authorities affected. It was noted that if the Committee was minded to approve the application conditions were recommended seeking detailed drawings of all engineering works for the proposed accesses to the site.
Biodiversity – there were no questions.
Substation and grid connection
The Committee noted that the grid connection would be a separate application. However, comments were made that overhead cables would have a significant impact on the landscape, if the Committee were minded to approve the application.
Other issues
In response to a question the Professional Lead for Development Management advised that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, a condition could be added to ensure that the lighting on the turbines was infra-red.
The Committee considered the need for renewable energy and the weight that should be given to this against the weight of the significant impact on the landscape, cultural heritage and that the development is outside the SSA.
RESOLVED: |
Reason for decision: |
that the application be refused. |
1. The proposed development is unacceptable in landscape and visual terms due to the extent and degree of the significant landscape effects on LANDMAP High overall evaluation VSAAs (Upland Moor Radnor Forest and Upland Moor Glascwm Hill) and moderate overall evaluation VSAAs (Upland Moor north of Hundred House Rocky Moorland Gilwern Hill and Rolling Hills central south-east). The proposed development is contrary to policies UDP SP12, ENV2, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Renewable Energy (2005) and Planning Policy Wales: Edition 9 (2016). 2. The proposed development would have a significant effect on users of the BOAT, Open Access Land and Public Rights of Way and thereby contrary to policies UDP SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010) and Planning Policy Wales: Edition 9 (2016). 3. The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of Scheduled Nant Brook Enclosure, Scheduled Graig Camp, Sheduled Llandegley Rocks Hillfort and Scheduled Crug Eryr Mound and Bailey Castle. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies UDP SP12, UDP SP3, ENV17 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Welsh Office Circular 60/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology (1996) and Planning Policy Wales: Edition 9 (2016). |
County Councillor G.M. Jones resumed his seat in the Committee.
County Councillor D.R. Price having declared an interest left the meeting room for the next application.
County Councillor M.J. Jones took the Chair.
Supporting documents: