Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed everyone
to the meeting and introductions were made.
Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law, outlined the procedure that
would be followed and invited anyone who wished to speak at the meeting to
identify themselves. Once that process
had been completed the Chair invited the Planning Officers to set out their
recommendations.
PLANNING
Richard Kerr, Principal
Planning Officer, advised that this application was first considered by Members
at the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19
September 2012, when it had been resolved to continue consideration of the
matter pending the convening of a discretionary local hearing in response to
the number of third party representations received, both for and against the
proposal. He advised that in addition
to the Officer’s report prepared for the September meeting, Members had before
them a further supplementary report which clarified the stance adopted by
Scottish Natural Heritage in their consultation response, provided further
consultation responses from SEPA and the Council’s Roads Engineers in response
to additional information subsequently provided by the Applicant, and which
detailed late representations received from third parties. He advised that the supplementary report now
included amended reasons for refusal in the light of the final positions
adopted by consultees. He advised that
he intended to confine himself to a few introductory remarks and then would
hand over to his colleague Arlene Knox who would take Members through the
detail of the application, the consultation and third party responses, policy
considerations, and the reasons why the application was being recommended for
refusal by Officers. For the benefit of
members of the public, he pointed out that the Councillors had the opportunity
of acquainting themselves with the site and its surroundings and that
representative viewpoints between Kilninver and Balvicar had been visited this morning to enable an
appreciation of the relationship of the turbines with the surrounding
area. In the first instance he reminded
Members that as with the determination of all planning applications, the
starting point in the assessment of the merits of the proposal had to be the
Council’s approved Development Plan, which comprised the 2002 Structure Plan
and the 2009 Local Plan. Section 37 of
the 1997 Planning Act required that planning authorities in dealing with
applications for planning permission shall have regard to the provisions of the
Development Plan, so far as material to the application, and to other material
planning considerations. Section 25
augments that duty, by requiring that the determination shall be made in
accordance with that Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. He advised that there were a number of
development plan policies relevant to this case as set out in Section J of the
report. Of these, the most significant
was Policy LP REN 1 which related specifically to the development of wind
farms. That policy was accompanied by a spatial strategy which mapped areas of
search for windfarms and those areas which were
subject to constraints. However, in line with the government’s Scottish
Planning Policy, such mapping was only required in respect of schemes with a generating
capacity in excess of 20MW, so the 8MW scheme proposed here did not benefit
from any mapping to indicate any presumption for or against the proposal. Accordingly, there was a need to revert to a
criteria based assessment in terms of the various relevant interests set out in
Policy LP REN1, including such matters as landscape and visual impact,
cumulative impact with other developments, impacts upon communities, natural
and historic environment considerations and other technical matters. Those matters which had to be regarded as
legitimate planning considerations were set out in sections 187 to 191 of
Scottish Planning Policy, which as a 2010 document post-dated the Council’s
2009 Local Plan, although the matters requiring to be assessed in terms of
Policy LP REN1 were consistent with the subsequent government position. SPP makes it clear that in coming to a
conclusion on the merits of a planning application the Council should confine
itself to material planning considerations, to the exclusion of those matters
which were not legitimately related to the development and use of land. In particular, in the context of windfarm
developments, he advised that Members would be aware that any community benefit
advanced in support of proposals could not be regarded as a legitimate planning
consideration and should be disregarded in the adjudication of the
application. Beyond the Development
Plan, he advised that it was necessary for Members to have regard to the views
of consultees and third parties who had expressed both objection and support
for the proposal. It was also necessary
for Members to have regard to Council approved guidance and whilst this was to
be accorded less weight than development plan policy, it still constituted a
material planning consideration. He
advised that the most significant document in that context was the Argyll &
Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012 jointly commissioned by the
Council and Scottish Natural Heritage and latterly approved by the
Council. He advised that the application
site lay within the defined Craggy Coast and Islands Landscape Character Type
which currently only accommodated two 32m high turbines on the island of Luing. The study
concluded that sensitivity within this LCT should be regarded as being high for
larger and medium scale turbines of between 35m and 130m, and to be high/medium
for even small scale turbines of less than 35m. This proposal for turbines of
77m in height must therefore be regarded with a high degree of caution in the context
of the conclusions of the approved landscape capacity study. He advised that Members who were new to this
Committee might also like to note that a windfarm comprising 15 turbines 125m
high within the nearby Raera forest was refused by
this Committee on landscape impact grounds at the end of 2010. Finally, he advised that it was incumbent on
Members to have regard to the need to adhere to the principles of sustainable
development, which were embedded in national planning policy. One of the strands of this was the
requirement that Members should take account of the benefits of development
which can help mitigate the effects of climate change. Whilst the contribution which this 8MW scheme
can make to arresting global warming is palpable, it was not of such magnitude
as to warrant the setting aside of other legitimate concerns. Development which conflicts significantly
with the interests of maintaining landscape character was inherently
unsustainable, and ought to be refused, regardless of its potential
contribution to the interests of the wider environment.
Arlene Knox, a Senior
Planning Officer, based in the Major Applications Team, advised that the proposed site was located on farmland,
approximately 9km south-west of Oban. The site lay to the south of Beinn Mhor, on a craggy stretch
of land between Loch Seil and the west coast. The B844 was located to the south, and
provided the existing access just past Loch Seil. Key features considered in the
determination of this proposal worth noting on the site and location plans
included: Clachan Bridge; Phuilladobhrain Anchorage;
the Oban to Colonsay ferry route, Ardencaple House
and Ardfad Castle to the west and Duachy
Standing Stones to the east. She advised
that planning permission was sought for the erection of 9, 77 metre high wind
turbines with associated infrastructure, including access tracks and a control
building. The turbines would have tapering cylindrical towers 55 metres high and
3 bladed rotors, with radii of 22 metres giving an overall height of 77 metres
to vertical blade tip. Each turbine
would have a maximum generating capacity of approximately 0.9 MW, giving a
total nominal capacity for the wind farm of 8.1 MW. She advised that it was considered that
the flat roofed design of the proposed substation building was unacceptable and
would appear unsympathetic in the landscape.
However, as it was only an ancillary aspect of the wider proposal, it
was not considered an appropriate reason for refusal, as improvement to its
design could be controlled by means of a planning condition should the
Committee be minded to grant planning permission. She advised that this
application had attracted a considerable level of representation. A total of 966 letters had been received,
comprising 102 in support, including a late representation from Councillor Iain
Angus MacDonald, 860 against including 2 late
representations from Alan Reid MP and Councillor Duncan MacIntyre and 4 general
comments. The grounds cited for and against the proposal were summarised in the
main report and relevant supplementary reports. She advised that an
extremely comprehensive consultation exercise was undertaken in respect of the
proposal and its accompanying Environmental Statement. The key consultees whose advice contributed
heavily in the balance towards Officers achieving their recommendation were:
SNH, Historic Scotland, the West of Scotland Archaeology Service and the Area
Roads Manager. SNH advised that the proposal would have
significant adverse landscape and visual impacts on an area of Argyll’s coastal
landscape which was distinct, and recognised as being a resource of regional
importance by virtue of its designation as an Area of Panoramic Quality.
Furthermore, that the proposal would erode the existing quality of the ‘Craggy
Coast and Island’ Landscape Character Type setting a precedent for further
development of this type and scale in this sensitive landscape setting. SNH
had been unable to identify any mitigation which would reduce or remove the
negative impacts the proposal would have on the distinctive character and sense
of place of this regionally important landscape setting. SNH’s lack of formal objection did not
indicate they were in anyway content with this proposal. Their current practice was only to formally
object to proposals which significantly prejudiced national designations. SNH’s
advice was clear - they did not consider the proposed site appropriate for wind
farm development. Historic Scotland’s
position is: whilst they had not objected - the impact of the proposal on the
setting of Duachy Standing Stones would be
significant, which, they considered could only be mitigated by the removal or
relocation of the 3 turbines closest to the monument. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service objected
due to the significant impact the proposal would have on the setting of the Duachy Standing Stones. The Area Roads Manager had
objected due to the inadequacy of the approach road to the site to accommodate
wind farm construction traffic, and in particular, the impact abnormal loads
and HGV traffic would have on the structural integrity of the Kilninver Bridge, and the retaining wall at Barnacarry.
Subsequently, measures were put forward by the Applicant to overcome
these shortcomings. However, third party
land would be required beyond the application site and outside the Applicant’s
control, in order to facilitate such measures.
Furthermore, it was likely that these measures would also involve works
which would themselves require planning permission. Consequently, they could not be regarded as
deliverable in the context of this application. Both
Kilninver and Kilmelford
Community Council and Seil and Easdale
Community Council objected to the proposal.
All other consultees were satisfied with the
proposal subject to: relevant planning conditions and a Section 75 legal
agreement. Scottish Planning Policy states that: “wind farms should only be supported in
locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and
cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed”. Furthermore, that: “the
design of any wind farm development should reflect the scale and character of
the landscape and the location of turbines should be considered carefully to
ensure that landscape and visual impact is minimised”. As referred to by Richard: “Section 25 of the Act requires proposals to
be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise”. The detailed Policy Assessment of this
proposal was contained within the main committee report. The principal issues in this case, which
raised conflicts with the provisions of the development plan, were: the consequence of the presence of the
development on landscape character; visual impact; built heritage and
archaeological impact; and road traffic impact.
She advised that this proposal lay close to the south-west of Loch Feochan, on the coastal edge within the ‘Craggy Coast and Islands’ Landscape
Character Type as defined by SNH in its classification of landscapes in
Argyll. She advised that the proposal
lay within a sensitive and highly valued landscape character type where it
occupied a prominent coastal location where it could be viewed from ferry and
recreational boat traffic and other islands as well as from mainland roads, and
in particular the road linking Seil to the mainland via the ‘Bridge over the
Atlantic’. The value of the landscape
within which this proposal was to be located had been accorded regional status
by its designation as an ‘Area of Panoramic Quality’ by the adopted Local
Plan. She advised that the ability of
the various Landscape Character Types of Argyll to accommodate wind farm
development had been assessed by the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy
Capacity Study 2012’. Although this document could not be accorded
the same weight as the Development Plan, it was an important material
consideration in the determination process.
She advised that the proposal lay within the ‘Craggy Coast & Islands
Landscape Character Type’ and in regard to the ability of this Landscape
Character Type to accommodate wind farm development the study states: “there is no scope to site the larger (80-130
metres) and the small – medium (35 – 80metres) within this character sub-type
due to the significant adverse impacts that would be likely to occur on a wide
range of landscape and visual sensitivities”. At present the ‘Craggy Coast and Islands’
Landscape Character Type, and other coastal landscape character types in
Argyll, are free of wind farm developments of the scale proposed. It was the view of Officers, and SNH that: if
approved this proposal would establish an undesirable precedent for
large-medium scale coastal edge wind farm development, in circumstances where
the Landscape Capacity Study had concluded that the ‘Craggy Coast and Islands
Landscape Character Type’ did not have the ability to absorb wind farm
development of this scale satisfactorily.
This proposal would introduce an inappropriately located wind farm into
the sensitive and valued coastal landscapes of the Firth of Lorn, the lochs and
islands around West Argyll, and the Atlantic islands coastal edge, which
constituted an exceptional scenic resource, derived from the interplay between
the land and the sea with its associated islands and skerries. Approval of the proposal would represent an
unwelcome move away from the established location of approved wind farm
developments in upland areas inland, where they did not exert such a degree of
influence over the appreciation of coastal landscapes. In light of the negative impact this proposal
would have on Landscape Character and the Area of Panoramic Quality, as well as
the undesirable precedent it would set it was considered contrary to the provisions of: Scottish
Planning Policy, Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind
Farms; Development Plan Policy; and the approved Landscape Capacity Study. She advised that in determining the proposal’s
visual impact, the layout of the wind farm
was assessed from a series of key viewpoints. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility map
indicated fairly widespread visibility across the settled eastern coasts of Seil, within the Firth of Lorn and the Mull coast, but with
more limited visibility inland to the east.
She advised that the predominant blue/green colour on the ZTV map
indicated areas where 7-9 tips would be theoretically visible. It was considered that the impact on key views
from certain locations would be particularly detrimental, given the disproportionate
scale of the turbines relative to their landscape setting and the overall
sensitivity of the receiving environment.
She then referred to a number of photomontages showing where the wind
turbines would be visible from each of the view points. She advised that in terms of Cnoc Dhumhnuill it was considered that in terms of visual
impact, although its influence was not widespread, in terms of certain key
viewpoints the impact would be significant particularly given the sensitivity
of receptors experiencing such views. In light of the
negative visual impact this proposal would have it was considered contrary to
the provisions of: Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Government’s Specific Advice
Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; and Development Plan Policy. She advised that the development was
situated with the nearest turbine being approximately 560m from Duachy Standing Stones Scheduled Ancient Monument, where 7
hubs and partial towers and 2 tips would be visible. It was considered that this proposal would
have a significant adverse impact on this important historic environment asset
and its setting. She advised that the proposal would also have an adverse impact
on the setting of the Category A listed Clachan Bridge. It was considered that the visibility of the
development within the landscape backdrop of the bridge, a key tourism asset
and a widely photographed structure, in the context of both the wider setting
and the appreciation of the bridge, would be unacceptable. It
was considered that the proposal would also have an adverse impact on the
setting of the category B listed Ardencaple House and
setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument Ardfad
Castle with all 9 turbines theoretically visible. In light of the adverse impact
the proposal would have on the historic environment of Argyll it was considered
contrary to the provisions of: Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Government’s Specific
Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; and Development Plan Policy. She advised that the proposal would involve an unusually
large number of construction vehicle movements and the conveyance of abnormal
loads along the B844 a route which was sub-standard in width and
alignment. The road infrastructure along
this route was also subject to known deficiencies, including the structural
condition of the Kilninver Bridge and the road
retaining wall at Barnacarry, and it did not lend
itself to intensive construction activities involving movements of heavy goods
vehicles and abnormal loads. In view of the geometry of the road, which did not lend itself to
the swept path of large vehicles, there was the prospect of serious damage to
these structures occasioned by collision as a result of the transportation of
abnormal loads or the weight of construction vehicles, which would present a
serious threat to continued accessibility by road, as the failure of either of
these structures would be likely to precipitate closure of the route with the
consequent isolation of Seil, Easdale
and Luing. She
advised that the Applicants
have explored options to secure appropriate access and have discussed these
with the Roads Engineers. Whilst
engineering solutions were available these would involve third party land for
road improvements outside the road corridor and beyond the Applicant’s control,
most notably for the installation of a temporary road bridge adjacent to the
existing Kilninver Bridge, which should be noted
would require planning permission in its own right. A section 75 legal agreement involving third party landowners
would be required to secure such improvements, and in the absence of agreement
by those parties the engineering solutions identified must be regarded as being
theoretical rather than deliverable. In
the absence of any satisfactory mitigation being advanced for the risk
presented to the route by the type of traffic associated with the proposal, the
development did not benefit from an identified satisfactory means of access for
either construction or for decommissioning purposes, contrary to the provisions
of Development Plan Policy. She advised
that the sensitive coastal edge within which the site was located formed part
of Argyll’s most valued prime landscape resource, with recognition of this
being given by its designation as an Area of Panoramic Quality. In light of this proposal’s potential
adverse landscape and visual impacts, and the importance of landscape as a
tourism asset in Argyll, it was likely that the proposal would have some
adverse consequences for tourism. Studies commissioned to assess the sensitivity of
tourists to the presence of wind farm developments have not produced entirely
consistent responses. However, in recent
Scottish Ministers appeal decisions for Corlarach and
Black Craig wind farms, in both cases, the Reporters accorded weight to the
extent of the importance of tourism on the local economy in Argyll and Bute. Whilst
not a reason for refusal, it was
considered that due to the adverse impact this proposal would have on the
landscape, it would give rise to consequent adverse implications for tourism
resources. Notwithstanding, the contribution this proposal could make towards
combating climate change, development giving rise to inappropriate
environmental consequences could not be viewed as sustainable, she advised that this proposal was inconsistent with the provisions of
the Development Plan. She advised that all
‘other’ material considerations had been taken into account but, were not of
such weight as to overcome the significant adverse impacts of the scale and
location of the development upon Landscape Character, Visual Impact, Built
Heritage & Archaeology; and, Road Traffic Impact which could not be
overcome by relevant planning conditions or by way of a legal agreement. She
advised that there
was no justifiable reason for a departure from the provisions of the
Development Plan in this case and that it was therefore recommended that
planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Supplementary Report
2.
APPLICANT
Jan Barton advised that she
was a Traffic and Landscape Architect and with the aid of a series of slides
spoke about the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal. She referred to a map showing wind projects in
scoping, planning, approved/under construction and built in area surrounding
Clachan Seil and advised they were separate and
distant from Clachan Seil and that there was no
visual cluttering or overlapping of other developments and therefore no
cumulative grounds to refuse the application.
She advised that during the design evolution the overall impact was
minimised by substantial mitigation work before the application was submitted
and she advised on the process that was undertaken. She advised that the proposal was for medium
sized turbines for a medium sized landscape.
She advised that consideration was given to the local landscape
character type and that the turbines would be nestled into the moorland and that
they would look like a single role of turbines due to their spacing. She advised that at the time of the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement the Argyll and Firth of Clyde
Landscape Character was used and
highlighted on a map that the site was within a Craggy Upland Character type. She advised that since approval of the Argyll
and Bute Landscape and Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) the site was now
described as being within a Craggy Coast and Islands Landscape Character type
and that this new Landscape Character type was considered highly
sensitive. She advised that the presence
of Beinn Mhor increased the
height and scale of the landscape and that the turbines would hug the terrain
enclosing the site and tucking it away.
She advised that SNH allowed for modest medium typed proposals. She advised that the Islands of Luing, Shuna and Kerrera were more sensitive and that they were lumped
together with this site area. She
advised that the presence of forest land diminished the sensitivity of the area
compared to Luing, Shuna and
Kerrera. She
advised that the LWECS was not listed in the report of handling as a material
consideration though noted that Arlene Knox had said so in her
presentation. She advised that it was
still a very generalised document and did not allow for local site
characters. She advised that this was a
medium and not significant development.
She advised that SNH were not objecting as there were no national
landscape designations being affected by the proposal. She referred to the site being within an Area
of Panoramic Quality and advised that this was a local designation in the Local
Plan and had no designation in Policy.
She referred to the links between the land and the sea and advised that
none of these character types would be impacted on by the proposal and the
overall scenic value would not be undermined.
She referred to the Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and advised
that actual visibility would be greatly reduced because of screening from
vegetation and the built environment.
She advised that the turbines being visible was not necessarily a bad
thing and referred to comfortable views and uncomfortable views. She advised that the ZTV showed very limited
visibility from the mainland and that the site was very contained. She referred to each view point in turn with
the aid of slides and concluded that the vast majority of views were
comfortable.
Cameron Sutherland advised
that he was here to speak as the Applicant’s Agent, Green Cat Renewables and
that further to what had been heard from the Landscape Architect, he wished to
briefly touch on some of the other technical points of concern or perceived to
be of concern for this project and outlined why it was believed that these
should not be an impediment to this development proposal. He spoke about access and advised what the
key points to note were. Having had no
adverse comments from the Area Roads department in relation to the proposal at
the scoping stage, he advised that the application was submitted in November
2011. He advised that it was only in
July 2012 that a roads objection was received because the department had not
been given the traffic impact assessment provided with the Environmental
Statement. It was not until 21 August
that Green Cat Renewables received a roads objection on the grounds of the poor
state of the Kilninver Bridge, slippage risk near Barnacarry and the difficulty in using Clachan Bridge as
part of any access. In respect of
Clachan Bridge he advised this access would not be required. He advised that a full access survey was
undertaken and mitigation measures proposed including the Applicant repairing
the Kilninver Bridge or contributing to the building
of a new bridge, reducing vehicle movements by having an onsite borrow pit and
onsite batching plant, and the erection of a temporary bridge which was a
suggestion made by the Area Roads department.
He advised of dialogue between Green Cat and the Area Roads
department. He advised that a site visit
was undertaken and planning conditions drafted including mitigation for the
potential Barnacarry slippage. He advised that a Planning Officer intervened
on 25 October who indicated that no mitigation could be acceptable. He advised that an alternative access had
been found which Rory Young would provide more information on during his
presentation. He advised that contrary
to the Planning Officer’s intervention access could be conditioned to comply
with LP TRAN 4 and LP TRAN 5. Mr
Sutherland then went on to talk about the objection made by SEPA regarding the
risk effect on ground water dependent terrestrial ecosystems. He advised that further information had been
provided which demonstrated that the risks were not significant and that SEPA
had further responded to advise that the proposal could go ahead subject to planning
conditions therefore this was not a reason to refuse the development and that
the proposal therefore complied with STRAT RE1, STRAT DC7, LP REN1, LP ENV2 and
LP ENV 6. Mr Sutherland also spoke about
concerns raised about Ornithology and read out the statement submitted by SNH
and the statement within the Planning Officer’s report. He advised that contrary to the Planning
Officer’s report the clear message was that SNH currently had no concerns and
that pre construction survey would be advisable and desirable. Mr Sutherland also talked about the key
reasons for distance stand off to turbines which were safety, noise and visual
amenity. He advised that this project
did not require a 2 km buffer and the areas of search were intended for
projects of greater than 20MW and that the minimum separation distance of
greater than 800 m met all the technical constraints. He advised that noise levels measured were
low at the nearest properties and constraints were predicted to be met at all
properties at all wind speeds with no mitigation required. He advised that if suitable noise conditions
were applied there was no reason to expect noise problems throughout the
project lifetime. In terms of shadow
flicker Guidance has consistently indicated that shadow flicker should not
normally cause problems beyond 10 rotor diameters. He advised that for this project 10 rotor
diameter boundary was the technical constraint in layout design and that all
residential properties were greater than 18 rotor diameters from the nearest
turbine. In summary he advised that
access to the site and ecological constraints could be suitably mitigated. He advised that Ornithology was currently of
no concern and it was expected to require pre-construction survey and that
residential amenity could be maintained with suitable planning conditions.
Rory Young advised that he
and his family were the Applicants and that his family had farmed in Argyll for
three generations and that they wished to generate an income to prolong the use
of the farm and consent of this wind farm would generate an income to allow the
farm to continue. He advised that
consultation was undertaken throughout the process and that as a result of this
consultation the number of turbines were reduced from 11 to 9. He advised that Historic Scotland have
clearly stated they do not object to this development though they have concerns
and have suggested the removal or relocation of 3 of the turbines. He referred to the comments by Historic
Scotland and West of Scotland Archaeology about the Duachy
standing stones and he referred to pictures of these showing that only 1 of the
4 was still standing and another was partially buried. He advised that he has offered to stand the
fallen stones back up and to improve the link stock fencing to stop them from
falling over again. He advised that he
has also offered to erect a sign to potentially enhance the monument and that
Historic Scotland have welcomed this. He
advised that an agricultural shed and fencing were more visually intrusive and
that the setting already included man made structures. He advised that Historic Scotland did not
think the proposal would have any significant impact on the setting of Clachan
bridge. He advised that he had carried
out a detailed analysis of objections received and that relatively few comments
had come from local residents. He also
questioned the validity of postcard style objections which were first
distributed even before the application was submitted and that many of the
objectors would have had no knowledge of this application at the time of
filling out the postcard and that this appeared to be part of an anti wind farm
campaign. He advised if these postcard
type comments were disregarded then 55% of the representations received were
from objectors and 47% were from supporters.
He advised that he commissioned his own survey and questions were asked
of locals in the three Community Council areas.
He advised that the questions were scripted and that the survey was
carried out by independent consultants.
He referred to mitigation having been looked at to offset impact and
that the turbines had been reduced and moved further away. He advised that onsite noise monitoring had
been carried out. He referred to the
possibility of a new bridge or repair to the existing bridge and that the wind
farm would bring a solution to a long term problem and that the terms of this
had been agreed with Roads however Planning had raised concerns as third party
land owners would be required to give permission. He advised he had not had the chance to
contact land owners but did know that locals were keen for new bridge to be
built. He advised that he had spoken to
two land owners to gain permission to access the site from the A816 through the
Raera Forest which would mean there was no longer a
need to cross the Kilninver bridge. He referred to comments about the high impact
on Tourism and that he was keen to continue to sustain Tourism by allowing the
use of an old area of land for a car park and providing self guiding tours
around the farm with signs erected around the farm highlighting local historic
information and publicising local services available in the area. He advised that the offer of one of the
turbines as a community turbine had been turned down by the Community
Council. He advised that a community
wind turbine would generate an income of £80,000 per year and that a
representative from Abundance Generation was here to speak about the benefits
of investing in a community wind turbine.
He advised that Clachan Community Wind Farm were keen to keep much of
the revenue achieved in Argyll and Bute and that he had signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with Wind Towers. He also
advised that 8 letters of support had been submitted by 8 Argyll based firms which
collectively employed 375 people. He
advised that Julian Bell from the Agricultural College would speak later and
demonstrate how Clachan Community Wind Farm could benefit the area.
The Chair ruled and the
Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting at 1.10 pm for lunch . The meeting reconvened at 1.45 pm.
CONSULTEES
Kilninver and Kilmelford Community
Council
Antoinette Mitchell spoke on
behalf of the Community Council representing the Kilninver
and Kilmelford area.
She advised she would do her best to represent the whole of the
community and advised of the process undertaken by the Community Council to
give the community the opportunity to be involved in making their views known
including holding special meetings and issuing letters. She advised that once the application became
live the Community Council issued flyers asking the community to respond to the
Community Council to help with the response that would be submitted in respect
of this application. The community were
also encouraged to submit their own individual representations to the
Council. She advised that a meeting of
the Community Council was held in February 2012 to discuss the application and
that the Applicant, Mr Rory Young, was present at this meeting. A number of questions were raised which Mr
Young was unable to answer and he confirmed at this meeting that he would
contact the Chair at a later date with answers.
Mrs Mitchell advised that the Community Council were still waiting on
these answers from Mr Young. She advised
that the community were given every opportunity to submit their views to the
Community Council and that the Community Council’s response was based only on
the views submitted to them by the community.
They asked the community to make comments on the application itself and
not about wind farms in general. She
advised that none of the Supporters of this application have stated that the
location of this wind farm is the reason for their support. She advised that the majority of the
Supporters lived the furthest away from the site. She advised that 90% of the community that
responded to the flyer issued by the Community Council did not support this
application and that it explained a lot that the developer lived elsewhere. She advised that those living in the area
were dismayed at the contents of the Environmental Impact Assessment which
denied the existence of bats. She
advised that the studies carried out in some cases were done at the wrong time
of the year and at the wrong time of the day and for too brief a time. She advised that it was generally believed
that Argyll and Bute had already met their 2020 target of energy from renewable
resources such as wind farms and asked why was another wind farm needed in this
area. She advised that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on an Area of Panoramic Quality and that the site
was next to an area designated as ‘very sensitive countryside’ in the Local
Plan. She referred to the proposal being
classed as medium scale and advised that the wind turbines would be intrusive
and overbearing on the landscape. She
referred to the visual impact for those living on Seil
and around iconic scenic beauty spots.
She advised that the wind farm would be less than 800 metres from the
coast. She advised that many members of the
community were appalled at the standard of the photomontages and the
misrepresentation of these and that no one was in support of the suggestion of
a tourist centre at the farm. She
advised that even those that support wind farms have questioned the viability
of this wind farm. She stated that the
large anemometer was never erected by the Applicant, only a 15 metre high one
just for a few months. She advised that
the site would be protected from prevailing winds by Beinn
Mhor. She
advised that residents next to the site were concerned about the impact of
noise especially at night. She referred
to health issues associated with infrasound and that this must be considered
seriously. She advised that residents
were concerned about property devaluation though appreciated that this was not
a planning issue. She referred to
compensatory schemes in other parts of Europe as a result of wind farms and
asked where the money would come from if compensatory schemes were introduced
in the UK. She advised that if this
proposal went ahead it would set a terrible precedent. She advised that Planning, SNH and Roads did
not support this application. She
advised that overall this application was for a wind farm in a totally
unsuitable site and that it should be refused.
Seil and Easdale Community
Council
Seamus Anderson, Chair of Seil and Easdale Community
Council, advised that he had heard some good points made on both sides and that
he would be putting forward the views of the community of Seil
and Easdale and that he hoped that the Committee had taken the time to read the
full response submitted by the Community Council and not just the abbreviated
version in the Planning report. He advised
that this has been a long process since 2009 to get to here and that the
proposal has been discussed at numerous Community Council meetings and public
meetings. He advised that he had
attended meetings arranged by the developer and other factions to ascertain
what the public were thinking. He
advised of a postal survey the Community Council carried out using the edited
version of the electoral role which included 377 residents. He advised that 3 questions were asked (a)
do you wish the Community Council to support the proposal for a wind farm? (b)
do you wish the Community Council to object to the proposal for a wind farm?
(c) do you wish the Community Council to express no view on the proposal for a
wind farm? He advised that there was
also a box for any comments voters wished to make. He advised that the community were also
encouraged to submit their own letters of representation on this proposal. He advised that the Community Council
received 208 returns on their survey and that 60 supported the proposal, 138
objected and 10 had no view. There were
also 72 comments received. He advised
that the Community Council also received comments from people not included on
the edited electoral role. He referred
the Committee to page 11 of the supplementary planning report 1 which
summarised the reasons why Seil and Easdale Community Council were objecting to the proposal
and asked the Committee to give these weight when making their decision.
SUPPORTERS
David Steele
David Steele advised that he
represented Wind Towers Scotland Ltd who have a manufacturing plant down in Machrihanish, Kintyre and that they manufacture wind
turbines. He advised that the Company
employs 135 people and that the Company has been in existence for 20 months and
have taken on workers from the Kintyre and Mull of Kintyre area. He advised
that employees were trained locally and that from 5 November 2012 they would be
employing for the first time 2 apprentices.
He advised that the Company were debt free and well funded. He advised that the Company have signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with Clachan Community Energy Wind Farm for orders
of the wind turbines to go to Machrihanish and that
an order like this would be very important for the Company. He advised of other wind farms that the
Company had been involved with including Allt Dearg and Carraig Gheal. He advised
that the renewable energy industry was important to the economy of Argyll and
Bute and Scotland and that he would like to add his support to Clachan
Community Energy Wind Farm.
Bruce Davis
Bruce Davis of Abundance
Generation spoke specifically about how his Company can assist ordinary people
to invest in renewable energy projects.
He advised that the Company started in July 2012 and have been involved
in the Forest of Dean renewable energy project which has been fully supported
by those living next to the turbines which would pay £15,000 per year to the
community for 20 years and that those who invest in the project would receive a
return of up to 8%. He advised that
electricity generated would to go the grid and that people who invest as little
as £5 could get involved. He advised
that by investing in the project people gained a better understanding of green
energy and the economic benefits of this and that from the age of 18 years
people could put money into the project and get a return for the life of the
project. He advised that Abundance gets
involved with local people and that they want the money to stay in the local
community to enable it to be spent on the local community for the benefit of
the community. He advised that Argyll and
Bute have more wind resource that any other area in Europe. He advised that renewable energy was the most
valuable thing with wind and sun being the most beneficial.
John Everett
Mr Everett advised that the Committee
should go against the recommendation and approve this project. He advised that he would like to demonstrate
his support for wind farms. He referred
to the community benefit of £10,000 though understood that this was not a
material planning consideration however it was still worth fighting for. He advised that he would like to appeal to
the Committee on rational grounds. He
advised that by 2023 all but 1 out of 19 coal fired power stations would be
retired. He advised that 20% of our
electricity came from nuclear power stations and that their lifespan was also
limited. He referred to periodic
blackouts being a normal occurrence in India where supply could not keep up
with demand and asked would this be accepted in the UK. He advised that the Clachan Wind farm at a
local level would make a difference. He
advised that there would be enough energy produced at Clachan to supply
electricity to homes in a town the size of Oban. He referred to myths in respect of noise and
advised that the Committee would hear from objectors about low frequency noise
and infrasound. He advised that the 2km
buffer zone guidance was for those setting broad planning designations. He read out an article about a project he was
involved with down in Leicestershire regarding turbines and noise. He advised that there were legitimate reasons
why the Committee could support this proposal such as sustainability, the
Argyll and Bute Economic Development Plan for 2010 – 2013 which describes
renewable energy as a major opportunity and a number 1 priority, and generating
electricity in line with local needs.
Darran Mellish
Darran Mellish advised that he was
born and bred in Argyll and worked for West Coast Tool and Plant Hire. He talked about the recession over the last 5
years and that in order to keep his business running during the recession he
depended on the construction industry.
He advised that he employed 25 people and that his business had survived
due to the construction of wind farms at Glendaruel, Allt Dearg and Carraig Gheal. He advised that in terms of access the roads
and underground cabling for these projects required vehicles and plant which
were sourced locally. He advised that
the Clachan Community Wind Farm had the potential to promise more employment
for local contractors. He referred to
the prejudiced views of some people regarding wind farms. He advised that tourist providers he has
spoken to have not raised any concerns.
He referred to intrusive views and that everyone had a different
opinion. He advised that in 20 years the
wind farm would be decommissioned and the land returned to its previous state
and that this opportunity should be grabbed with both hands.
Julian Bell
Julian Bell, a Senior Rural
Business Consultant at the Agricultural College advised that the economics of
renewable energy was his specialism and that he has assessed the potential
benefits of the Clachan Community Wind Farm during construction and
operation. He advised that the project
would bring a long term flow of money into the economy and he advised what this
would mean in terms of additional jobs.
Duncan MacMillan
Duncan MacMillan advised that
he has lived in Kilmelford for 35 years and that his
son and neighbours work in the wind industry and that because of this he was
supporting this project. He advised that
a lot of people supported this project but were too frightened to say so for
fear of lifting their heads above the parapet.
Fiona Wylie
Fiona Wylie advised that she
has lived at Arduaine for over 30 years within the Kilninver and Kilmelford
Community Council area and that she would like to vote yes for this
application. She advised that we were
too dependent on coal, gas and uranium and that we needed to plan for a mix of
methods including renewables and that there would always be wind, sun and
waves. She referred to the Clachan Wind
Farm having the potential to power a town the size of Oban and that this
project should be part of the mix for the future. She advised that the Council should
facilitate rather than hinder contributing to part of the mix. She advised that in contrast to the objectors
every single letter of support came from within Argyll. She referred to the economic benefits to the
community, eg, employment. She referred
to 5 people in the tiny community working in the wind turbine industry. She advised that there has been an emotional
outcry from objectors regarding wildlife.
She advised that SNH have raised no concerns regarding ornithological
interests. She advised that David
Attenborough was an ardent supporter of wind generation. She referred to objectors advising of doom
and gloom for tourism. She referred to a
survey by Visit Scotland, Moray and Edinburgh University which stated that wind
farms do not have a negative adverse impact on tourism. She advised that Cornwall have embraced wind
farms and that they have had neither a negative or positive impact on
tourism. She referred to objections
about subsidies paid for renewable energy and stated that the average
householder paid less than £5 per year for renewable obligations. She referred to objections about noise and
advised that she had visited Tiree which had a turbine visible from all parts
of the island. She advised that she
could not decide if the noise she heard when standing near the turbine was from
the turbine itself or from the wind. She
referred to Kilninver and Kilmelford
Community Council objecting and advised that they were not representative of
the community as a whole. She advised
that the flyer issued by the Community Council contained factual errors. She spoke about a house to house survey done
and that 77% of the community were either neutral or supportive and that based
on these results the Kilninver and Kilmelford Community should be supporting this proposal to
reflect the views of the community. She
advised that most of the objectors were elderly, second home owners or the
wealthy and that most objected to the visual impact. She advised that if permission were granted
it would only be for 20 years then the project would be decommissioned and the
land returned to its original state. She
advised that a yes to this application would ensure Argyll continued to meet
its renewable targets and that the local community would reap the benefits.
Councillor Iain Angus
MacDonald
Councillor MacDonald advised
that he came to Argyll in the mid 1980s and has been involved with Community
Councils and that he was interested in the concerns of the community. He spoke about the planning process and how
this has evolved in Argyll and Bute. He
referred to an application of similar circumstances recently approved and
suggested there was a lack of consistency.
He advised that this proposal was temporary and that all trace of it
would be removed in 25 years which was a moment in time and asked that the
Applicant be given this moment in time.
He advised that orchestrated support or objection had no part in
this. He advised that most of the
indications from going round doors were for support and that this was mostly
from very financially pressed families.
He advised that Argyll was now experiencing almost twice the Scottish
average of fuel poverty. He advised that
these were challenging times and that we needed to find innovative ways to
generate finance in the economy over the coming years.
OBJECTORS
Stuart Reid
Stuart Reid circulated
pictures to the Committee which illustrated the scale of the turbines to those
living in Clachan Seil. He advised that he was speaking on behalf of a
large number of people who have objected on planning matters. He advised that the location of the site was
not suitable for a project of this size.
He referred to the Local Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) intended to
guide and advised that this proposal went against this guidance. He referred to the national scenic area of Scarba to Lunga and that this
project would be visible throughout the Firth of Lorn. He referred to infrastructure including the Kilninver Bridge, the retaining wall at Barnacarry
and the single track road which would be used by construction vehicles. He referred to the number of vehicle
movements during the construction phase and maintenance traffic for the
lifetime of the project. He advised that
emergency vehicles would be jeopardised if the road became blocked. He referred to decommissioning of the project
in 25 years and advised that it would only be the turbines that would be
removed. He advised that the foundations
and hard standings would just be covered with top soil and that the craggy
upland would be changed forever. He
referred to the recommendation of 2 km in respect of separation distances and
advised that 70 dwellings were within 2 km and the nearest was 800m away. He advised that a precedent could be set for
this Argyll coast and that there were fears that the application for the Raera wind farm could be resubmitted. He advised that the reasons for the Raera application being refused were even more applicable
in this proposal. He referred to a
photograph showing the location of each turbine across the landscape. He spoke about the scenic quality of the area
and urged the Committee to refuse the application.
Michael Shaw
Michael Shaw advised that he
has been involved with tourism and rural development and referred to tourism
and its importance around Clachan Seil. He advised that Tourism underpinned
everything. He advised that the
unspoilt, natural beauty of the landscape was the main speciality of this area. He advised that visitor centres were not
dependent on scenery. He referred to canoers and walkers who came to the area because of its
appearance. He advised that properties
on Seil commanded premium price. He advised that the first bridge over the
Atlantic was known worldwide and that the whole area of Easdale
and Clachan Bridge often featured in promotional materials for Argyll and Bute
for tourism purposes. He referred to the
Cornwall survey regarding tourism and acknowledged that most people have no
problem with wind farms if they are built in the right place. He advised that the problem with this
proposal was it being put in the wrong place so that is why it was a threat to
tourism. He advised that tourism in this
small area was fragile and that it would not take much to make it rocky. He referred to this being an industrial
development in the Toad of Lorn an area of religious and historical interest,
an iconic tourist attraction and a valued asset to us all. He referred to Cruachan being a large mountain
and that Beinn Mhor was not
a mountain. He advised that this
environment was not just pretty it was of economic importance.
Margaret Brooks
Margaret Brooks advised that
she objected to this wind farm. She
advised that she lived with her family in Clachan Seil
and that their house was 1.5km from the
proposed wind farm. She advised that she
has been a health professional for 25 years and would like to talk about the
effects of Wind Turbines on health based on information published in medical
journals. She referred to noise impact
and low frequency sound and infrasound.
She referred to sleep deprivation and sleep disturbance. She advised that the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) based its noise assessment on the 5 nearest properties to the
wind farm and advised that 60 properties would be within 2 km of the wind farm
and that sound carried. She referred to
information about other health problems gathered in other countries where wind
farms were erected. She likened these
reports about health issues being similar to health issue reports first made
regarding tobacco. She advised that the
EIS referred to a guidance note on noise which was over 15 years old and that
no mention was made about infrasound in the presentation on the EIS today. She referred to the loss of amenity and that
it was not just the visual impact it was the disruption to the peace and
tranquillity of the area. She advised
that health was priceless and that she had no confidence that the health of the
residents of Clachan Seil would not be affected. She asked who would be called to account if
legal action was taken as the result of health problems.
Martin Hadlington
Martin Hadlington
advised that he was a conservation architect and that he worked on ancient
scheduled monuments and referred to a number of projects he was currently
working on and advised that there was archaeology support on these sites. He advised that he has lived on Seil for 20 years and has kayaked down the waters in the
area. He referred to the landscape being
intimate, very sensitive and unique. He
referred to churches in the area, a crannog on the loch, hill fort and the Toad
of Lorn. He advised of major
implications in terms of setting for these sites. He referred to the Duachy
stones and comments made by Historic Scotland on these. He advised that both Historic Scotland and
West of Social Archaeology Society had expressed concerns. He advised that it was not known what
archaeology was on this site and that this had not been investigated in great
detail and may cause the loss of potential archaeology in the area. He advised that a great deal of care was
required for this area of landscape. He
advised that the debate was not about the rights or wrongs of wind turbines it
was about this particular site being the wrong location for a wind farm.
John Wilson
John Wilson spoke about the
impact on the natural heritage and the Environmental Statement advising of no
protected species found on the site. He
advised of a colony of marsh fritillary butterfly identified in the area
following surveys undertaken. He advised
they were first seen in 2009 and that a condition survey carried out in 2012
found evidence of a healthy colony. He
advised of many sitings of white tailed sea eagles
and that the Council were notified of these sitings. He also referred to the EIS advising that no
bats were in the area and advised that it was common to observe bats locally
and that they were known to roost close to Kilninver
bridge and he mentioned various other places where they were known to
roost. He advised that bats were being
killed by turbines due to changes in air pressure close to the turbines which
caused their lungs to rupture. He
advised that the EIS stated that there was no evidence of barn owls and advised
that barn owls were known to nest in the area and were quite often seen sitting
on the bridge. He advised that the EIS
had many shortcomings and that if the property developer was allowed to proceed
at least 4 priority red protected species would be at risk.
Phil Moss
Phil Moss advised that he moved
to the area 18 years ago and that he was not a medical doctor, but a retired
research scientist, with a lifetime working in agriculture science. He advised that he was a strong supporter of
the environment and renewables provided they were located in the right
place. He advised that he was a great
fan of hydroelectricity schemes, tidal power, and of reducing carbon
footprints. He advised that he wanted to
talk about noise and referred to the deep sounds produced by the blades of wind
turbines. He advised that it was these
deep sounds with long wavelengths that travelled long distances and were used
by elephants to communicate over land and whales in the sea. He advised he was deeply concerned about
this development because of its situation at the head of Seil
Sound. He advised that this was a body
of water with hills on either side, where sound carries over the water and was
contained by the hills, a sort of megaphone effect, with the turbines at the
mouthpiece of the megaphone. He advised
that most of the houses in Clachan Seil were on the
slopes of the hills so within sound range of the turbines and that the village
of Balvicar was within the end of the megaphone, and
despite the distance, may well be affected.
He advised that he lived in one of the houses not immediately next to
the water and that he could often hear noises, even normal speech, from
considerable distances. He advised that
at a previous meeting it had been stated that the wind here was from the South
West so all sound from the turbines would be carried away from the
village. He advised that this was an
over simplification and not totally accurate.
He advised that although most of the weather systems came from the South
West, the weather that brought the wind consisted of low pressure areas and
that the wind circulated round these anticlockwise so the wind changes in
direction as the low passes. He advised
that the noise from these huge turbines would be funnelled down the South to
the houses for a considerable period when the turbines were turning. He advised that Scotland already led the
world in renewable electricity generation from hydro and that it was also
supporting research into tidal power, for which it was ideally situated and
which was a far better, more reliable source of energy than wind power. He advised that Scotland was also supporting
the installation of solar panels and actively supporting a range of initiatives
to reduce energy consumption, such as better house insulation, use of log
stoves rather than fossil fuels, and installation of heat pumps. He advised that surely Scotland should just
be concentrating on the best sources, such as hydro and tidal, and only
considering the very best wind power schemes with the least detrimental
effect. He advised that on a world
scale, the effect of this proposal would be miniscule and that there were many
locations, both on land and off shore in Scotland and other countries, where
wind turbines could be located without seriously affecting people as this one
would, and that this proposal should be way down any list of priorities. He advised Members, in considering this
application, to take a wider view and balance the minute world benefit of this
proposal against the detrimental effect it would have on the standard of living,
including health, of the constituents in Clachan Seil
and even Balvicar.
Lesley Addison
Lesley Addison advised that
she lives at Clachan Beg overlooking Clachan sound and that the beauty, peace
and community spirit enjoyed by her parents at Taynuilt attracted her and her
husband back to the area in 1997. She
referred to “not in my back yard” and stated that in terms of wind farms “not
in our back yard”. She listed her reasons
for objection being - quality of life – her house being less than 1 km from the nearest turbine led to her having
concerns about sleep deprivation; loss of freedom – to walk around the area –
concerns about ice throw; and that this was one of the most beautiful places in
the world – this industrial site would not be wholly dismantled at the end of
its lifespan.
Eileen Colston
Eileen Colston
advised that she lives in Clachan Seil within 1.5 km
of the wind factory. She referred to the
Clachan Community Wind Farm and Mr Young being an absentee landowner. She referred to opposition from both
Community Councils and that the wind farm would blight the lives of those
living here. She advised that the
turbines would not be nestled or tucked away and would have an adverse impact
on tourism. She advised that this was
not a community project and that it was community exploitation.
Helen Glennie
Helen Glennie
advised that she has lived in Clachan Seil for 2.5
years and was within 1.5 km of the proposed wind farm. She advised that she has also been a conservational
credited architect for over 30 years and that this landscape and ecology would
be undermined by this wind farm which was not a farm but an industry. She advised that she had looked at all the
comments submitted online and referred to the latest comments about the
bridges. She advised that she was not
happy that there was no reference to alterations to the access from the highway
and that this could not happen without alterations to turn down off the highway. She referred to possible log jams with
tourist buses meeting construction traffic.
She advised that the Grade A listed bridge would be compromised. She advised that the setting of the listed
bridge and other listed buildings in the area would be severely compromised if
not destroyed. She advised if this
application was accepted it would go against policies set to protect the
landscape. She advised that from her
home she would be able to see and hear the turbines all day and all night. She advised that the value of her home had
already tumbled and would not recover.
She advised of the peace and solace of the area being taken away and
human rights being affected. She advised
that her quality of life and other peoples would be severely compromised and
that the developer did not even live here.
She advised that planning policy states that quality of life should not
be compromised. She advised that the
wind farm would not achieve 100% efficiencies and might just achieve 30%
efficiencies so could not understand where £80,000 of community benefit would
come from. She advised that electricity
generated would go to the national grid not to local people. She referred to the wildlife and that a pair
of white tailed sea eagles were seen in the area last week. She referred to bats being known to roost in
the area and that the Bat Conservation Trust with DEFRA have been conducting a
study on bats and that a report on this was due at the end of the year. She advised that in Europe the bat population
was being reduced due to ecosystems. She
advised that bats were affected by the turbines and rotor blades and that the
bat situation has not been thoroughly explored.
She listed ancient monuments in the area and advised that an archaeology
survey was required. She referred to
safety issues and ice throw. She
referred to the impact on tourism. She
advised that CO2 was not a pollutant it was green and that plants needed it to
grow, animals needed plants eat so we needed CO2. She advised that support for this project was
money based and objections were in planning terms. She advised that we could not rely just on
wind power and that there were other forms of energy.
Christine Metcalfe
Christine Metcalfe advised
that a lot of what she planned to say had already been said but that she would
like to add to the comments made by Dr Brooks and others on the adverse health
effects associated with wind turbines which have been published globally. She also referred to sailing tourism rising
and that this proposal would impact on this area which was one of the top 40
sailing locations. She advised that
support for this project was based on short term considerations and not
material considerations and that this proposal should be refused.
The Chair ruled and the
Committee agreed to adjourn at 4.25 pm for a 10 minute break. The meeting reconvened at 4.35 pm.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Kinniburgh
referred to Roads concerns about the Kilninver bridge
and the retaining wall at Barnacarry and asked was it
correct that the road would need redesigned to get an HGV over the bridge and
how much room would be on either side of the HGV.
Bill Weston advised that HGVs currently used the bridge and that there was no weight
limit. He advised that the intensity of
loading was the main issue and that abnormal load vehicles were longer and
wider. He advised that the biggest
vehicle would be the crane which would be 3.2 metres wide. He advised that the bridge parameter was 3.5
metres. He advise that the crane would
go in once and out once during the construction phase.
Councillor Kinniburgh asked
what the impact on the community would be if the road needed to be closed.
Bill Weston advised that the
community would be completely cut off and that this was the only access to Seil.
Councillor Kinniburgh asked
if the suggestion of an alternative access was made by Roads or the Applicant.
Bill Weston advised that this
suggestion came up during discussions about the feasibility of building a
temporary bridge and that he believed this suggestion was made by his colleagues
in Roads Design during these discussions.
Councillor Devon referred to
the wildlife and ornithological concerns and asked if there were any SSSIs in the area.
Richard Kerr advised there
were no designations.
Councillor Devon referred to the
Landscape and Wind Energy Capacity Study document and part of the reason for
refusal being the siting and scale and design of the turbines and asked what
status this document was given when considering this planning application.
Richard Kerr advised that the
study was a material consideration but did not carry the same weight as the
Structure and Local Plan policies. He
advised that the LWECS was commissioned jointly between the Council and SNH in
response to the number of wind farm applications across Argyll and to that it
extent it is constituted as guidance and has less weight than the policies.
Councillor Devon referred to
talks about the adverse impact and referred to the wind turbine. She asked if any of the objectors had
approached people on Tiree to ask for their comments on the impact. She was advised that it was a different
scenario on Tiree as they only had one turbine and that this proposal was not
for a single turbine. It was not known
if anyone on Tiree had been approached to comment.
Councillor Devon asked if the
Applicants were able to address people’s concerns about the bridge with a new
bridge or repair to the bridge after construction would this alleviate Road’s
concerns.
Bill Weston advised that
there would be the need for a traffic management plan including the means to
control the number of vehicles at any time and the addition and extension of
passing places. He advised that this
would be possible.
Councillor Trail referred to
the alternative access through the forest and asked if this would be a
completely new road or involve the upgrade of an existing track.
Rory Young advised that he
had only started to investigate this on Friday and his first conversation was
with the land agent of Raera Forest. He advised that it would involve using and
upgrading the existing track used for the extraction of timber. He advised that it was the main arterial road
and not his preferred access route.
Richard Trail asked if the
track would need extended.
Rory Young advised that he
believed that both ends of the track would require extension.
Councillor Colville referred
to policy LP REN 1 and the efficiency of the turbines. He asked how Mr Bell had arrived at his
figures and asked how confident he was that there would be no turbulence.
Rory Young advised that he
had not yet erected the 50 metre anemometer on site. He advised that just the smaller one was
erected and that a combination of that and people visiting the site all figures
were based on the national average of 30% and capacity figures of other turbine
owners in the area.
Councillor Colville referred
to the separation distance guidance of 2 km and asked Planners what weight they
placed on this guidance.
Richard Kerr advised that
separation distances were not mandatory.
He advised that they were there for the preparation of development plans
rather than the assessment of individual planning applications.
Councillor Colville referred
to the funnelling of noise through the Sound and asked if that had been taken
into consideration
Richard Kerr advised it was
difficult to comment on noise as a review of noise sensitivities was undertaken
by Environmental Health Officers in Public Protection and that they did not
consider noise to be a problem. In terms
of low frequency noise he advised that the jury was out on that and until we
get a point of view from the Government that the status needed changed it would
not be appropriate to do something unilaterally and at the moment we have to
accept the current national standards regarding noise.
Councillor Hall asked the
Applicant what work was done regarding the environmental impact and the traffic
management plan.
Cameron Sutherland advised
that the environmental impact was scoped out as part of the Environmental
Impact Assessment. In respect of the
traffic management plan they are aware of the need for one if planning
permission was granted in order to suitably mitigate the number of vehicle
movements across the Kilninver Bridge. He advised that they have investigated the
possibility of a borrow pit on site and an onsite batching plant for concrete
to mitigate the need for the number of traffic movements.
SUMMING UP
Planning
Richard Kerr advised that the
landscape of the west coast of Argyll must be recognised as a very important
resource both in terms of its inherent qualities and in terms of its value as a
scenic tourism asset of significance to the Argyll economy. He advised that it was a relatively low
lying landscape, deriving its interest from its complex and intimate character,
and the interplay between the land, the sea and the islands. He advised that such coastal land does not
share the locational advantages of those more open, elevated, upland areas in
inland parts of Argyll, which were removed from the coast, communities and
transport routes, where, in our view, there was more opportunity to assimilate
large turbines into the landscape setting successfully. He advised that Members would be aware that
approved windfarm developments have been generally restricted to areas such as
the Lorn Plateau, the spine of Kintyre and upland areas between Loch Fyne and Loch Awe and that proposals with potential impacts
upon for sensitive coastal landscapes have not proven to be successful. He advised that the proposed windfarm in the Raera forest to the south of the Clachan site was refused
by the Council in 2010 and the refused site at Kilchattan
by Southend was subsequently dismissed on appeal due
to its unacceptable influence over coastal landscapes. He advised that the site lay within a
designated Area of Panoramic Quality which, contrary to what was suggested by
the Applicant’s landscape architect, was a regional designation within which
particular care has to be taken not to degrade landscape assets and tourism
potential. He advised that significant
care was required in siting a turbine of any scale in such a sensitive
receiving environment. He advised that
the turbines proposed were 77m tall and although they were to be regarded as medium
scale in terms of the largest turbine models now available, at 77m these
remained very tall structures of the size being installed as state of the art
machines by the utility companies only 10 years ago. He advised that turbines of this scale were disproportionate
to the scale of the particular landscape on which they were to be sited, and
accordingly diminished the apparent scale of that landscape and for this reason
the joint Council/SNH Windfarm Landscape Capacity Study considers this
landscape character type to be highly sensitive to any turbines over 35m, with
a high to medium sensitivity for even small turbines of less than 35m. He advised that SNH have reviewed the
supporting landscape information in the Applicant’s Environmental Statement and
have concluded that the development was inappropriately sited and of a
disproportionate scale, broke away from the established pattern of windfarm
development in Argyll, and set a highly undesirable precedent in terms of large
scale development influencing coastal landscapes. He advised that although the Applicants have
suggested today that the limited extent of the visual envelope of the site
weighs in favour of their proposals, it was necessary to consider the receptors
which would be influenced, which would include, the road approach to Seil, the important tourism area adjoining the ‘Bridge over
the Atlantic’, the residential area around Clachan and Balvicar,
historic environmental assets around Ardencaple and
the Duachy scheduled standing stones as well as
vantage points from the sea and from the Isle of Luing He advised that the Applicants referred this
morning to the “exceptional benefits” of the proposal but at 8MW this was not a
scheme with large generating capacity.
He advised that a windfarm of the scale proposed would only make a very
small contribution towards being able to arrest climate change, at the expense
of imposing itself on a landscape which did not have the capacity to assimilate
a commercial scale wind power development satisfactorily. Therefore, he advised that the proposal was
contrary to the interest of landscape character, had unacceptable visual
consequences and impinged upon historic assets and therefore conflicted with
development plan policy. He advised that
in terms of access, the matter had not been well researched as part of the
application, given the shortcomings of the particular access route identified
in the Environmental Assessment. He
advised that it had been suggested by the Applicants that conditions attached
to any approval could address necessary access improvements but that this was
not the case as conditions could only apply to development contained within the
application site boundary and the access route did not lie within this. He advised that whilst legal agreements could
be deployed to address such an eventuality, these would need to be with the
express agreement of all third parties controlling the land required and no
such agreements were in place. He
advised that some revised form of access, not identified in the Environmental
Statement, was not therefore admissible at this stage and for that reason the
deficiencies and shortcomings of the originally identified route warranted
refusal of the application. He advised
that in support of the proposal, the Applicant had suggested that the windfarm
could become a tourism asset by the development of some interpretation facility
along the lines of the Whitelee windfarm. He advised that the location, scale and
context of Whitelee was very different to the tourism
destination of the west coast and that you would have to ask yourselves whether
it was credible that visitors attracted by scenery, the historic environment,
wildlife and the sea would be likely to want to make a windfarm visit a
component of their visitor experience in Argyll. He reminded Members that how the project
was devised commercially and where there would be an associated element of
community benefit, was not a material consideration and ought to be disregarded
in the adjudication of the application.
He advised that consideration should be restricted to the land use
planning merits of the proposal alone.
He advised that whilst the community investment model described to you
was to be commended in circumstances where developments are acceptable in
environmental terms, it could not influence the acceptability of otherwise
inappropriate forms of development.
Likewise, nor could employment and other economic benefits advanced by
the supporters of the proposal, which could not be used to offset demonstrable
environmental harm. He advised that
there were sound and clear cut reasons for refusing this application, as set
out on pages 5 – 18 of supplementary planning report number 2 and he commended
Members to these.
Applicant
Rory Young referred to a
number of concerns raised by objectors.
He confirmed he had talked to people on Tiree who confirmed there was no
detrimental impact to them as a result of their Wind Turbine and that this was
contained in the Environmental Impact Statement. He confirmed that in respect of the
commissioned survey no canvassing was undertaken during this exercise. He advised that the survey was scripted and
carried out by independent people. He
referred to comments about the turbines being placed in hollows and advised
that he had tried to sensitively place the turbines in the landscape rather
than placing them where most income could be generated. He read out the statement made by SNH
regarding the marsh fritillary butterfly and also their comments regarding the
white tailed sea eagles. He advised
that access to this site would be improved.
He referred to health issues. He
referred to the £10,000 community fund being based on £10,000 per mw installed
and that it had nothing to do with operating capacity. He referred to concerns about sailing and
advised that he had spoken to Managers at Ardrossan
and Inverkip Marinas and that they had not
experienced any impact as a result of nearby turbines. He advised that all renewable energy had down
sides and that in respect of renewable wind energy for every person that did
not like turbines there were others that were okay with them. He advised it was about producing a resource
we all needed in a sustainable way and that there was the potential for a large
community owned turbine and that this was an exceptional opportunity. He urged the Committee to approve this
application.
Jan Barton briefly recapped
all she said in her presentation and addressed some of the concerns raised by
objectors. She advised that the overall
impact of the proposal was substantially mitigated before the application was
submitted. She agreed that Clachan Seil was unique and that this had resulted in a high
quality design for this area. She
advised that this was a medium scale landscape that could accommodate a medium
scale wind farm. She advised that the
Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study was not policy but the informal opinion of
one. She advised that photomontages were
produced to SNH standards. She advised
that the possibility of Clachan Farm setting a precedent was not a valid reason
for refusal and that each application should be assessed on its own merits.
Cameron Sutherland summed up
the access side of things. He advised
that Roads did not respond to their application for 8 months, they were not
provided with all the necessary information and once this was resubmitted they
took a further month to comment. He
advised that dialogue with Roads has been constructive. He advised they have not been given enough
time to explore alternative access routes and asked the Committee not to use
access as a reason to refuse this application. He referred to the noise
assessment and agreed that the guidelines used were old but that they were
still the standard guidelines to be used and that the Environmental Health
Officer was correct to assess noise under these guidelines. He referred to funnelling of noise and
advised that no properties were in direct line of sight of the turbines. He advised that the noise assessment was
deemed acceptable by Environmental Health Officers. He referred to comments about repetitive
sound being irritable and advised that different things irritated different
people. He referred to the bat survey
carried out which concluded that no bats were seen and advised that wasn’t to
say they did not roost there. He advised
that it was recognised nationally that surveys carried out were a snap shot and
that guidance had changed since the survey was carried out in 2009.
Statutory Consultees
Kilninver and Kilmelford Community
Council
Antoinette Mitchell addressed
comments regarding the Community Council not being representative of the whole
community and of the information contained in the flyers being inaccurate. She referred to comments about the template
letters from objectors and advised that the same could be said of
supporters. She advised we were not
here to debate on renewable energy and wind farms in general and that the
debate was about this particular application.
She advised that the supporters did not talk about the suitability of
the site. She asked what was the point
in having a Local Plan and Planner’s opinions if they were to be ignored.
Seil and Easdale Community
Council
Seamus Anderson advised that Seil and Easdale Community
Council were the closest Community Council to this development and hoped the
Committee would give the Community Council
comments summarised at page 11 of the supplementary planning report
number 1 weight when making their decision.
Supporters
John Everett
John Everett referred to the
AWFALS protest group. He advised that
there was good reason to accept this proposal in planning reasons –
sustainability, the Argyll and Bute EDAP and the level of energy generated
being appropriate for the level of energy required.
Darran Mellish
Darran Mellish advised that his
company dealt with specialist transport and if loads were wide escorts were
used and movements were programmed to avoid busy times. Regarding weight problems he advised that the
entire load was not concentrated weight but axle weight which was the same as
tippers and coaches. He advised that
additional lay-bys installed for the job would be there after the construction
phase and would benefit the community.
He referred to community wind farms on Gigha
and Tiree and advised that he had spoken to the community of Gigha who believed this was the best thing they had ever
done. He advised that the value of what
would be gained minimised what would be lost.
He advised that Argyll needed to do something to prevent
stagnation. He advised that he lived on Seil island.
Julian Bell
Julian Bell advised that
maximum economic benefits would be achieved with this small proposal and local
initiative.
Fiona Wylie
Fiona Wylie advised that she
knew a lot of people who liked the look of wind turbines and asked the
Committee to keep 3 things in mind – the future of our young; the future of our
community; and it’s only for 25 years.
Objectors
Stuart Reid
Stuart Reid advised he had
heard nothing to justify constructing this power station in the proposed
location. He advised that the impact on
the landscape and the visual impact far outweighed any benefits from wind
turbines in this location. He advised
that the area needed protected and that the application should be refused.
John Wilson
John Wilson referred to
comments about bats and white tailed sea eagles made by SNH. He advised that the EIS was of great concern.
Phil Moss
Phil Moss referred to noise
from lorries on the road and emergency vehicles. He referred to comments about properties looking
to the east and not having direct line of sight of turbines and advised that
they could still be heard. He advised
that 8 of the turbines would be visible from Balvicar
and sound would travel down the Seil Sound.
Eileen Colston
Eileen Colston
referred to the properties on Seil Sound and that
this was a commercial industry on an industrial scale and should be refused.
Helen Glennie
Helen Glennie
asked why we have laws and Acts. She
advised that they were there to protect us and urged the Committee to consider
all the relevant laws and Acts right down to the local plan and local people
and to not contravene these and to please refuse the application.
The Chair invited everyone to
confirm they had received a fair hearing and they all confirmed this to be the
case.
DEBATE
Councillor Devon advised that
much had been made of maintaining the standard of living of the community and
that she had heard from objectors about the adverse impact on the landscape,
tourism, health and roads. She advised that
she had also heard support for the future of this fragile community and the
social and economic impact, renewables, the future of young people and
community benefit. She advised that she found it difficult to reach a
conclusion and suggested that this application should be continued.
Councillor Colville advised that
he did not want this application continued.
He advised that in the last 10 days he had approved 10 turbines and had
analysed every application. He advised
that this application was in the wrong place.
He advised that he lived close to one of the first turbines in Argyll
and that there was noise from it. He
advised that this proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the
landscape character. He advised that he
was a supporter of wind turbines and renewable energy and that he was also a
supporter of tourism and in this case both could conflict with each other. He advised that he was very sure of his view
and would move the Planner’s recommendation to refuse. He advised that this was the wrong development
in the wrong place.
Councillor McNaughton advised
that he had not heard anything to persuade him to go against the recommendation
and would go with the Planner’s and refuse.
Councillor McQueen advised
that he would also support the planning recommendation to refuse.
Councillor Kinniburgh
referred to the lengthy debate and advised that some good points had been made
by both sides. He advised that he
believed this was the wrong application in the wrong site. He advised that he had concerns about the
visual impact and the infrastructure for taking traffic in and out of the
site. He advised that he would have to
support Councillor Colville and did not think he could support this
application.
Councillor Trail advised that
whilst supporters of the proposal pressed all his buttons regarding economic
benefit, local jobs and advised that Duncan MacMillan’s presentation was from
the heart, he advised that planning was about land use and whether or not a
proposed development was suitable. He
advised that in this case he didn’t think it was. He advised that there was no need for a wind
farm in this position and that it would contravene the Local Plan.
Councillor Hall advised that
we all wanted electricity and that we all needed electricity but when it came
to deciding how to provide this electricity we all took cold feet. He advised that the Government would like us
to produce electricity using renewables and how we produced it was the
question. He advised that he disagreed
with the Planner’s and did not think it was in the wrong location and that the
site seemed not to be different to others he had seen. However, he advised he had concerns about the
access.
Councillor MacMillan advised
that he would go with the Planner’s recommendation and that nothing had been said
to counteract what the Planners had said and that too much emphasis had been
made about community money which was not a valid consideration.
Councillor MacIntyre advised
that he was minded to ask for a continuation too.
Councillor Taylor advised
that the Committee could either determine the matter today or continue for
further consideration to the next meeting of the Planning, Protective Services
and Licensing Committee.
Councillor Colville advised
that he would like to move the Planner’s recommendation to refuse the
application and Councillor Trail confirmed that he would second this Motion.
It was established that no
one else was otherwise minded.
DECISION
It was unanimously agreed to
refuse planning permission for the following reasons: -
1.
The proposal lies
close to the south-west of Loch Feochan, located on
the coastal edge within the ‘Craggy Coast and Islands’ Landscape Character Type
(ref ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) – Final
main report and appendix March 2012’ - SNH/Argyll & Bute Council) which is
intended to guide SNH and the Council on the strategic implications of further
wind farm developments in the landscape. The proposal lies within a sensitive
and highly valued landscape character type where it occupies a prominent
coastal location where it would be viewed from ferry and recreational boat
traffic and other islands as well as from mainland roads, and in particular the
nearest road which links Seil to the mainland via the
‘Bridge over the Atlantic’. The value of the landscape within which the
development is to be located has been accorded regional status by being
designated as an Area of Panoramic Quality by the Council’s approved local
plan.
The
scale of development proposed in this sensitive coastal location is contrary to
the recommendations of the LWECS, which states: “there is no scope to site the larger (80-130 M) and the small – medium
(35m – 80m) within this character sub-type due to the significant adverse
impacts that would be likely to occur on a wide range of landscape and visual sensitivities”.
At present the ‘Craggy Coast and
Islands’ landscape character type, and other coastal landscape character types
in Argyll, are free of wind farm developments of the scale proposed. If
approved, this development would establish a precedent for large-medium scale
coastal edge wind farm developments in circumstances where the LWECS considers
that sensitive coastal landscapes do not have the capacity to absorb
developments on this scale satisfactorily. The proposal would introduce an
inappropriately located wind farm into the sensitive and valued coastal
landscapes of the Firth of Lorn, the lochs and islands around West Argyll, and
the Atlantic islands coastal edge which constitutes an exceptional scenic
resource, derived from the interplay between the land and the sea with its
associated islands and skerries. The site therefore
constitutes part of Argyll’s prime landscape resource, valued for its inherent
character and qualities and for the role which it plays in the local tourism
economy. The introduction of a development of the scale proposed would impose
itself upon its landscape setting to the detriment of landscape character. Approval of the proposal would represent an
unwelcome move away from the established location of approved wind farm
developments in upland areas inland, where they do not exert such a degree of
influence over the appreciation of the coast and those landscapes which are characterised by the contrast between the land and the sea.
The foregoing environmental
considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by
the projected benefits which a development of this scale would make to the
achievement of climate change related commitments.
Having
due regard to the above, it is considered that this proposal would have a
significant adverse impact on Landscape Character, would adversely affect a
number of key views and would degrade designated scenic assets including the
‘Area of Panoramic Quality’ in which the site is situated. It is therefore
inconsistent with the provisions of the Scottish
Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind
Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1:
Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside,
Policy STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind
Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’
(approved 2009) and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of
Panoramic Quality; LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development
of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (adopted 2009).
2.
The Zone of
Theoretical Visibility maps indicate fairly widespread visibility across the
settled eastern coasts of Seil, within the Firth of
Lorn and the Mull coast but with more limited visibility inland to the east. Of
the representative viewpoints selected for detailed assessment, the applicant’s
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes that there would be
‘significant’ impacts on: Viewpoint 1: B844 Clachan Seil;
Viewpoint 5: Whinbank; Viewpoint 14: Puilladobhrain Anchorage; and Viewpoint 18: Duachy Standing Stones.
It is, however, considered that the assessment underestimates the
magnitude of effect from some of the closer viewpoints to the proposal
including: Viewpoints 2: from
the Tigh-an-Truish Pub (this view includes the iconic
“Atlantic Bridge”); Viewpoint 7: B844 at Meall Ailein and Viewpoint 10: from the Colonsay-Oban ferry. From
the cluster viewpoints at locations 1 - 5, and other shorter range viewpoints 7
(on the approach to Seil and an essential part of the
initial experience of visiting this intricate and highly scenic locality), 10
(from the Colonsay ferry), 14 (anchorage and coastal walk) and 18 (scheduled
ancient monument), the proposal secures a poor fit with the landscape in terms
of its domination of scale, coupled with the effect of blade rotation which
will exacerbate the visual intrusion on sensitive skylines above Clachan Sound.
It would also appear discordant when seen from the Firth of Lorn, which is
valued as a sailing destination from which coastal landscapes are experienced,
in a context where no other development of this scale and character is visible.
From the ferry route and from other offshore locations, development of the
scale proposed would compete with and diminish the scale of the flattopped Beinn Mhor with its pronounced cliff edge, which forms a key
focal feature in views towards the mainland coast.
The development is out of
scale with the receiving coastal environment and intrudes upon views within and
the appreciation of this relatively small scale landscape to the detriment of
landscape character and sensitive visual receptors. The foregoing environmental considerations
are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected
benefits which a development of this scale would make to the achievement of
climate change related commitments.
Having due regard to the above, the proposal
conflicts with the provisions of the Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific
Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies
STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 5: Development in
Sensitive Countryside; Policy STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control;
Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute
Structure Plan’ (approved 2009) and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on
Areas of Panoramic Quality and LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine
Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (adopted 2009).
3.
The development is
situated with the nearest turbine being approximately 560m form Duachy Standing Stones Scheduled Ancient Monument, where 7
turbine towers and rotors will be visible.
This would represent a significant adverse impact on this important
historic environment asset and its setting. The proposal would also have an adverse impact on the setting of the
Category A listed Clachan Bridge. It is
considered that the visibility of the development within the landscape backdrop
of the bridge, which is a key tourism asset and a widely photographed
structure, in the context of both the wider setting and the appreciation of the
bridge, would be unacceptable. The proposal would also have an adverse impact
on the setting of the category B listed Ardencaple
House with all 9 turbines theoretically
visible. Although there is intervening
vegetation this cannot be regarded as providing a permanent screen and the
proposal would represent a highly visible modern intrusion in the setting of Ardencaple House which would be unacceptable.
The
introduction of structures of the scale proposed and their attendant motion in
the landscape would impinge upon the setting of the Duachy
Standing Stones in particular, and other historic environment assets in
general, to the detriment of the legibility of the historic landscape context
of these historical and archaeological assets.
The foregoing environmental
considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by
the projected benefits which a development of this scale would make to the
achievement of climate change related commitments.
4.
The proposal
will have an adverse impact on the historic environment of Argyll and is
therefore inconsistent with the provisions of Policies STRAT RE 1: Wind
Farm/Wind Turbine Development and STRAT DC 9: Historic Environment &
Development Control of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (adopted 2009)
and LP ENV 13a: Development Impact on Listed Buildings LP ENV 14; LP ENV 16:
Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments; LP ENV 17: Development
Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local
Plan’ (adopted 2009).
The proposal will involve an unusually large number of
construction vehicle movements and the conveyance of abnormal loads along the
B844 a route which is sub-standard in width and alignment. The road
infrastructure along this route is also subject to known deficiencies,
including structural condition of the Kilninver
Bridge and the road retaining wall at Barnacarry, and
it does not lend itself to intensive construction activities involving
movements of heavy goods vehicles and abnormal loads. In view of the geometry of the road, which
does not lend itself to the swept path of large vehicles, there is the prospect
of serious damage to these structures occasioned by collision as a result of
the transportation of abnormal loads or the weight of construction vehicles,
which would present a serious threat to continued accessibility by road, as the
failure of either of these structures would be likely to precipitate closure of
the route with the consequent isolation of Seil, Easdale and Luing.
In the absence of any satisfactory mitigation being advanced for
the risk presented to the route by the type of traffic associated with the
proposal, the development does not benefit form an identified satisfactory
means of access for either construction or for decommissioning purposes,
contrary to the provisions of Policies LP
TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and LP TRAN
5: Off-Site Highway Improvements of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
(Reference: Report by Head of
Planning and Regulatory Services dated 6 September 2012, supplementary
planning report no. 1 dated 18 September
2012 and supplementary planning report no. 2 dated 30 October 2012, issued)
Supporting documents: