Agenda item

Further to the report, the Committee was advised of two further representations received from Penny Hooks Farm.  The first raised concerns that the information which would become available from the meteorological mast should be available already and that there was no need for the mast on site; it was not the role of the Committee to consider contractual arrangements; there would be a substantial increase in visual intrusion; there were questions as to why the proposal had not formed part of the original scheme and that if it had, the decision made to allow the turbines might have been different; there were concerns that experienced turbine operators had not given thought to the need for a meteorological mast initially and there were questions regarding the justification for a mast at this stage.  The second raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the mast and wires and the adverse impact of this on the students at Penny Hooks Farm who had autism; concerns that the information regarding the need for the mast was questionable; concern regarding the possibility that the applicant was requesting another structure in order to challenge the manufacturer’s data; the proposal being contrary to policies SF8 in terms of justification and CF10 in terms of the requirements for renewable energy not harming the local landscape, which it was considered that this proposal would.

The Officers clarified that the principal consultee had been North Devon District Council which had a designated officer to process these types of applications.  It had commented that in its knowledge temporary masts of this type were normally applied for.  Members were therefore asked to have regard to the applicant’s arguments for a permanent mast on site.

Terry Gashe the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application explaining the reasons for an independent mast on site.  He reported that the manufacturers of the turbines had guaranteed a maximum output of electricity for a given wind speed and this was critical to ensure the level of return for the turbines.  He advised that it was essential to have an independent measure of wind speed.  He explained that some wind farms, where they were owned and operated by a commercial venture and not a co-operative were able to use an anemometer fixed on the turbines.  He reported that this was not possible in this case as the manufacturer retained control over the turbines (in order to offer the guarantee) and calibration was carried our by the manufacturer.  Also the airflow at the hub was affected by the blades and did not give as accurate a reading as would be provided by a free standing anemometer.  He explained that the proposal was for a thin mast with thin guide wires and that meteorological masts of this type were completely insignificant.  He emphasised that in this location it would be barely visible from a distance of more than 400 metres and was acceptable particularly in the context of the turbines.  Finally, he clarified that it was intended to relocate the building to house the sub-station to a more suitable and appropriate location in terms of cabling and other infrastructure. He reported that the building would have the appearance of a small agricultural building.

One of the local Members expressed concern at the application in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  He referred to the need to protect the landscape commenting that the mast would be visually intrusive.  He asked the Committee to consider how the meteorological mast would contribute anything useful to the operation of the turbines advising that the Parish Council, local scientists and other consultees, which included engineers all considered that there was no need for the mast as the data which would be collated was already available.  He reported that the data which would be collected was used for control purposes only and would not be supplied to the owner of the turbines.  He emphasised that the mast would not assist in the operation of the turbines and was totally unnecessary and therefore inappropriate development.  He referred to the developers wish to collect the data to provide an independent reference point for monitoring the scheme enabling easier resolution of insurance claims or disputes and to provide system flexibility in a fluid energy market.  He commented that this argument was not a material planning consideration sufficient to warrant approval of the application.

Members made the following comments objecting to the application: -

·                     At the time of approving the turbines information regarding all the buildings on the site was requested. 

·                     As a matter of process it was not right that the Committee had not considered the development in its entirety initially. 

·                     The applicant should have known of the need for this meteorological mast at the outset.

·                     The mast was not required for the operation of the turbines.

·                     Just because the turbines had permission did not justify inappropriate development in the open countryside.

·                     Permission if granted should be for a temporary period.

·                     There was concern that there would be an application to replace the mast with a turbine at a later date which would be difficult to resist if this application was approved. The Officers advised that this application should be considered on its merits.

·                     The proposal would be visually harmful in that there would be a 70 metre span of wires and the mast would be nearly 1 metre thick, which it was considered would be seen from a long way away.  The Officers commented that the mast would be visible but this would be insignificant in comparison to the turbines.

Members made the following comments in support of the application: -

·                     Having approved the turbines it would be difficult to argue that this proposal had any major impact on the landscape. 

·                     There was a need for the proposal otherwise the applicant would not have applied for permission. 

·                     The harm likely to be caused was insignificant. 

·                     There was no material reason to refuse the application.

·                     The monitoring exercise was required permanently on site for the length of the time the turbines were functional.

·                     A condition was proposed to require the removal of the mast should the turbines not be in use.

·                     It was commented that if a proposal was acceptable for 1 or 2 years then it was acceptable for 10 years and permission should not be granted for a temporary period. The acceptability of a proposal was the main consideration.

It was considered that condition 3 should be amended to match the wording in a similar condition on the main application in terms of timescales for its removal, i.e. within a specified time limit.

It was proposed by Councillor Terry Cox and seconded by Councillor Mathew Barber that any permission should be for a temporary period of 3 years only as the proposal related to the initial collection of data on relevant wind speeds for the generation of electricity.  On seeking a view of the Committee as to whether permission should be granted for a temporary period, there voted 9 for and 6 against with 2 abstentions.

By 17 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application WAT/1611/14 subject to: -

(1)        condition (1) set out in the report being amended to provide that permission shall be for a temporary period of 3 years;

(2)        condition (2) set out in the report;

(3)        condition (3) being amended to amended to match the wording in a similar condition on the main application in terms of timescales for its removal, i.e. within a specified time limit.