Agenda item

To receive and consider report 102/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) attached.

Carole Nicholl the Democratic Services Officer had declared an interest in this item.

The Committee received and considered report 102/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which advised of an application where planning permission had been granted, although some neighbours had not been notified of the proposal.  The Committee was advised of an amendment to the report in that the turbine would be sited 50 metres away from the closet dwelling and not 52 metres.

Furthermore, the Committee was advised that there had been two additional letters of objection reiterating the concerns previously raised.

The Parish Council had submitted representations referring to the concerns of the objectors regarding noise and visual impact; lack of neighbour notification; the commercial purpose of the proposal; proximity; scale; height and noise.  The Parish Council had advised that it had a policy to forward all comments received and that it reiterated the objections submitted.  Attached to the Parish Council’s submission was a letter stating concern that condition 2 could not be complied with and concerns regarding noise.

Further to the report, the Officers clarified that the site was outside the Conservation Area (CA) although the turbine would be visible from the CA. It was explained that the proposal was for a slimline, small scale turbine, but it would be a prominent feature from the footpath and from Horsecroft the turbine would be visible behind a hedge and would also be visible from the High Street.

It was explained that the neighbour who would be most affected by the proposal had not been consulted and neither had other neighbours and therefore this had necessitated this matter being presented to Committee. Details of their objections to the proposal were set out in the report.

It was explained that in determining the application, the Officers had given significant weight to wider environmental issues such as renewable energy. Whilst there would be some visual impact, the turbine would not be in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or the CA; the turbine had a slender design and there were mature trees which would provide screening.  In terms of noise it was explained that the turbine would be 50 metre away from 25 Horsecroft.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had recommended condition 2 requiring that noise attenuation measures should be carried out to ensure that the background noise was not increased by more that 3 dB at the boundary of the site.

It was explained that the Committee could decide to revoke permission but that this would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and compensation to the applicant might be necessary.

Mrs Thomasson made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  Speaking on behalf of the petitioners she commented on the mistake of the Officers and the inability of residents to express their views when this application was considered.  She advised that she was not opposed to renewable energy but that this proposal was unacceptable.  She reported that the turbine was north of her house and was near the CA.  She reported that there were extensions to her house which had made the distance calculations inaccurate.  She advised that the turbine would be 14.5 metres high and was designed for light industrial use. She commented that its generating capacity exceeded the needs of a domestic dwelling.  She referred to adverse impact commenting that the turbine should be preferably 100 to 150 metres away from her dwelling whereas it would be less than 50 metres away.  She expressed concern regarding noise and commented that she doubted whether the applicant would be able to satisfy condition 2.  She advised that information in this regard had been sent to the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.  She referred to the question of propriety and asked for a modification to the proposal.  She suggested that planning permission should be revoked and a more suitable turbine, further away from her property should be considered.

Mr S Munday, the applicant made a statement in support of the application expressing his disappointment at the current position.  He thanked Members for having visited the site commenting that the only reason the matter was now being considered was because neighbours had not been notified and not because of planning concerns.  He commented that it was a shame that his application was the first of its kind in the District explaining that this type of turbine was silent and insignificant.  He reported that he had been forced into a dispute with his neighbours, resulting in delays and costs.  He referred to condition 2 advising that it was inappropriate and could not be withdrawn even though it was likely that he would win an appeal against it. He explained that the noise requirement was erroneous. 

The local Member reported that he had visited the site.  He explained that he had also viewed the turbine manufacturer’s website which had stated that a turbine should be at least 75 metres from the nearest neighbour and at least 50 metres from the main dwelling.  He asked whether a compromise could be reached.  He reported that there might be a possibility that the turbine could be sited nearer the goat shed which would move it away from the neighbour and away from the applicant’s house.  He understood that this would result in the need for another planning application.  He commented that he had studied the email sent from the applicant to all Members of the Committee, in terms of wind speeds and the resultant difference in decibels and he agreed that it would be difficult for the applicant to comply with the requirements of condition 2. Finally, he reiterated that the turbine should be moved further away from nearby properties into the paddock.

One Member expressed amazement that the maximum distances had not been required commenting that on previous occasions reference had been made to frequency which resonated in the body and could be felt.  He commented that low frequency sound could be very damaging.

Another Member disagreed stating that it had not been found that low frequency sound was damaging, although he did agree that it was reasonable to relocate the turbine. He commented that he had visited the site and the applicant had advised him that the location of the turbine on the application drawing was intended to be indicative only.

One Member suggested that the matter was now the responsibility of the applicant.  He had advised that he would be unable to comply with condition 2 and therefore he should submit a revised application showing a re-siting of the turbine. 

In response to a question raised it was explained that the re-siting of the turbine could not be considered as a minor amendment. 

One Member referred to the reasoning behind condition 2.  He drew the Committee’s attention to the graph set out on page 42 of the report which set out differences between wind turbine noise and background noise.  The Officers explained that the Guidance provided that large turbines should be 5 decibels and because this was a smaller turbine, the view of the Environmental Health Officer had been that 3 decibels was appropriate. The Member responded that the condition was unclear in his view.

It was proposed by CouncillorJerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor Tony de Vere and by 13 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of whether to agree with the decision made to grant planning permission in respect of application STA/8763/4 be deferred to enable the Officers to invite the applicant to submit a further application re-siting the turbine in a more acceptable location east of the goat shed away from the main house and the neighbour’s property.