Agenda item

051143 - Full Application - Erection of wind turbine up to 77 m vertical tip height with associated crane pad, substation building, formation of new track and new entrance junction off unclassified road and provision of temporary construction compound at Mount Farm, Ffrith

Decision:

That Planning Permission be refused for the reason outlined in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

 

After the vote had been taken, Councillors Ellis, McGuill, Peers and Thomas returned to the meeting and were advised of the decision by the Chairman.

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.  Councillors Ellis, McGuill, Peers and Thomas, having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion.

 

                        The Officer explained that the site was elevated in its surroundings and had some small blocks of woodland on the hillside.  There were 15 residential properties within a 1km radius of the turbine location with the nearest properties being approximately 600 metres to the east and 600 metres to the south west.

 

                        Policy EWP4 of the Adopted Flintshire UDP set out the criteria for assessing the impacts of wind turbine development.  It was considered that the main issues to be taken into account, which were covered in full in the report were:

 

·         The principle of development

·         Impact on the character of the landscape

·         Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Historic Landscapes

·         Impact on Aircraft Safety

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Adequacy of access to serve the development

·         Impact on ecology

 

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had been involved in prolonged discussions between the applicant and Hawarden Aerodrome/Airbus as a mediator.  The CAA supported the view of Hawarden aerodrome and the operator and competent authority in safeguarding their aerodrome.  The CAA considered that since the proposed turbine infringed the approach and take-off climb slopes and that it was not shielded, that went against international standards and certification specifications as well as UK CAA policy.  However, the CAA did state that the wind turbine should not adversely impact upon the airport and would not affects its continuing certification under the relevant regulations.

 

Mr Hughes spoke against the application on behalf of the local residents in Llanfynydd based on the following reasons: objected to at the Community Council meeting three years previous; ultra-low frequencies emitted from wind turbines and the link to depression; shadow flickering; prevailing wind would result in noise pollution; under the flight path of the Beluga aircraft; impact on wildlife; all letters of support appearing to be from a standard template which could be traced back to the company submitted the application.

 

Mr Fearnley spoke in support of the application, explaining that the most contentious issue was the one relating to aviation activity.  He explained the following points: the number of turbines had been reduced following discussions with Hawarden Airport; the size of the proposed turbine had been reduced; appeal submitted to the CAA – he accepted it exceeded the height of an acceptable turbine but where it would be situated was hilly, with many of those hills being higher than the proposed turbine; it would not adversely impact upon Hawarden Airport.  He concluded by repeating the comment from the Officer that the CAA did state that the wind turbine should not adversely impact upon the airport and would not affect its continuing certification under the relevant regulations.

 

Councillor Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said the application did meet local and national policies for the creation of energy from renewable resources.  Also the majority of the consultees did not object to the application.  However, the objection from Airbus had to override any support for the application based on their concerns regarding aircraft.

 

Councillor Roberts concurred with Councillor Bithell on the grounds for refusal, adding that a further significant reason for refusing the application was the effects on local wildlife.  Councillor Lloyd also supported the refusal based on the comments from Airbus.

 

The Officer clarified that CAA had acted as a mediator in the process and whilst they supported Hawarden Airport, if it was erected they did not think it would have an adverse effect.  However, the Airport was not obliged to withdraw their objected based on any advice from the CAA.  They maintained their objection which included being based on any future operations and their ability to gain a licence in the future.

 

            RESOLVED:

 

            That Planning Permission be refused for the reason outlined in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

 

After the vote had been taken, Councillors Ellis, McGuill, Peers and Thomas returned to the meeting and were advised of the decision by the Chairman.

Supporting documents: