Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of the potential effect on residential amenity by way of noise and visual impacts by virtue of the scale and design of the development in proximity to residential properties, particularly in that alternative sites had not been fully explored. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 8 October 2012.  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. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations. 

            Mr. G. Bennett spoke against the application on behalf of Golftyn Residents’ Association.  He stated that the Association was not opposed in principle to the development but was against its siting being so close to residential properties.  He referred to information on the web from National Grid and others which indicated that converter stations should not be close to residential areas due to factors which included noise and dust; he felt that National Grid were going against their own advice, being driven purely by cost.  Mr. Bennett also raised concern about the visual impact and the noise which would be generated by the converter station 24 hours per day, referring to the outline application which had been refused for these reasons.  He also referred to the contaminated nature of the site and to dust of an unknown nature which had appeared on cars in the locality.  In referring to Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention he considered that alternative sites should be explored on the other side of the river to this site. 

            Mr. M. Williams, the Project Manager from National Grid, spoke in support of the application.  He referred to the increased challenges to provide renewable energy and said that there was a history of power generation on this site.  He said that other sites had been explored but they were not technically viable for the western link.  The converter station was of a bespoke design, having the support of the Design Commisssion for Wales, which reflected local materials and on-site landscaping would also be provided to make the area more visually appealing.  He stated that there would be no increase in the prevailing background noise as a result of the converter station, even at night and when the station was at production levels.  He added that there was a need for the development and that a significant amount of work had been undertaken since the application was refused in February 2012 significantly to reduce the footprint and height of the building. He concluded that this was the best site for the site scheme and that this would be the most advanced converter station in the world. 

            One of the ward Members, Councillor P. Shotton spoke against the application as he felt that the noise and visual impact which had been the reasons for refusal of the outline application would still cause a detrimental impact to residents.  Golftyn residents felt that the building was still too high and would be a blot on the landscape.  The noise levels were still a concern as the levels would not be known until the building was in place, which would be too late.  Councillor Shotton also said that residents had concerns about contamination of the power station site which would be disturbed by the development.  Hundreds of residential properties had been built locally since the closure of the power station.  He questioned why the converter station could not be located on the other side of the River Dee referring to the nine sites which had been considered.  He implored National Grid to scrap the scheme and build on the northern side of the Dee.

            Councillor R.P. Macfarlane, the other ward Member, spoke of the need to travel through the residential area to reach the site when Members attended the site visit and said that this application would dominate the community and was not the right site for those that lived nearby.  The outline application had been refused in February 2012 and substantially nothing had changed since then although the height of the building had been reduced.  He queried how adequate the noise mitigation scheme would be.  He added that if this application was refused, a public inquiry would be a better opportunity for all of the information to be looked at.  Councillor Macfarlane, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

         Councillor D. Evans proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He stated that the site was in the wrong location and was too close to a built-up area. 

            Councillor I. Dunbar referred to the screening, mature trees and bund which was to be put in place on the site and queried whether this would be sufficient as the building as proposed was 75 foot high.  He referred to the report which spoke of the welfare of bats, badgers and newts in the area, suggesting that these were being given precedence over people. He commented on the curved building with curved walls which he felt would be out of character with the area.  He queried whether the building had to be so high and felt that this site should be looked at along with other sites.  He asked that the height aspect be further considered before a decision was made. 

            Councillor W.O. Thomas felt that it was an excellent site but he had concerns about whether the building should be built so close to residential properties.  He said that the number of jobs to be created was minimal and asked whether the residents of Connah’s Quay would gain anything from the application. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom said that the building would obliterate the view for the local residents and would not enhance the landscape.  He added that he had not heard any arguments about why it could not be located on the other side of the river.  The impact on the local environment was a reason for refusal.    

            Councillor A.M. Halford said that the building had been lowered by 15 feet since the refusal of the outline application.  She said that everybody needed to use electricity and queried where it would be sited if not at this location.  She felt that it was on an industrial site and that the proposal was workable. 

            Councillor R.G. Hampson concurred that there had been improvements in the height but said that there were still issues of noise, dust and visual impact.  He agreed that it should be sited on the other side of the river.  Even if that would be more costly, the views of the local residents should be supported.  

            Councillor M.J. Peers referred to the location which he felt was an issue.  He referred to National Grid’s publication Western Link News which said that having the converter station to the north of the river would be more difficult to develop, but not impossible.  He had been told that the building needed to be so high because of the plant and equipment which was located within it and the volume of space needed above the equipment.  Having regard to its size, an alternative site to the north of the river should be looked at.  

            Councillor R.C. Bithell felt that the application would affect many residents and that residents’ concerns could not be ignored.  Councillor D. Butler considered that the report was dismissive regarding the evidence about alternative sites.  He questioned where the evidence was to show that the alternative sites were not suitable. 

            In response to comments made, the officer confirmed that the height of 25 metres was required due to the plant in the building.  On the issue of the lack of employment, he indicated that the site would provide for a small number of maintenance staff but reminded Members that the site would be in the employment area.  Other sites had been discounted for a variety of reasons and these were reported.  He confirmed that the noise would be below the current background levels, and referred to the relevant paragraphs in the report.  A rationale had been provided to justify the visual appearance, which, on balance, meant that the building would not be out of character. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that the location had been mentioned as a concern, but he reminded Members that the site was allocated for employment use in the Unitary Development Plan which could include B8 use for warehouse type buildings.  He also reminded Members that the public inquiry scheduled for December 2012 was in respect of the appeal against the refusal of the outline application and if permitted could result in a development which was less acceptable than this one.  He queried whether Members were indicating that an application to the north side of the river would be permitted, no matter what size it was.  The Planning Strategy Manager agreed that there would be little job creation but it would provide cheap energy for the Deeside Industrial Park and elsewhere in the county and this should be taken into account. 

            In summing up, Councillor Evans felt that the application should be refused on the grounds of its height and location.  He added that, at the moment, the noise element of the development was an unknown quantity. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of the potential effect on residential amenity by way of noise and visual impacts by virtue of the scale and design of the development in proximity to residential properties, particularly in that alternative sites had not been fully explored.