Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and the additional reason in the late observations. 

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 4^th November 2013.  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 where an additional reason for refusal was reported.  It had originally been felt that the objection from Airbus and Liverpool JohnLennon Airport could be mitigated against but having taken further legal advice, it was now felt that this could not be done.  He detailed the main issues which included the principle of development in planning policy terms, the impact upon the setting of scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas, and the effects on wildlife and the adjoining bridleway. 

                        Mrs. G. Harrison spoke against the application saying that she was on the Board of Trustees of the Greenfield Valley and lived 750 metres from the proposed site.  She felt that it was contrary to policies GEN1, EWP4 and STR7 and TAN 14 and that it would impact on a nearby care home which also provided a bat roost.  Mrs. Harrison felt that GreenfieldValley HeritagePark provided peace and tranquillity which would be affected; the site was within 500 metres of houses and was in close proximity to the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and RAMSAR site, all close to the coastal path.  She felt the wind turbines would provide health and safety issues and would cause upheaval to the local community.  She referred to competition and said that water and other natural resources should be used.  The turbines would not enhance or benefit the area and would be a blot on the landscape. 

                        Mr. M. Harris, from the applicant company, spoke in support of the application.  He explained that Kingspan was in the business of saving energy and the number of jobs at the site had increased from 30 to 388. He felt that the proposal would have two major benefits which were safeguarding the existing jobs and creating additional jobs, and the financial benefits that it would bring to the local economy.  He said that the wind energy project was a critical part of the company achieving its targets and would allow the upgrade of the plant at Greenfield.  He spoke of the benefits to the local economy which he said could be £500,000, and that it would attract business rates of £1.3m for the Council.  Mr. Harris said that the project would transform the site and would safeguard jobs and bring financial benefits.  He proposed that, if the application could not be approved, it be deferred to allow Members to undertake a detailed site visit.       

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.

                        Councillor Mike Peers read out a statement on behalf of the local Member, Councillor Rosetta Dolphin, who was unable to attend this meeting.  She asked that the Committee refuse the application.  She said that the flicker and moving shadows would affect those with autism at Station House, Greenfield.  The flicker would cover 900m from the mast and it was not known what impact it would have on the television reception.  Councillor Dolphin felt that the ecology of the estuary would be impacted upon and added that the estuary was a SSSI and was important for migrating and breeding birds. Whilst she recognised that the company was a friend to the community and was a green company, she felt that the two large turbines would detract from the area and would impact on the people and the area and were totally unacceptable as presented.  There were many objections to the proposals and Councillor Dolphin urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

                        Councillor Roberts said that Kingspan had a tremendous record and was a good employer but the proposals were not reasonable or acceptable.  He said that at 110m high they would be two thirds as high as BlackpoolTower which could be seen from Holywell.  He said that if the application was approved it would set a precedent and could lead to undesirable development on the coastal belt.  He considered the comments of the North Wales Police and the airports recorded in the report to be damning.  At the site visit, he had asked about the height of some sheds on the site and had been advised that they were 15 to 20 metres high.  In relation to that, 110m turbines were not unacceptable.  In conclusion, he said that he looked forward to Kingspan coming forward with a more appropriate, reasonable, application.

                        Councillor N. Phillips commended Kingspan as a company but agreed that this development was unacceptable. Councillor Jim Falshaw agreed with the recommendation of refusal but queried the figures provided by the applicant on the amount of electricity that could be produced by the proposed wind turbines. 

                        In response to the comments made, the officer said that the North Wales Police – Air Operations Unit were not objecting to the proposal but had raised concerns about the potential of the obstructions in poor weather.  They had requested that the turbines should display suggested aviation obstruction lights during hours of darkness and periods of poor light and visibility.  He said that at the site visit he had been asked about the height of the chimney at Castle Cement; he confirmed that it was 135 metres tall. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and the additional reason in the late observations.