Agenda item

To consider an application for installation of one 500 kw wind turbine with hub height of 48m and a rotor diameter of 45m and associated works at Land at Cefn Yfed, Cyffylliog, Ruthin (copy attached).

An application was submitted for installation of one 500 kw wind turbine with hub height of 48m and a rotor diameter of 45m and associated works at Land at Cefn Yfed, Cyffylliog, Ruthin.

Public Speakers –

Mrs. J. Williamson (Against) – objected to the application on the grounds of visual amenity and noise impact and spoke on behalf of a number of local residents in the vicinity who would be directly affected by the development, outlining their concerns.

Mr. M. Jones (For) – detailed his family’s links to the farm and emphasised the importance of the development for the future sustainability of the farm business which also provided local employment.  He argued that the turbine would not breach the skyline; was significantly quieter than other turbines, and in terms of cumulative impact questioned whether other consented schemes would be built.

General Debate – The Principal Planning Officer advised that the application was one of seven currently undetermined applications involving single turbine developments and it was important to consider each one on its own merits.  The reasons behind the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application in this case had been detailed within the report based on landscape/visual and noise impacts.

Councillor Joe Welch (Local Member) had considered both the benefits of the farm diversification project and the adverse landscape and noise impact.  Having considered the size and location of the development, the views of the Council’s Landscape Consultant, and given the Pollution Control Officer’s concerns that noise levels were too loud and could not be appropriately controlled, Councillor Welch proposed that the application be refused in accordance with officers’ recommendation on the grounds of landscape/visual amenity and noise impact.

During debate there was some sympathy with the application and members considered whether the farm diversification benefits outweighed the visual and noise concerns.  Members were particularly concerned regarding the potential noise impact and sought further clarification and evidence to support officers’ reasoning that noise levels would be too loud and could not be adequately controlled.  Reference was also made to the late representations submitted by the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB Joint Committee (as detailed in the blue sheets) and members questioned their role within the process and reiterated previous concerns that they were acting outside their remit.  The Chair confirmed that officers were taking up that issue and the Principal Planning Officer explained that the recommendation in this case had been made prior to receiving the AONB Joint Committee’s representations.

The Pollution Control Officer responded to questions regarding noise impact and advised that, based on the evidence provided, he could not support the application.  He explained the processes used in assessing noise levels advising that noise levels had been underestimated in this case, with no allowance for uncertainty, and therefore were likely to breach the 35dB limit for single turbines.  That underestimation had also been carried forward as part of the cumulative noise assessment which had not taken into account consented levels, thereby increasing the underestimation.  Noise complaints arising from turbines were generally rare because it was usual for officers to be satisfied as to noise levels during the initial screening process for applications.  However this application had failed to demonstrate that acceptable noise levels could be achieved or controlled.  Officers considered it inappropriate to grant permission without being able to set a reasonable and enforceable noise level condition that had a demonstrable chance of being achieved.

Proposal – Councillor Joe Welch proposed, seconded by Councillor Win Mullen-James, that the application be refused in accordance with officer recommendation.

VOTE:

GRANT – 5

REFUSE – 15

ABSTAIN – 1

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED in accordance with officer recommendation as detailed within the report.