To consider the following application:

SW/13/1571 – New Rides Farm, Leysdown Road, Eastchurch

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that this application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 28 January 2015.

Tabled papers uploaded 30.01.15.

The Vice-Chairman drew attention to confidential item 6.1 of the agenda.  He advised Members that if they wished to discuss that report the meeting would have to move into closed session.

The Vice-Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the consultant acoustician representing local residents had written directly to Members.  He drew attention to the response from the applicant’s acoustic expert which was tabled for Members.  The Major Projects Officer reported that a letter from the Freedom of Information Act had been submitted by a local resident raised the following specific questions: Their home, in Kent View Drive, “passed unnoticed” in the Environmental Statement (ES) documents even though it was one of the closest to the turbines; daytime noise levels at their property would be 5dB above maximum limits; and did the Council request further information from Dr Yelland on receipt of his objection?

The Major Projects Officer reported that the applicant’s consultant had responded stating: the complainants property was not specifically identified as the ES had already demonstrated compliance with guidelines at properties closer to the turbines; Dr Yelland had used incorrect figures to measure predicted output, and the turbines would not be in excess of maximum limits (this was fully covered in detail in the technical response submitted previously); and a copy of the applicant’s response to Dr Yelland’s objection was forwarded direct to him.  His subsequent response did not comment on the assertion that he had used incorrect figures/measurements and simply reiterated his original points.

The Major Projects Officer stated that the complainant also suggested that officers had ignored Dr Yelland’s submission, and questioned the impartiality of the Environmental Health Manager in reviewing the submitted information.

The Major Projects Officer reported that a further 19 letters of objection from local residents had been received raising issues already covered in the report and additional questions with regards to: why was the application being presented again when it was refused last month; letter of support form people living off the Isle of Sheppey should not be taken into account; and would impact the view from the mainland.

The Major Projects Officer reminded Members that only the motion to approve was defeated at the last meeting and the application was subsequently called-in by the Head of Planning, and referred Members to the relevant passage in the minute of the meeting on 8 January 2015.

The Major Projects Officer reported that four further letters in support of the application had also been received.  He explained that these reiterated issues set out on page 19 (paragraph 6.03) and particularly emphasised the economic benefits for the local community.  It was also suggested that the Chairman may be unable to control some Members’ opposition to the scheme, and should the application be denied or deferred that when the application went to appeal that the objecting Councillors picked up Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) costs.

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the two tabled letters (from Mr Haynes and Mr Day), which both opposed the grant of planning permission.  The Major Projects Officer reported that the applicant’s ecologist had responded and this letter was also tabled for Members.

The Major Projects Officer advised that a letter had been received from Minster Parish Council to Councillor Andy Booth, about the Parish Council’s comment on the application.  It did not affect their consultation response, which raised no objection as set out on page 21 at paragraph 7.02.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the applicant’s agent had provided the Environmental Health Manager with comments in respect of the implication for tinnitus sufferers, in response to a third party objection.

The Major Projects Officer reported that a further objection from Eastchurch Parish Council, further to their original comments, was tabled for Members.

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the amended, strengthened wording for condition (4) following a request at the last meeting, which related to ecology which was tabled for Members. 

In conclusion, the Major Projects Officer remained firmly of the view that the development was in accordance with National and Local Plan policy and that planning permission should be granted, with the amendment to condition (4).

Parish Councillor Carter, representing Eastchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Avron-Cotton, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Peck, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Frost, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised the following points: concern about the medical implications of the application as no evidence had been provided in respect of the possible effects of the application on sufferers of tinnitus and photo sensitive epilepsy sufferers; light flicker from the existing turbines was having an adverse impact on residents in Orchard Way and interfering with TV aerials; other landowners in the area would be tempted to put in similar applications; and uneconomical and only of benefit to the landowner.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: needed to consider the application on planning grounds and evidence only; the reasons for refusal given at the last meeting were not valid or sound planning reasons to refuse the application; we are directed by the Government on issues of sustainable energy; accept we needed to provide renewable energy but in the right location and this was not; RSPB did not object but did not support the application either; need to consider the claims of local residents that they were already adversely affected by noise from the existing windturbines; concern that the Government seems to be able to dictate that these applications were approved; 30% closer to residents than those at Lappell Bank so would have to have an effect on residents; unacceptable noise levels for local residents; applicant claims Mr Yeland used incorrect figures – how do we know they have not; a Member had objected on landscape and demonstrable harm reasons to the previously approved windturbines erected in the location; wrong location; would cause demonstrable harm; and have an accumulative impact on the area.

The Major Projects Officer reminded Members that the site was within an area specifically designated within the emerging Local Plan ‘Bearing Fruits’ 2031 as having high potential, and being a preferable location, for wind energy developments.  The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled letter from Avian Ecology Ltd, sent on behalf of the applicant, which refuted the claims made by Mr Haynes.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 20, a recorded vote was requested on the motion and voting was as follows:-

For: Councillors Mark Ellen, Mike Henderson and Bryan Mulhern.  Votes for equal 3.

Against:  Councillors Bobbin, Sylvia Bennett, Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Adrian Crowther, June Garrad, Sue Gent, Lesley Inham, Peter Marchington, Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.  Votes against equal 13.

The motion was therefore lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: that the application be refused as it was in an inappropriate location, would cause demonstrable harm to the landscape and residents, was not supported by factual evidence and the accumulative effect of the development.  This was seconded by Councillor Marchington. 

A vote was not taken on this motion.

At this point the Chairman stated that there would be a small recess.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: That the application be refused because the proposed development by virtue of the location, gives rise to the cumulative impact in combination with the two existing turbines leading to demonstrable harm to landscape, and health (by virtue of hearing aids and tinnitus) of local residents in the vicinity.  Delegation to officers to list relevant local and national policies.  This was seconded by Councillor Marchington.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 20, a recorded vote was requested on the motion and voting was as follows:-

For: Councillors Bobbin, Sylvia Bennett, Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Adrian Crowther, June Garrad, Sue Gent, Lesley Ingham, Peter Marchington, Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.  Votes for equal 13.

Against:  Councillors Mark Ellen, Mike Henderson and Bryan Mulhern.  Votes against equal 3.

The motion was therefore agreed.

Resolved:  That  application SW/13/1571 be refused because the proposed development by virtue of the location, gives rise to the cumulative impact in combination with the two existing turbines leading to demonstrable harm to landscape, and health (by virtue of hearing aids and tinnitus) of local residents in the vicinity.  Delegation to officers to list relevant local and national policies.