Agenda item

Report number PLA1011 by the Development Management Service Manager.     (To follow)

Decision:-

That the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and Development Management Service Manager be authorised to formulate and agree the Committee’s views on the application for submission to Newark and Sherwood District Council, noting the views now expressed by the Committee.

Members had before them report PLA1011 from the Development Management Service Manager on a neighbouring authority consultation from Newark and Sherwood District Council.  The consultation had been considered at the last meeting and deferred to enable a detailed considered response tested against the SKDC Wind Energy SPD.  Newark and Sherwood District Council had been asked to allow sufficient time, suggested at 6 weeks, for this response.

The Case Officer presented an updated report, advising Members that the Case Officer at Newark and Sherwood had confirmed that the earliest committee date for consideration of the application would be early November.  However, a firm assurance could not be given, and the application could be refused under delegated powers if an adjoining wind farm, currently at appeal, was dismissed.  No extra time would be given for the South Kesteven response.  The nearest parishes within South Kesteven, Claypole, Long Bennington and Westborough and Dry Doddington had not been consulted by Newark and Sherwood.

All documents connected to the application were available on the Newark and Sherwood website, some 175 in total, and the Case Officer showed several plans of the location, at different scales, of the proposed turbines and of the proximity of nearby villages, heritage assets and other schemes within the area.  Photo-montages from various viewpoints were also shown.

The Committee had requested that the SPD be used as a tool to identify any areas where the application was lacking information, or where it would be clearly contrary to the SPD.  It had not been possible to assess this information to the same degree as with an application in South Kesteven. However, in accordance with committee instructions officers had carried out the exercise and found the application to be deficient in a number of areas which it was considered should be pointed out as far as South Kesteven was concerned, and he then detailed these for the information of Members, as landscape/visual assessment, residential visual amenity, cumulative impact assessment, ecology, historic environment and noise.

In addition, and although not previously stated, there was a need to take into account the Thacksons Well and Palmer’s Hollow appeal decisions, which would have a significant bearing on the acceptability of commercial scale wind farms in this area.  In summarising, the Case Officer said that the proposal would have a significant impact on South Kesteven, and that the level of information provided was inadequate for the impact on South Kesteven to be properly assessed.  On that basis the application in its current form should be refused or Newark and Sherwood should require this information to be submitted by the applicant and South Kesteven to be re-consulted.

A lengthy discussion took place, during which Members considered that the response suggested in the report was not adequate, and that there was a need to formulate and submit a response without delay, otherwise there was the danger that Newark and Sherwood would ignore any comments that the Council wished to make.  The Chairman suggested that, bearing the committee’s views in regard to the need for a speedy response in mind, he and the Vice-Chairman be authorised to submit a response on behalf of the committee, bearing in mind the comments made by Members. During the ensuing discussion, this approach was supported by Members, who stressed the need for a robust and forceful response in the key areas.

 It was then proposed and seconded that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and Development Management Service Manager be authorised to formulate and agree the committee’s views on the application for submission to Newark and Sherwood, noting the views now expressed by the committee.  On being put to the vote, the proposition was agreed.

(The meeting adjourned from 3.10pm to 3.35pm).