Agenda item

Note:               Councillor S. Hague left the Chamber at 7.15 pm.

The Chairman introduced the next application of the meeting, Item 6(b), application number 146461 seeking permission for the erection of a wind turbine on land at Hillcrest Park, Caistor. The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the applicant was a close family member of a serving District Councillor.

Note:               Councillor S. Hague returned to the Chamber at 7.17 pm, missing part of the presentation. This meant that he could not vote on the application.

The Planning Officer presented the report and gave an update. It was reported that the applicant had been in contact to query the first reason for refusal and had questioned the reference to the proposal being contrary to Policy 12 of the Caistor Neighbourhood Plan.

The Planning Officer stated that the Neighbourhood Plan did say that to maximise the proportion of electricity source locally, residential and commercial developments were encouraged to incorporate appropriate energy generation technologies, either on-site or off-site.  However, it was the view of the Officers that the proposal would not amount to an appropriate energy generation technology and therefore did not benefit from the support of Policy 12, although it was accepted that it would not be directly in conflict with the policy and it was therefore recommended to that reference to the policy be removed from the first reason for refusal.

The Chairman welcomed the applicant Mr Oliver Lawrence who addressed the Committee along the following lines:-

“My name is Oliver Lawrence and I own the redeveloped Hillcrest Park in Caistor.  It is  written all over this (office) building that West, Lindsey District Council is entrepreneurial and committed to achieve a Net Zero carbon footprint.  This wind turbine would serve 17 small local businesses.

West Lindsey District Council press releases have highlighted the success of this site and I have been asked how you can replicate and improve the business model which has been featured on “Look North”. The feedback we got was the need to protect small businesses from sudden energy price rises. Solar does not work on this site because the majority of our electricity consumption is in winter.  We are on the top of the hill and it is  a perfect location for a wind turbine.

One of the primary objectors is the national air traffic, who, ironically, are one of the fastest growing contributors to carbon pollution.  Frustratingly, the correspondence with NATS is not included in the officer's report, but it was forwarded.

NATS have said that the turbine only might be an issue and there are two much larger turbines nearer to them that are not an issue and they could upgrade their system. If they needed to, but they do not really want to spend the money. I feel that NATS’ budgetary policy is taking precedence over West Lindsey's planning policy in this instance.  Please do not confuse this with a large commercial wind turbine.  The Telegraph poles in the area are getting towards 10 metres and directly behind this site, are four radio masts over 70 metres tall.

I ask the Committee to please stand by West Lindsey District Council's commitment to net zero carbon and allow this and other local small-scale green energy solutions to go ahead, otherwise change will not happen. Thank you”.

The Vice-Chairman then opened the application to debate by the Committee.

The Committee was advised that the Council had to consider the representations of NATS as a statutory consultee.   The technical report from National Air Traffic Services had stated that this proposal  would affect radar and that there was an aviation safety issue.

Officers further advised Members that the Development Plan supported renewable energy schemes but the application did include a number of criteria that had to be met.  Members were advised that the Development Plan stated that any proposals for renewable energy schemes, including ancillary development, would be supported where the direct, indirect, individual and cumulative effect impacts were acceptable. A number of tests had to be met. It set out the need to consider scale and impacts on character and visual amenity and the impacts on aviation and defence navigation systems and communications.  The application required the submission by the applicant of robust evidence of the potential impact on any aviation defence navigation systems and communications.

A diverse number opinions were expressed by Members of the Committee but after some debate, it was proposed and seconded that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Officers’ report, subject to removal of the reference to policy 12 of the Caistor Neighbourhood Plan.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal was, by a majority decision, declared to be LOST.

It was thereupon proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to enable further information to obtained by the officers as follows:-

From the applicant – how he intended to overcome the original reasons for refusal in relation to the landscaping, visual impact and effects on the biodiversity of the site of the proposed development and furthermore how the energy generated would be utilised within the site.

From NATS – clarification as to why, in its opinion the development would have a significant effect on air traffic control systems, extending to them an invitation to attend the Committee to expand upon their reasons for objection.

Upon being put to the meeting the proposal was, by a majority decision it was

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED for the reasons indicated above and that the officers be asked to proceed as stated.

Note:               Councillor P. Morris returned to the Chamber, after the Committee had taken its decision, at 7.52 pm.