AGENDA ITEM Ma. ..*.- 'k ...).. Application No: 11/00544/CNS Proposed bevelopment: Black Law Wind Farm Extension Phase 2 (Erection of 11 Turtdnes 80m to hub and 126.5m to blade tip) and assodated infrastructure. Site Address: Black Law W indfarm Allanton ME QPJ Date Registered: 12th May 201 1 Applicant: Scottish Power Renewables Cathcart Business Park Spean Street Glasgow (344 4BE Appllcatlon Level: Other Application Level Agent: NIA Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: Repremntatlone: 01 2 Fortissat Charles Cefferty, Thomas Cochrane, James Robe ttson , 334 letters of representation received. Recommendation: Object for the Following Reaeone:- 1. The proposed development is contrary to policies DSP4, NEE 38, EDI 3A of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan, supplementary planning guidance SPG 12 "Assessing Wind Turbine Developments" and Scottish Planning Policy In that the submitted ES, Addendum and additional supporting information have not sufficiently addressed the potential cumulative noise impact of the proposed windfarm. In addition, given the proximity of the turbines to the settlements; adverse visual impact on selected recepton and furVler erosion of recreational space there are concerns that this extension (in addition to the already approved schemes) is such that the amenity enjoyed by local residents will be reduced to an unacceptable level.
Transcript
AGENDA ITEM Ma. ..*.- 'k ...).. Application No:
11/00544/CNS
Proposed bevelopment:
Black Law Wind Farm Extension Phase 2 (Erection of 11 Turtdnes 80m to hub and 126.5m to blade tip) and assodated infrastructure.
Site Address:
Black Law W indfarm Allanton M E QPJ
Date Registered:
12th May 201 1
Applicant: Scottish Power Renewables Cathcart Business Park Spean Street Glasgow (344 4BE
Appllcatlon Level: Other Application Level
Agent: NIA
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Ward: Repremntatlone: 01 2 Fortissat Charles Cefferty, Thomas Cochrane, James Robe ttson ,
334 letters of representation received.
Recommendation: Object for the Following Reaeone:-
1. The proposed development is contrary to policies DSP4, NEE 38, EDI 3A of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan, supplementary planning guidance SPG 12 "Assessing Wind Turbine Developments" and Scottish Planning Policy In that the submitted ES, Addendum and additional supporting information have not sufficiently addressed the potential cumulative noise impact of the proposed windfarm. In addition, given the proximity of the turbines to the settlements; adverse visual impact on selected recepton and furVler erosion of recreational space there are concerns that this extension (in addition to the already approved schemes) is such that the amenity enjoyed by local residents will be reduced to an unacceptable level.
**me nunbar'10m= I Black L w Windfarm, Allanton, ML2 9PJ
Prcrdumd bv Ptrnn In$ and DevalWm &fit Emironmrntil Srrvi No rM LJ nrkthlrr C Fleming How* 2 T w t R b a d Cumb*;mituM
N
A ; 467 I J W
Bckaround Patlers:
Representation cetters
Letter from MS Liza Dick, Hartfield Farm, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr John Ward, 153 Mill Road , Allanton, ML7 5DD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Lynne Walker, 21 Wilson Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter froin Mr Malcolm McMillan, 258 Allanton Road, Allanton , Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Sophia Gibson, 257 Allanton Road, Shotts, ML7 5AQ received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Robert McCafferty, 220 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Margaret McLean, 222 Alianton Road, Ailanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr David Muir, 58 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from MS Suzanne Graham, 48 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Brian Graham, 48 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Alice Muir, 58 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Christina Saunders, 17 Kingshill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Jaqueline Anne Magee, 57 Wilson Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Oevid Stapleton, 16 Newarkgate, ML7 5FB, received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Daniel McArdle, 2 Newark Gate, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ann McArdle, 2 Newark Gate, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 t Letter from Mr John Elder, 50 Haitfield Terrace, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr John felfer Pollock, 9 Darmeid Place, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201t Letter from Mr lain Young, 23 Darmeid Ptace, Alianton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 tettar from Ms Agnes Farnell, 21 Dameid Place, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Grace Paterson, 19 Darmeid Place, Allanton, Shotts recetved 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Anne O'Hare, 218 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Douglas Clad(, 9 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr James OHare, 218 Alianton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from M Clark, 9 Dura Road, Ailanton, ML7 5AB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Graeme Bruce, 5 Hawthorn Place, ML7 !SA, received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Helen McClair, 67 Eastwood Drive, Newmains, ML2 9NW received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr John Roberts, 8 Kirk Path, Allanton, ML7 5BB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Anm Roberts, 8 Kirk Path, Allanton, ML7 5BB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr George Dick, 40 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr M a i m Saunders, 17 Kingshill Road, Atfanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Johnathan Roberts, 8 Kirk Path, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Leanne Roberts, 5 Hawthorn Place, Allanton, Shotts received i4th June 201 1 Letter from Mrs Lillian Begley, 25 Coltness Avenue, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 20f 1 Letter from Mr David Reid, 29 Redmire Crescent, Alfartton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Sheile Henderson, 3 Hartwood Gardens, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from D McLean, 10 Kingshill Road, ML7 5AL, received 14th June 207 1 Letter from Ms Anne Brown, 213 Alianton Road, Allanton , Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Afex H Brown, 213 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr John McLean, 222 Alianton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Alexander Brown, 213 Allanton Road, Allanton, ML7 5AQ received 14th June 201 I Letter from hts Emma Murphy, 266 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shatts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Mark Murphy, 266 Allanton Road, Allanton, ML? 5AQ received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Marion Stewart, 2 Redmire Crescent, Atlanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1
Letter from Ms Mary Nelson, 9 Springhead Road, Allanton, Shotts received l4tb June 201 1 Letter from Ms Yvonne Crumley, 2 Hartfield Crescent, Atranton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mrs Hslen Duncan, 202 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shoffs received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Abigail Nicol, 208 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 20-l 1 Letter from Ms. A Forrest, 29 Springhead Road, Alianton, Shotts received 14th June 201 I Letter from W Herkes, 18 Kingshill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr John McAteer, 17 Hawisworth Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Mary Bryce, 31 Springhead Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms E Appleton, 1 Hartwood Garddens, Hartwood, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Archibald McAlpine, 49 Mut-ray Crescent, Mewmains, Wishaw received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Robert Thomson, 279 Ailanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Scatt McAlpine, 49 Murray Crescent, Newmains, Wishaw received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms With McAlpine, 49 Murray Crescent, Newmains, Wishaw received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr John Smith, 14 Cathburn Road, Morningside, Newmains received 14th June 201 I Letter from Mr Davld Robertson, 4 Redpath Drive, Stenhousernuir, received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr James Weir, 19 Springhead Road, Allanton, ML5 7AW received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Kelly Thomson, 8 Park Road, Dykehead, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr lan MacKenzie, 5 Auchhetburn Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter fmm Mrs Anne MacKenzie, 5 Auchterbum Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr John Williamson, 4 Newark Gardens, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from E Williamson, 4 Newark Gate, Allanton, Mt7 5FB received 14th June 201 t Letter from Ms Elaine Smith, 32 Coltness Road, Shotts, ML7 5L6 received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Joe Smith, 32 Coltness Avenue, Shotts, ML7 5FB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from The Scottish Government, 4th Floor , 5 Atlantic Quay, 150 Broomielaw received 12th July 201 1 Letter from Ms Cafoline Stapleton, 16 Newark Gate, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 I Letter from Mr Calum Strachan, 50 Hart Street, Unwood, PA3 3EB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Graham Allan, 22 Kirktonfield Cr, Nellston, G78 3PX received 14th June 201 1 Letter from K Gonnan, 31 Balfour Terrace, East Kilbride, G75 OJU received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Simon Stewart, 26 Stuart Street, Forres, LV36 1HR received 14th June 201 1 Letter fmm Mr Mathew Ken, 72 Avonbank Crescent, ML3 7PD, received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Alan Bar, 14 Dungavel Gardens, Hamilton, M U ?PE received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Pete Mutray, 159114 Slateford Road, Edinburgh, EH14 1PB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Alan Macbain, 33 Maple Avenue, Newton Meams, G77 55Q received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Angela Canale, 29 Irvine Crescent, Coatbridge, ML5 3QF received 14th June 201 1 Letter from P Buchanan, 73 PyothaIl Road, Broxburn, EH52 6HW received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Susan Farrefl, Flat 21 , 32 Midlock Street, Glasgow received 14th June 201 I Letter from Calais Brown, 57 Aller Place, Livingstone, EH54 6RF received 14th June 20t 1 Letter from A Mitchell, Flat lilt 4 Reid Avenue, Linwood received 14th June 201 I Letter from Mr James Branscombe, Flat 211,32 Midlock Street, lbrox received 14th June 201 1 Letter from SP McLeod, 2B Brisbane Street, Livingstone, received 14th June 201 1 Letter from W Jenkins, 3A Manse Grove, EH47 8EN, received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Kari Sorensen, 8/3 Uppergrove Place, Edinburgh, EH3 &AY received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Glyn Martin, 3 Manse Grove, Stoneyburn, EH47 8EW received 14th June 201 1 Letter from A Buchman, 73 Pyothaij Road, Broxburn, West Lothian received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Brian Woodbum, 8A Pilrig Street, Edinburgh, EH6 5AQ received 14th June
201 1 Letter from Mr Stephen Kennedy, 47 Davidson Street, Airdrie, ML6 OED received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr David Easton, 3 Heathery Lea Avenue, Carnbroe, Coatbridge received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Graerne Edddls, 16 Euchan Place, Troon, KAlO 7JE received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Ross Watker, 120 Pyfrig Street, Shotts, ML7 4DE received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Stephen McCulloch, 1 Daisyhill Court, Blackbum, EH47 7EJ received 14th
Letter from Mr Craig Coxon, 65 Barrachnie Road, Garrowhill, G69 6NY received 14th June 201 f Letter from Mr Derek Strachan, 50 Hart Street, tinwood, Paisley received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Scoff McGhee, 63 Caithness Road, Brancumhall, East Kilbride received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Neil Hogan, 20 Glen Roy Drive, Neibton, G78 3QJ received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Angus McEachran, 80 Drumpellier Avenue, Baillieston, Glasgow received 14th June 2011 Letter from Mr Scott Williamson, 8 Kelbum Gardens, G69 fBD, received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Anne Beattie, Knowehead Farm, Harthill, ML7 5TS received 14th June 201 I Letter from Ms Grace Paterson, Parkhead Farm, Braehead, Forth received 14th June 201 1 Letter from J Heraghty White, 24 Canthill Gardens, Hartwood, ML7 5DA received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ann Elder, 50 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, ML7 5AD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Flora McDonald, 15 Coltness Avenue, Allanton, ML7 5AN received 14th June 201 I Letter from Mr Daniel R Cowan, 20 Darmeid Place, Allanton, ML7 5AF received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Joyce McCracken, 48 Union Street, Shotts, Lanarkshire received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Dr Dianne Murray, Stanebent Farm, Torbothie Road, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Thomas Paton, 44 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from W McAlpine, 28 Hillhouse Farm Gate, Lanark, ML11 9HT received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Stuart Love, 8 Citadel Way, Troon, KA10 6UQ received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mrs Teresa Murdoch, 5 Kingshill Road, Allanton, Sbotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr William Murdoch, 5 Kingshill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Shona Dalgleish, 53 Houldsworth Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Grace Sneddon, 49 Hwldsworth Crescent Allanton, Shotts, ML7 5AJ received 14th June 201 1 Letter from M Young, West Redmyre Farm, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Jennifer Tetfer, Mitlhouse, Old Mill Road, Allanton received 14th June 201 1 Lelterfrorn J Russell, 30 Hartfield Terrace, Ailanton, Shotts received 14th June 2011 Letter from Ms Kay Russell, 30 Hadfield Terrace, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Marie Mciaughfin, 10 Hawthorn Place, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Thomas Aitken, 45 Eastwood Drive, Newmains, ML2 9NR received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr James Ede, 69 Braedale Crescent, Newmains, Lanarkshire received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Susan Ede, 69 Braedaie Crescent, Newmains, Wishaw received 14th June 201 I Letter from Mr Alister Everton, 40 Stewart Crescent, ML2 QQJ, received 14th June 2011 Letter from Mr Kevin Quigley, 39 Hillfoot Avenue, Wishaw, M E 8TR received 14th June 20f 1 Letter from Mr Harry Crossan, 25 Braidhurst Street, Motherwell, ML1 1 HY received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Susan Rutherford, 3 Main Street, Crawfordjohn, ML12 6SS received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mrs K A Trussfer, Lodgehill, Davisdyke Road, By Allanton received 28th June
JUW 201 1
201 1 Letter from Mr Kennie Little, New Gatdens, Lockettie, DGI 1 1 t3J received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Jennifer Telfer, Mifl House, Old Mill Road, Allanton received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Brian Alexander, 12 Westbank Holdings, Ravenstruther, Lanark received 14th June 201 1 Letter from A Gibson, 257 Allanton Road, Ailanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr David Walsh, 22 6othlyn Road, Chryston, Glasgow received 14a June 201 1 Letter from Mr James Whyte, 63 Glenburn Avenue, Moodiesburn, G69 OBX received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Kieran Tarleton, 29 Eastwood Road, Moodiesburn, G69 OHH received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Pat Clark, 29 Eastwood Road, Moodiesburn, G69 OBH received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Richard Cairns, 41 Appin Terrace, Shotts, ML7 5JP received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Stewart Taggart, 17 West Hall Road, Broxburn, EH52 5QT received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Andrew Downie, 6 Lloyd Street, Dennistoun, G31 2PE received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr lan Semens, 75 Mains River, Erskine, PA8 7JE received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Stewart Anderson, 21 7 111 Newlands Road, Glasgow, G44 4EZ received 14th June 201 1 Letter from H An T Torrance, 287 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from M Moodie, 17 Dura Road, Altanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Margaret McSeveney, 281 Ailanton Road, Ailanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Hugh Stewart, 15 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Agnes Armit, 15 Wood View, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from David Armit, 15 Wood View, Ailanton, Shotts received 17th June 2011 Letter from Tommy McGowan, 5 Newark Gate, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Karen McGowan, 5 Mewark Gate, Alfanton, Shatts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Ailison McDonald, 19 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 77th June 201 1 Letter from George Grant, 285 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17W June 201 1 Letter from Shona Connor, 22 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from May Stewart, 15 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Janet Sommerville, 36 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from James Gilmour, 25 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Carol Anne Brown, 15 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Helen Hamitton, 26 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 207 1 Letter from Yvonne Hamilton, 25 Redmire Crescent, Ailanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Robert Hamitton, 26 Dura Road, Ailanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Martha Polfock, 5 Wikon Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Andrew Moodie, 17 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Gemma Wilson, 21 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Kay McMillan, 24 Dura Road, Ailanton, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter f m John Wilson, 9 Kingshill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 17th June 2011 Letter from Lindsay PolEock, 1 Morar Way, Shotts, NoFth Lanarkshire received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Laura Kelty, 15 Benhar Road, Shorn, North Lanarkshire received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Edward Hutton, 10 Beechmount Court, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Fiona Jeff rey, 23 Hartwood Gardens, Hartwood, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Alison Elidon, 4 Rosehalt Road, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 17th June 201 I Letter from M Taggart, 4 Erskine Way, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Tracey McKie, 9 Thomson Terrace, Dykehead, Shotts received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Gerry Sneddon, 24 Braefoot Crescent, Law, ML8 5SH received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Dale Hatton, 28 Sheilds Tower, Muirhouse, ML1 2HB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Brendan McGhee, 16 South Calder Way, Newmains, ML2 9FD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr David Rogers, 2 Telny Place, Aberdour, Fife received 14th June 201 1
Letter from Mr Michael Con, 28 Beeches Road, Duntocher, G81 6HG received 14th June 201 1 Letter fm Chris Rendall, 30 Seaside Place, Aberdour , Fife received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Martin Lockhart, 10 Cranston Avenue, Airdrie, ML6 7FD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Martin McCandless, 74 Tdlbrae Avenue, Airdrie, ML6 9NF received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Srian Ho, 61 Cypress Glade, Livingstone, EH54 9JN received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr James Cassidy, 17 McAllister Avenue, Clarkston, Airdrie received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr John McCaffer, 06 Drumgelloch Street, Clarkston, Airdrie received 16th June 201 1 Letter from D Gage, 14 Kirktonfield Crescent, Nsilston, G78 3PX received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Kenneth Dickie, 4 Toll Wynd, Hamilton, ML3 7QF received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Christopher Harvey, 5 Denbain Place, twine, KKA11 1 RG received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Mario Canale, 11 Gayne Drive, Coatbridge, ML5 2W received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Craig Green, 34 Carrick Road, Dumfries, DG2 9PR received 74th June 20t t Letter from Mr Mark Rogers, 2 Telny Palce, Fife, KY3 OTG received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Jennifer Farquharson, 20 Canthill Gardens, Hartwood, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Greg Russell, 30 Hartfield Terracs, Allanton, M V SAD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Williarn Smillie, Clo 30 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, NIL7 5AD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Kafhryn Tidey, 10 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, ML7 5HB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Christina Smillie, 10 Ha#ield Terrace, Allanton, ML7 5AD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Lynne Bridges, 10 Newark Gate, Allanton, ML7 5FB received 14th June 2011 Letter from Donna Charnley, 23 Buchan Street, Cottness, ML2 7HG received t4th June 201 1 Letter from Jack Srnillie, 32 Hartfield Tenace, Shotts, ML7 5AO received i4h June 20tl Letter from Mr William Cowan, 35 Redmire Cerscent, Altanton, ML7 5AE received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr David McCarron, 31 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Donna Cowan, 35 Redmire Crescent, Allanton , Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Catherine NcCarron, 31 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Hugh McGhie, 4 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Margaret McGhie, 4 Hartfieid Terrace, Allanton, ML7 5AD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mr Duncan McPhail, 8 Kingshill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Julie McPhail, 8 Kingshill Road, Atlanton, ML7 5AL received 15th June 201 1 Letter from John Gardiner, 28 Witson Road, Ailanton, ML7 5AR received 15th June 201 1 Letter from lsabel Gardiner, 28 Witson Road, Allanton, NIL7 5AR received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Martha Halliday, 5 Coltness Avenue, Allanton, ML7 5AN received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Annie Strafford, 13 Springfield Road, Allanton, ML7 5AW received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Thomas McMaster, 9 Aucherburn Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 20t t Letter from James Yuill, 10 AucMerbum Road, Allanton, ML7 5AZ received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Elaine Hanley, 28 Dura Road, Alfanton, ML7 5A6 received 14th June 201 1 Letter from R Hanley, 28 Dura Road, Allanton, ML7 5AB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Colin Kerr, 34 Dura Road, Allanton, ML7 5AB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Heather Kerr, 34 Dura Road, Altanton, ML7 5AB received 14th June 201 I Letter from Rae Smith, 6 Kingshiit Road, Altanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from David Smith, 6 Kingshill Road, Allanton, Shorts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mary McMaster, 9 Aucherburn Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Denise Houston, 10 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, ML7 5AE received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Darren Simpson, 17 Redmire Crescent, Shotts, ML? 5AE recetved 14th June 201 1
Letter from Scott Liddle, 17 Wood View, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ann Witson, 24 Allanton Avenue, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from William Witson, 24 Ailanbank Street, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from OwnerfOccupier, 22 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter f m Sarn Smith, 25 Meldrum Mains, Glenmavis, Airdrie received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mrs Carole Smith, 25 Meldrum Mains, Glenmavis, Aid& received 14th June 201 1 Letter from M Watters, 9 Shilton Lane, Bishopton, PA7 5PR received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Lilian McGowan, 38 Dura Road, Allanton, S h o w received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Alan McGowan, 38 Dura Road, Allanton, ML7 5AB received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Peter Steel, 28 Hawthorn Pface, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Scott Wilson, 21 I Allanton Road, Allanton, ML7 5AQ received t4th June 201 1 Letter from Janet Smith, Newmill Cottage, 1 Harhvood Road, Hartwood received 14th June 20f 1 Letter from William Smith, Newmill Cottage, 1 Hartwocd Road, Hartwood received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Tom Gormiil, 161 Allanton Road, Shotts, NIL7 5AX received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Wilma Gomill, 161 Allanton Road, Shotts , ML7 5AX received 14th June 201 t Letter from Margaret Walker, 29 Hawthorn Place, Allanton , Shotts received 14th June 207 1 Letter from lan Cardwell, 1 f Dura Road, Allanton, ML7 5A8 received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Mrs Maureen Cardwell, 11 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Wendy Topping, 17 Redmire Crescent, Ailanton, ML7 5AE received 14th June 201 1 Letter from S J Rae, 12 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Sandra McArthur, 20 Wilson Road, Allanton, ML7 5AR received 14th June 2011 Letter from Stuart McArthut, 20 Wilson Road, Allanton, ML7 5AR received 14th June 201 1 Letter from D Clark, 9 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Carole Love, 37 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, ML7 5AE received 14th June 201 1 letter from Morene Simpson, 39 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, ML7 5AE received 14th June 201 I Letter from Gordon Smith, 48 Meldrum Mains, Glenmavis, Airdrie received 14tb June 201 1 Letter from Julie Smith, 48 Meidrum Mains, Gtenmavis, Airdrie received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Julla Ward, 153 Mill Road, Allanton, ML7 5DD received 14th June 201 1 Letter from Allanton Tenants and Residents Association received 13'h July 201 1 Letter from Elizabeth McMillan, 19 Redmire Crescent, Allanton, ML7 5AE received 15th August 201 1 Letter from James Shearer, 22 Mossneuk Park, Wishaw, ML2 8LR received 15th August 201 1 Letter from Calum McMillan, 19 Redmire Cresmnt, Allanton, ML7 5AE received 15th August 201 I Letter from Paufine Shearer, 22 Mossneuk Park, Wishaw, MU 8LR received 15th August 201 1 Letter from George McDowall, 21 Brownhill View, Bonkle, Newmains received 15th August 201 I Letter from Alastair Wilson, Summerside Farm , Davies Dyke Road, M E 9PJ received 15th August 201 1 Letter from James Munro, Winterhill, Newmains, M U 9PJ received 15th August 201 1 Letter from Tina O'Hara, 5 Willow Grove, Fauldhouse, EH47 9AP received 15th August 2 0 3 ? Letter from Victoria Finlayson, 7 Newark Gate, Allanton, Mt7 5FB received 15th August 201 1 Letter from Stuart Finlayson, 7 Newark Gate, Allanton, ML7 5FB received 15th August 201 1 Letter from D Wilson, Summerside , Davies Dykes Road, Newmains received 15th August 201 1 Letter from May Wibon, Summerside, Davies Dykes Road, Newmains received 15th August 201 1 Letter from Elizabeth Munro, Winterhill, Newmains, Wishaw received 15th August 201 1 Letter from Lindsey Murray, 40 St Annes Wynd, Erskine, Renfrewshire received 15th August 201 1 Letter from Owner /Occupier, Dura Farm, Dura Road, Allanton received 15th August 201 1 Letter from Margaret Leckie, I51 Milt Road, Ailanton, Shotts received 5th September 201 1
Letter from George Leckie, 151 Milt Road, Allanton, Shotts received 5th September 2011 Letter from MSP Siobhan McMahon, Parfiamentary Office, M1.02, Scottish Parliament received 1 Ith June 2012 Letter from Councillor Cefferty, Member Services, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell received 31 st May 201 2 Letter from Audra MacPhee, Brow Farm, Newmains, Wishaw received 3rd September 2012 Letter from Mr John McLean, 222 Allanton Road, Allanton, ML7 5AQ received 5th September 2012 Letter from Colin Sims, 5 Eastwood Drive, Newmains , Mt2 9MS received 5th September 2012 Letter from Mr James Muir, 42 Dyfrig Street , Dykehead , Shotts received 7th September 201 2 Letter horn D Crosgrove, 141 Mill Road , Shotts, ML7 5DD received 5th September 2012 Letter from Miss Natalie Mellon, 141 Mill Road , Allanton, Shotts received 5th September 2012 Letter from Miss Kay Russell, 30 Hartfield Terrace, Atlanton , ML7 5AD received 5th September 201 2 Letter from Mr Jim Russell, 30 Hartfield Terrace, Allanton, ML7 5AD received 5th September 201 2 Letter from Miss Margaret Walker, 29 Hawthorn Place , Allanton, ML7 5BA received 5th September 2012 Letter from Miss Maureen Cardwell, 11 Dura Road , Allanton, Shotts received 5th September 201 2 Letter from Miss Ann Metvin, Kirkhall Farm, Dura Road , Newmains received 5th September 2012 Letter from Mrs T Murdoch, 5 Kings Hall, Allanton, Shotts received 5th September 2012 Letter from Mr William Murdoch, 5 Kingshali Road, Allanton, Shotts received 5th September 201 2 Letter from Miss Jill Calison, 92 Main Street, Shotts, ML7 5HA received 5th September 2012 Letter from Mr Paul Roberts, 3 Sharnot Shields, Bonkle , ML2 9PH received 5th September 2012 Letter from Mr David Dodds, 89 Croftfood Drive, Fauldhouse, EH47 9EH received 5th September 2072 Letter from Miss Joanne Roberts, 3 Shamot Shields , Bonkle , M U QPH received 5th September 2012 Letter from A Reglinski, 2 Shamot Shields, Wishaw , ML2 9PH received 5th September 2012 Letter from Mr John Andew Barclay, 3 Holding Mill Road, Allanton, ML7 5DQ received 5th September 2012 Letter from Allanton Tenants & Residents Association, Margaret McLean (Secretary), 222 Allanton Road,, Allanton, received 26th July 201 2 Letter from Anne Graham, Auchtertea Cottage, Daviesdykes Road, Newmains received 27th August 2012 Letter from Allanton Tenants & Residents Association, Clo Margaret McLean (Secretary), 222 Allanton Road, Allanton received loth September 2012 Letter from Gladys Speirs, Dura Farm, Dura Road, Wishaw received 7th September 2012 Letter from M James Speirs, Dura Farm, Dura Road, Allanton received 7th September 2012 Letter from Julie Speirs, Dura Farm, Dura Road, Allanton received 7th September 2012 Letter from William Winter, 246 Cambusnethan Street, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 7th September 201 2 Letter from MSP Neil Findlay, The Scottish Parliament, 4 Northfield Court, West Calder received 5th September 2012 Letter from Tracy Sims, 5 Eastwood Drive, Newmains, received I 1 th September 2012 Letter from Darryt Sims, 5 Eastwood Drive , Newmains, ML2 QNS received 11 th September 2012 Letter from E Barron, 2 Sharndshields, Bonkle, Wishaw received 5th September 2012 Letter from Ms Jean Swan, 5 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 5th September 2012 Letter from Ms Anne Elliott, 13 Church Street, Harthill, M U 5PD received 5th September 201 2 Letter from Ms Clare Quigley, 88 Main Street, Shotts, ML7 X I A received 5th September 2012 Letter from Ms June Wedlock, 30 Lansdowne Crescent, Shotts, ML7 5HD received 5th
September 2012 Letter from Mr Jams Speirs, Dura Farm, Dura Road, Allanton received 5th September 2012 Letter from Mr Robert Arthur, 35 Kilmichael Avenue, Newmains, ML2 9NX received 5th September 201 2 Letter from Martin Hill, 35 Emerson Road, DL2 2AW, received 11 th September 2012 Letter from Julia Walker, 7 Emerson Road, Dt2 2AW, received 1 1 th September 201 2 Letter from Sara Jane Hill, 35 Emerson Road, RLZ 2AW, received 11th September a 1 2 Letter from Russet1 Walker, 68 Andefby Gardens, DL7 8GU, received 1 lth September 2042 Letter from Mrs K A Trussier, Lodgehill, Daviesdyke Road, Ailanton received 2nd August 201 2 Letter from Colin Kerr, 34 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 12th September 2012 Letter from Heather Kerr, 34 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 12th September 2012 Letter from Allanton Tenants & Residents Association, C/o Margaret McLean, Secretary, received 21 st August 201 2 Letter from Councillor Charles Cefferty, Member Services, Civic Centre, Motherwell received 1st August 2012 Letter from Joe Clark, 16 Muldron Terrace, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from R Gardner, 188 Belmont Drive, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from Jane McGuire, 121 Belmont Drive, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from P McNeill, 77 Springhill Road, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from Mr Thomas Murphy, 124 Belmont Drive, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 201 2 Letter from Mr David Maxwell, 30 Northfield Avenue, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 201 2 Letter from Made Devlin, 131 Belmont Drive, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from Mr Matthew Groves, 162 Springhill Road, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from Gertrude Campbell, 14 Muldron Terrace, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from Mr Jack Campbell, 14 Muldron Terrace, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from Anne Kerr, 16 Muldron Terrace, Stane, Shotts received 17th September' 2012 Letter from Mr Wiiliam Hamilton, 114 Springhill Road, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 201 2 Letter from Mr Frank G Hinshelwood, 6 Northfield Avenue, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 201 2 Letter from Mr Colin Blue, 196 Springhill Road, Stane, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from C Crossan, 99 Springhill Road, Stans, Shotts received 17th September 2012 Letter from Mrs J Ward, t53 Mill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 6th August 2012 Letter from Pamela Nash MP, Member Of Parliament, , received 28th August 2012 Letter from Lindsay Walker, 68 Ainderby Gardens, Northallanton, DL7 8GU received I lth September 2012 Letter from Mr 8 Crains, 10 Nevis Place, Stane, Shdts received 12th September 201 2 Letter from Mt A Calson, 92 Main Street, Stane, Shotts received 12th September 2012 Letter from Mr C Calson, 14 Nevis Place, Stane, Shotts received 12th September 2012 Letter from Thresa Caisson, 79 Belmont Drive, Stane, Shotts received #2th September 2012
Consultetion Responses:
Traffic & Transportation received 15' November 2012 Rathmell Archaeology Limited received 1 8'h October 201 2 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 21 June 201 1 I 6'h September and 29" October 2012 Greenspace received 9 July 201 1 and ?7th September 2012 Landscape received 20th June 201 1 and 9' November 201 2 South Lanarkshire Council received 1 !jth August 20 t 1 Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 21' June 201 1 and 7'h September 2012 Scottish Natural Heritage received 23' June, 12'h July 201 1 and 7Ih September 2012 Civil Aviation Authority received 1 NATS received 15' August 201 1 Edinburgh Airport (previously BAA) received 21" September and I Q f h November 2012 Historic Scotland received 15" August 201 1 Defence infrastructure Organisation received 1 Eith August 201 1 Scotway received 7th September 2012 Arquiva Services Ltd received 15' August 201 1 British Telecom received 1 dh August 201 1 Cable and Wireless received 1 5Ih August 201 1 JRC received 1 5'h August 201 1 Forestry Commission received received l!jth Auqiust 201 1 Mountaineering Council of Scotland received I 5 August 201 1 HSE Office of Nuclear Regulation received 15Ih August 201 1 Tt'anSpQrt Scotland received 15'h August 201 1
August 201 1 and 21" September 201 2
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01 236 632496
Report Date:
3rd December 2012
APPLICATION MO. 11/00544/CNS
REPORT
1.
1.1
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Site Descriotion
The proposed devebpment site straddles the local authority boundaries of North Lanarkshire and West Lothian with only the access corridor within West Lothian, and abuts but does not lie within South Lanarkshire. The site sits approximately 2 Krn southeast of Allanton, 3 Km south of Shotts, 3.5 Km southwest of Fauldhouse and 5 Km northwest af Forth. The site lies immediately to the northwest of the consented and operational Black Law windfarm which comprises 54 operational turbines, only two of which are located within the North Lanarkshire area. The site is also located to the west of the consented Black Law phase 1 extension (which has still to be constructed) comprising 23 turbines in total with 12 within the North Lanarkshire area and 11 within West Lothian Council. The application site encompasses an area of approximately 630 hectares and comprises mainly commercial coniferous forestry and farmland which would be subject to felling and alterations similar to those approved by the previous consented schemes. The nearest residential dwelling is Brow Farm approximately 1.1 Km away from the nearest turbine. The site sits in close proximity and directly south of the proposed Darnside windfarm development (planning application reference 1 UOO808fFUL) which comprises eight 126m high turbines on the site of the former Damside opencast. Members should note that an application report on that application is also being considered at today's committee meeting. - The applicant is required under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to apply to the Scottish Government for consent to construct this development. The proposed second extension comprises t 1 wind turbines and would have an installed capacity of
The 11 turbines comprise tapering steel towers of up to 80 metres in height, which support a nacelle and a three bladed rotor turning about a horizontal axis. The rotor diameter will be up to 93m, and this combined with the tower height would result in a maximum height to blade tip of up to 126.5m above ground level, The turbines will be finished in a pale matt greytoff-white colour similar to that of the existing operational Black Law windfarm Turbines. The turbines will be linked through an existing network of access tracks to be upgraded where necessary and supplemented by an additional 7.76km of permanent new tracks and associated watercourse crossings. In addition to the turbines there will also be a number of ancillary structures and infrastructure including an electrical substation and control buildings, meteorological mast, underground power cables and three temporary construction compounds. The proposal includes changes to be commercial forest design plan (FDP) wbich involves the fellng of f#ha of forestry in advance of the previously planned felling date and it and it is envisaged that the construction wilt take up to 18 months,
Up tQ 33(MW).
Although the proposed development will have an installed capacity of up to 33 Megawatts (MW) which is short of the 50MW capacity required for applications to be considered under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, it was agreed with the Scottish Government Mat they wouM determine the application given that it seeks an extension to a site already subject to two previous section 36 consents. The committee should note that its decision will form the Council's cansuitetion response to the Scottish Government with respect to the section 36 appkation.
It should be noted that the consuttation (as submitted in May 2012) was for 13 turbines. Following discussions with the Pianning Service and consultees (most notably Landscape Services and SNH) it was suggested that the number of turbines be reduced by 4 in order to address concerns regarding visual and landscape impact,
3.
3.1
3.2
4.
4.1
5.
5.1
5.2
8.
6.1
6.2
Following consideration of this suggestion, SPR submitted revised plans showing a reduction of 2 turbines and this was the basis of further consultation. On hearing that this reduction did not address the concerns in full SPR has offered (by way of e-mail of 29 November) suggested that a further reduction of 1 turbine could be offered.
An Environmental Statement (ES) and addendum dated July 2012 and Non Technical Summary (NTS) have been submitted which describe the likely environmental effects of tfie proposed windfarm, along with proposed mitigation measures. The submitted Environmental Statement incfudes assessments on the following topics: assessment methodology and significance criteria; site selection and design evolution; planning policy; landscape and visual assessment; ornithology; ecology; traffic and transportation; archaeology and cultural heritage; noise; hydrology, hydrogeology and geology; infrastructure; telecommunications, teievision, aviation and public safety and shadow flicker. The applicant also provided additional noise information in the form of a letter in response to Protected Services concerns regarding the proposed development.
The applicants submitted noise information dated 29* November 2012 to provide additional information regarding the validity of predictive modelling.
Relevant planning history for the site consists of the following:
Application S/02/00696/FUL Construction of Black Law Windfarm, Approved 13th February 2004. Application 04/02155/FUt Construction of an Access Track for the Black t a w Wind Farm on a Revised Route Between Turbines 24 and 29 to that Previously Approved. Approved 1'' February 2005. Ap#ication 07/02083/FUL Erection of 70m High Wind Monitoring Mast. Approved 28 May2008. Application 08/00101/FUL Extension to Black Law Windfarm (23 Turbines). Approved 22* March 201 1. 11/00765/CNS Proposal of 132Kilovolt (kV) Overhead Line. Council provided a response on i6'h September 201 1.
The application site is toned as NBE 36 Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.
The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SOP) is afso relevant.
The following consultees have no objection to the proposed development:.
South Lanarkshire Council, Civil Aviation Authority, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, Historic Scotland, Arquiva Services Ltd, Scotway, British Telecoms, Cable and Wireless, JRC, Forestry Commission, HSE Office of Nuclear Regulation, Transport Scotland, Mountaineering Council of Scotland.
Transportation has no objection to the proposed development subject to provision and approval of a Traffic Management Plan. Transportation also recommends that should Damside be approved the construction phases of this proposal and Damside should not coincide.
6.3 Protective Services object to the proposed development in retation to potential noise impact as they are not satisfied that the information provided within the ES, addendum and additional suppotting information is sufficient to conclude that the predictive noise modelling undertaken is accurate in relation to the original B k k Law Windfarm. The applicants submitted additional supporting noise information on 29 November 2012 regarding the validity of predicthe modelling. Protective Services have yet to form comments on this additional information.
Greenspace is satisfied that their initial concerns have been addressed with respect to ecological impact but request that they are consulted regarding the finalised habitat and Species management ptans. Greenspace have some cmcerns regarding the loss of recreational space but it is noted that the surface of core path 103 wilt be upgraded.
6.4
6.5 Landscape commented that the proposed extension is significant in scale and that the impact of the proposed development upon the A71 and surrounding area would be greater than the original Black Law and Phase 1 extension due to the turbine proximity to the recsptors to the north but that that the perceived visual impact of the extension wilt not be as significant as a completely new development. In order to mitigate the impacts Landscape recommended the removal of turbines 95, 98, 99, 100. The applicant has subsequently removed turbines 98 and 100 but retained turbines 95 and 99 and having reviewed the submitted addendum and its revised information, Landscape Services confirmed that while they welcome the reduction in turbines the proposed development still presents significant adverse visual effects for the surrounding area, particularly for residential properties to the north and west. Furthermore Landscape consider that there is still significant merit in the removai of turbine 99 and 95 as they increase the visual impact of the development.
6.6 Scottish Natural Heritage did not object to the proposed development provided that any approval is subject to conditions that require mitigation measures and the submission at updated ecological surveys. Furthermore SNH recommend that Species Protection Ptans be produced. SNH welcome the inclusion of habitat creation and enhancement proposals. In terms of landscape and visual impact SNH provided comments on the original scheme outlining that that the application presented a relatively large number of significant effects, particularly adverse visual impacts on settlements and associated viewpoints. Following the submission of a revised scheme (which included the removal of 2 turbines) SNH advised that their key concerns have been addressed, however they Rote that tlte revised scheme will still achieve a significant negative visual effect on Shotts including parts of Stane and Springhill,
SEPA has no objections to the proposed develupment subject to conditions requiring the submission of a Site Waste Management Plan and associated Construction Management Statement. They also require conditions requiring the discharge of surface water to the water environment to be in accordance with the principles of SUDS and a condition seeking a Decommissioning and Restoration Plan to be submitted and approved at least two years previous to the end of the design life. SEPA indicate that in their opinion the ES and addendum have not as yet justified the carbon payback figure as required by the Scottish Government,
NATS initially objected to the proposed development as it would cause an adverse impact on the Lowthr Hill radar and associated air traff Ic operations without suitable mitigation. However, NATS and SPR have agreed a suitabie mitigation solution in retation to the development and NATS is therefore prepared to withdraw its objection to the application subject to the imposition of an agreed condition.
Edinburgh AJrport initially objected to the proposed deVelopmeRt as the turbines would be visible on the primary approach radar and will appear as clutter resulting in a detrimental effect on operations therefore conflicting with safeguarding criteria. However Edinburgh Aitport, NATS and SPR have agreed a suitable mitlgation
6.7
6.7
6.8
solution in relation to the development and Edinburgh Airport has therefore withdrawn their objection.
Rathmell Archaeology Limited have no objections subject to a condition requiring archaeological mitigation works to ensure the appropriate treatment of any archaeologically significant material disrupted in the course of any consented development works.
6.9
7. Reoresentationg
7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and newspaper advertisement, 334 letters of representation have been received with two requests for a site visit and hearing. The representations Include:-
* Councillor Charles Cefferty raising concerns regarding detrimental visual impact, loss of amenity, shadow flicker, noise disturbance, ice throw, loss of woodland and failure to adhere to the recommended 2Km stand-off distance in SPP for large scale turbine developments.
Margaret Mitchelt MSP which includes concerns regarding cumulative impact of turbine developments in the area, noise, visual impact, loss of amenity, loss of woodland, construction traffic and associated disruption, pollution and flooding, overdevelopment with klrtilnes in the area,
* Siobhan McMahon MSP which includes concerns regarding landscape impact, impact on f i e environment, failure to adhere to the recommended 2Km stand-off distance in SPP for large scale turbine developments, proximity to the existing residential properties and settlements.
developments in the area and overdevelopment of Me site and surrounding area for turbines and the failure of the development to adhere to the recommended 2Km stand-off distance in SPP for large scale turbine developments.
Pamela Nash MP outlining concerns regarding cumulative impact of turbine
0 Neil Findlay MSP raising concerns regarding cumulative impact, detrimental impact on the environment and local community, overdevelopment of the site and surrounding area #or turbines, impact on amenity and concerns that the planning process is slanted against those who wish to object to such large scale applications.
0 Allanton Tenants Association (ATA) highlighting issues such as noise, cumutative impact proximity to settlements, efficiency as a resource, redmyre issues (also known as mine-water rebound or ferruginous discharge), impact on wildlife, ecdogy and ornithology, removal of forestry, impact on covenanters monument, transpofhtion and the SPP recommended 2Km stand-off distance for large scale turbine developments.
The other reasons for objection outlined in the remaining representations received are outlined below:-
Planning Policy Proximity of the development k, the iocal community. Cumutative landscape and visual impact. Accumulation of large scale development in the area. Potential for increased flood risk and displacement of the water table. Transportation impacts and potential risks to pedestrians. Noise (including Amplitude Modulation). Wildlife, Ecology and Ornithology.
Impact on recreational value, amenity and access strategy of the area. Proximity of TutWnes to locai schools. Impact on cuiturrtl heritage interests, Failure of the proposals to adhere to SPP and recommended 2Km stand-off from settlements. Detrimental impact on surrounding property values and local businesses. Efficiency of wind energy as a renewable resource. The unreasonable timescale for response to the Scottish Government and lack of co-operation from SPR.
8. Plannina h w s s m e n t
8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Although this will guide the NLC comments it is noted that the decision rests with the Scottish Government under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989,
The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) adopted the approach of defining search areas for wind farm developments, The areas of search as defined provide a strategic spatial framework for more detailed local development planning. The proposed windfarm extension is considered to be in line with the Spatial Development Strategy and supports its spatial role and function. In line with the SDP the application still requires to be assessed under the terms of #e North Lanarkshire Local Plan.
8.2
North Lanarkshire Local Plan
8.3 The application site is zoned as NBE 38 Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. This policy seeks to protect the character of and to promote development in Rural Investment Areas through restricting development to acceptable types. Generation of power from renewable sources is considered an acceptable type of development. The policy then lists impact criteria for assessing acceptable development. The development must comply with the undernoted criteria:
Have a positive economic benefit, v Minimise any adverse environmental impacts.
Do not pose undue infrastructure implications. Have a specific locational need. Be of a suitable scale and form for the iocation.
0 Applications should include a landscape assessment. e Adherence to Scottish Planning Policy
Having assessed the proposals, the submitted Environmental Statement and Addendum and in view of the consultation responses detailed above, #e following matters are noted-
* With regard to economic benefit it is noted that the proposals are for the generation of renewable energy and that the principal economic benefit will be recouped by the applicant, landowner, renewable construction sector and would contribute towards the Scottish Govemmenfs wider renewable energy strategy.
In assessing the environmentat impact with regard to the ES, Addendum and consuftation responses, it is noted that Greenspace, SNH and the RSPB are satisfied that the supporting information satisfactorily addresses all issues with respect to ornithological interests and protected species on site subject to recommended conditions regarding species protection plans, habitat management and peatland protection measures. Furthermore should the
application be recommended for approval it is recommended that the proposed habitat management scheme operates in the same manner as the one currently operational on the existing windfarm and approved phase II extension.
4 Having consulted Protected Services it is noted that the Environmental Statement, Addendum and additional noise monitoring information submitted by the applicant have not satisfactorily considered the noise impacts of the proposed development. Protective Services still have concerns regarding the reliability of the predicted noise data. They previously highlighted that the measured outdoor noise levels within the applicant's noise report for the existing Black Law Windfarm were higher than those predictedfor the cumulative noise emissions for the existing Bkck Law, in conjunction with the consented Black Law Phase I Extension and the proposed Black Law Phase I I Extension operating together. Protective Services atso highlighted that the prediction methodology insofar as this was detailed takes into account various operating modes for particular turbines in order to ensure that noise limits are complied with. The issues with the prediction methodology are a lack of transparency as to how the predictions were generated and a lack of credibility that further development would result in less noise. Furthermore there remains a lack of detail within the submissions as to how noise emissions woutd be controlled or monitored to ensure that particular turbines within particular parts of the development would result in particular known losses to the overall noise emissions in different weather conditions to ensure that planning consent conditions could be met at all of the neighbouring locations. Protective Services note that the major outstanding issue is that the predictive noise modelling shows that the overall predicted noise emissions at Brow Farm (1. I km from the nearest turbine) will decrease with the provision of further turbine developments (8lack Law Phases I and II Extensions) and the most recent submission from the applicants does not provide any further clarification or explanation on this matter. The lack of information relating to the potential noise impact from the proposed extension on the residential amenity of the surrounding residential properties cannot be established and as such it is possible that the development may have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area due to potential for noise disturbance.
Greenspace stilt has concerns regarding the loss of recreational space and that the extension will further erode this space in the area. It is noted that in order to accommodate the development the proposals will involve the removal of some 104ha of forestry (although this would be removed at some point in the future give that it forms part of a commercial forest}. SNH, CSFT and the Council's Landscape team consider that the proposed levels of tree removal are acceptable in terms of the visual amenity. Additional tree planting and habitat pwtedion would be sought by recommended conditions if approved. In terms of visual impact of the development, the turbines will be brought closer to the nearby communities of Allanton and Shotts as well as the rural properties of Dura Road and Brow Farm in particular affected by the additional turbines. The extension will effectively increase the visual spread of the turbines as viewed from the west in a significant manner. Although the proposal does not merit an objection from SNH or Landscape Services, they nevertheless raise concerns over the negative visual impact of the development on sensitive receptors to the north and west.
In terms of flood risk and drainage, it is considered that matters raised by SEPA can satisfactorily be addressed by conditions if necessary.
It is noted that the Environmental Statement concludes that the overall impact on the historic environment and archaeoioglcal interest will be minimal and having consulted Historic Scotland and Rathmeli Archaeology they have offered no objection to the proposed development,
4
4 Transportation has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions and that the service and access arrangements are as per those approved for the Phase I extension and subject to all service and access arrangements and transportation routes being covered by an agreement under section 96 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1084.
0 In terms of iocational need it is noted that wind turbine proposals are generally located in rural areas such as the application site as they are considered to be the most appropriate areas for such development.
In terms of scale, form and landscape impact it is noted that Landscape Services and SNH did not submit fomal objections to the proposed development and both wetcorned the reduction in scale which has reduced the likely impacts of the development significantly, However both note mat there remain significant negative visual effects locally including Shotts and parts of Stane and Springhitl. This concern is shared by many of the objectors. Whilst the nature and extent of the visual impact of any windfarm will be significant (clearly this has been assessed as acceptable in terms of Black Law and the Phase 1 Extension) there is a concern that the disamenity already suffered by the surrounding communities from the existing surrounding turbines (not to mention other concerns regarding noise impacts and loss of recreational space) wilt result in an unacceptable level of amenity for those communities.
4 The proposals are assessed against Scottish Planning policy in paragraphs 8.7 below.
As outlined above, the proposed ES and additional information has not provided sufficient information in terms of noise impact to conclude that the proposed development will not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding area. furthermore given the closer proximity of the turbines to the settlements and isolated houses and the further erosion of recreational space, there are concerns that this extension in addition to the already approved schemes will impact upon the amenity enjoyed by local comrnunlties to an unacceptable level. The proposed development is therefore considered to be unacceptable in #is respect and fails to accord with palicy NBE 38.
8.4 Policy EDI 3 (Assessing Economic Development and Infrastructure Proposals) is also relevant. This states under ED1 3A2 that 'the Council supports, in principJe, ail forms of renewable energy generation subject to wind farms meeting the criteria contained in the approved supplementary planning guidance relating to issues of scale, cumulative impact, community benefit and restoration. Having assessed the submitted Environmental Statement it is considered that the proposed development-
0 Does raise some concern with respect to scale and cumulative impact given the consultations responses and assessment outlined in paragraph 8.3 above.
In terms of community benefR the appricant has confirmed that a community fund to support local projects will be set up to operate throughout the operational life of the development.
Restoration would be secured by conditions, a Section 75 legal agreement and bond.
Shadow flicker is adequately addressed and will have a minimal impact on the nearest property to the proposed turbines, Should objections be received subsequent to the turbines being erected, there are measures which the developer can take to minimise the problem which will identify and address shadow flicker and this can be addrffssed by condition.
Access and Transportation issues are assessed in paragraph 8.3 above.
Does raise concerns relating to potentiai for noise impad given the consultations responses and assessment outlined in paragraph 8.3 above.
Forestry and woodland issues are assessed in paragraph 8.3 above.
4 Having consulted the MOD and the CAA they have advised that they have no abjections to the proposed devetopment. NATS have indicated that they have no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions being attached regarding the submission and approval of a radar mitigation strategy. Edinburgh Airport initiafly objected to the proposed development &ut has withdrawn its objection after agreeing a suitable mitigation solution with NATS and SPR.
In terms of TVRIadio Reception and Radio Waves: The digital switchover has taken place and it is envisaged that this wiil address most issues if not all, However in order to resolve any probtems that may occur, the developer can be required to carry out an assessment of TV reception before and after the turbine are constructed and thereafter carryout works designed to remedy any potential problems. Mast telecomm operators with microwave links within the area were consutted and thers wefe no comments received,
Feat issues have been adequately addressed in the submitted ES and supporting information and having consulted SEPA and SNH they have offered no objections subject to recommended conditions relating to such matters.
4 With regard to the grid connection it is anticipated that the development will be connected to the grid via a new connection achieved by means of an overhead line. The grid connection will be subject to a separate design and would form part of a Section 37 Application under the Electricity Act 1989,
As outlined above, the submitted ES and additional information has not provided sufficient information in terms of noise and visual impact to conclude that the proposed development will not have I detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding area. The proposed development is therefore considered to be unacceptable and fails to accord with policy EDI 3A.
8.5 The NLLP afso requlfes proposed developments to be assessed against policigs DSP I (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). Having assessed the proposals and the submitted Environmental Statement and in view of The consultation responses detailed above, it is considered that:-
0 In terms of policy DSP 1, DSP 2 and DSP 3 it is considered that the amount, location and impact has been adequately considered by the ES,
The proposed development is considered contrary to policy DSP 4, and has been assessed in paragraphs 8.3 and 8.4 above and 8.6 to 8.10 below. Having assessed the submitted ES and in light of the objection from Protective Services the proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on the site or surrounding area In terms of noise. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information on noise in order to establish that there wiil be no detrimentaf impact on the surrounding residential properties from the proposed extension. Furthermore there are concerns that tfre visual impact of this extension in addition ta the atready approved schemes is such that the amenity enjoyed by local communities will be reduced to an unacceptable level.
Other Mate riai Cons ideration8
8.7 Scottish Planning Poky oUtlineS that planning authorities should support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. Development plans should provide a clear indication of the potential for development of wind farms of all scales, and shouM set out the criteria that will be considered in deciding appiications for all wind farm developments including extensions. The criteria will vary depending on the scale of development and its relationship to the characteristics of the surrounding area, but are likely to include:
a
e
a
e
landscape and visual impact, assessed in section 8.3 above, effects on the natural heritage and historic environment, assessed in section 8.3 above, contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets, effect on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests, beneflts and dis-benefits for communities assessed in section 8.3 and 8.4 above, aviation and telecommunications assessed in section 8,4 above, noise, assessed in section 8.3 above, and curnulatiw impact assessed in section 8.3 above.
In terms of Scottish Planning Policy and in light of the comments received from Protective Services Landscape and SNH outlined above it is considered that the proposed development fails to accord with the requirements of SPP in that:-
c the proposed ES and additional information has not provided sufficient information in terms of noise impact,
e There are still concerns over amenity and visual impact on tocat receptors.
&gmsentations:
In terms of the points of objection, I would comment as follows:-
1. The development is contrary to planning policy.
Reeponss: These concerns are addressed in paragraphs 8.4 to 8.8 above.
2. The proximity of the development to Allanton given that the turbines are located fess than 2.25km from the village and the failure of the proposals to adhere to SPP and recommended 2Krn stand& from settlements.
8.8
3. The cumulative effect of the turbines and the negative visual impact on the landscape in particular the rural and village communities, with properties being engulfed by turbines.
4. The further development of Blacklaw exceeds landscape saturation point resulting in significant visual impairment given that the turbines would be closer, increased in number and lnCr6aSed in height and that these additional turbines will be far more visible.
5. The concern from the- owner of Brow farm that if approved the proposed development wilt result in turbines effectively on three sides of their property.
6, The discrimination of the rural community inhabiting Dura Road who are not being afforded the protection that being part of a settlement gives In terms of the proximity of the turbines.
7. The accumulation of iarge scale developments in the area including other turbine developments, minerals, waste management and quad biking that cumulatively will have a negative effect on the amenity of the area.
Response: The concerns outlined in points 2-6 above are noted and assessed in section 8.3 md 8.4 above. The nearest turbine is located 2.25Km from the settlement of Allanton and thus is considered to adhere to SPP in relation to the recommended stand off distance from settlements.
8. The potential for increased flood risk in Allanton due to the displacement of the water table and the potential increase In redmyre pollution and subsequent impact on the surrounding watefmurses.
Response: Having consulted SEPA they have no objections to the proposed development. The information contained within the EA and the additional information provided by the applicant is considered sufficient to confirm that the proposed development will not increase flood risk or redmyre pollution to or from the site. It should be noted that a CORditiOn is recommended that the applicant provides certification from a chartered civil engineer with experience in drainage works, that the drainage system outlined in the supporting information is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
9. The disruption from the use of the A71 through Allanton for construction traffic, the detrimental impact on pedestrian safety and the inability of the existing road network to cope with the additional vehicles.
10. The concerns regarding the use of Dura Rd for access to the site as it is a singfe track road with passing places and is completely unsuitable for large vehicles associated with this type of devefopment.
Response: The ~ n c e r n s outlined in points 9 and 10 regarding the transportation impacts ot the proposed development including the number of vehicles involved in construction, the substandard nature of the surrounding road network, its capacity to accommodate the proposals and the detrimental impact on road safety are noted. Having consulted Transportation they have offered no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions. Furthermore the traffic impacts of the development are assessed in chapter 9 of the ES and conclude that the proposed development wit1 result in increased traffic flows but that the effects of construction traffic are considered of negligibte significance with the implementation of a robust Traffic Management Plan.
11. The lack of infornation submitted in terms of noise and in particular background,
12. The potential noise disturbance from both construction and operatlon of the
Reeponse: Tha concerns outlined in points 1 I and 12 are addressed in sections 8.3 to 8.7 above, With regard to
aperational and Amplitude Modulation.
turbbmes with noise levels at a distracting level already.
13. The concern from the owner of Brow fam that that the noise emissions from the proposed turbine devetoprnent will exceed ETSU limits at higher wind speeds and construction noise will occur to the detriment of residential amenity,
14. Concern that Amplitude Modulation (AM) noise which is characterized as the pyscho-acoustic noise created by the movement of the turbines blades through the air and the passage of air across the turbine blades (sometimes referred to as 'blade swish') should be considered as a stand alone noise issue and not encompassed as a general noise issue given that ETSU 97 does not adequately address this issue.
Response: The Scottish Government guidance on noise takes account of these concerns.
15. The detrimental impact of the proposed development on wildlife, ecology,
16. The significant amount of deforestation and peat rernovat and the impact that this
ornithology and the biodiversity of the site.
will have on the existing habitat.
Response: The concerns outlined in points 15 and 16 above are considered in the assessment above. The ES and Addendum has demonstrated that there would be no significant impact of natural heritage interests including protected species. Scottish Natural Heritage agreed with the conclusions of the ES and had no objection subject to conditions relating to standard protection measures tor adjacent habitats and protected species. Having consulted Greenspace they have offered no objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitable planning conditions and appropriately worded advisory notes, It should be noted that as part of the proposed development the applicant will implement a Habitat Management Scheme similar to those already in piace for the original development and proposed phase I extension*
17. The contention mat the proposals will unacceptably diminish the area in respect of amenity and recreationat value given the proposed deforestation of the site. In addition, safety around windfarm sites leading to further loss of amenity due to loss of use of areas near turbines due to potential ice throw, blade faiiure and lightening strikes all of which pose risk to nearby residenta, walkers, cyclists, horse riders, animals and wildlife.
18. The detrimental impact on the existing access strategy in North Lanarkshire and the loss of amenity with the removal of the forestry and the substandard nature of the existing and proposed access scheme.
Response: The concerns outlined in points 17 and 18 above are noted. In terms of safety issues around the turbines it should be noted that the ES adequately addresses these concerns and procedures are in place to maintain the safety of the general public. In terms of the access strategy it is noted that Greenspace seek improvements to this strategy as they are disappointed with the access provision of the original development and phase f extension. The existing strategy is currently under review and further amendments can be sought through the recommended conditions requiring the submission of an updated strategy. Furthermore it is noted that Greenspace consider the changes to the project including the removal of turblnes 98 and 100, and the associated tracks, together with borrow pits 3 and 4 are seen as positive steps, however there are still concerns regarding the toss of recreational space. it is noted that the surface of core peth 103 wiil be upgraded as part of the apptiwnt’s revised proposals for the site.
19. The detrimental impact of the development on sites of cultural heritage and in
Response: The concerns regarding the impact of the development on cultural heritage are noted. The ES conciudes that the overall impact on the Covenanters Monument which is closest to the development is of negligible significance. Having consulted both Historic Scotland and Rathmeil Archaeology nelther has raised any objection to the proposed devebpment.
20. The potential to devalue the surrounding properties, detrimental impact on businesses in the immediate vicinity of the development and the potentiai for farms selling up leading to the loss of pupils attending the village primary school and its closure.
pam’cular the Covenanters Monument and the Dura Kirk.
Response: The detrimental impact of the proposed development on the value of the surrounding propetties or any perceived loss of property value is not material to the consideration of this planning consultation.
21. The unreasonabie timescales for response to the Scottish Government on the proposed devetopment and the lack of co-operation from SPR with respect to queries regarding the development.
Response: In terms of the timescales allowed for response to the Scottish Government and perceived lack of co-operation from SPR it should be noted that SPR has mp f ied with all relevant legisiatin pertaining to advertisement and engagement with the commun'w for an application of this type and the concerns are not material to the consideration of this planning consultation.
22. The efficiency of wind as turbines as a renewable resource and concern that the energy generated from this development will not be worth the cost to the local environment and community.
Response: In terms of the efficiency of wind turbines as a renewable resource it is considered that the submitted ES has adequately shown that renewable energy generation from wind is a viable and effective method of energy generation. Furthermore the concern relates to the wider National Policy on such matters.
23. The occupier of Brow has submitted an additional letter raising concerns that the applicants have not complied with the acknowledged methodology for collecting data for compliance testing set out in ETSU-R-97 including the latest submissions in relation to Auchterhead Farm which is in a different location to Brow. Further more they highlight the applicant's failure to conduct noise testing at Brow and feel that Brow Farm is currently, at best, on limit and any furiher noise contributed by wind turbines locally will take Brow F a n over the limit set out by ETSU-R.97.
Response: Having consulted Protective Services they indicate that the submitted Environmental Statement, Addendum and additional noise monitoring information submitted by the applicant have not satisfactorily considered the noise impacts of the proposed development and therefore add weight to the concerns raised by the objectors. The applicants submitted additional supporting noise information to provide additional information regarding me validity of predictive modelling. Protective Services have yet to form comments on this additional information.
8.9 Finally, it is noted (in paragraph 2.4 above) that SPA has recently made an offer to reduce the number of turbines by one as means of addressing the concerns of the Planning Service. Such a reduction would not (in itself) address the concerns on noise impact and would not after concerns regarding the impact on recreational space. A proper assessment on visual and landscape impacts could only be made following further consultation. Given the above, and given #e lateness of this suggested change to the scheme, the Planning Service has not requested that SPR submits revised plans to show a further reduction in turbine numbers.
9 Fonclusiana
9.1 The proposed development is considered contrary to policies DSP4, NEE 38 and €01 3A of the North Lanarkshire Local Ptan and Scotiish Planning Policy. The submitted ES, Addendum and additional supporting information has not sufficiently addressed the potentiar cumulative noise impacts which combined with negative visual impacts and further erosion of recreationaf space would reduce the amenity enjoyed by local communities to an unacceptably low level.
9.2 On the basis of the concerns regarding noise information combined with cmcems regarding amenity due to visual impact, it is recommended that the Council submits an objection to the Scottish GOV6t~ment.
Finally, it is recommended that should the members be minded to not object, the application is continued until such time as the outstanding information has been provided and satisfactorily considered.
9.2
NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL
Date: 6 March 201 3
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
Ref PUEMcL
Subject: CONSULTATION 11/00544/CNS BLACK LAW WIND FARM EXTENSION PHASE 2 (ERECTION OF 11 TURBINES 80M TO HUB AND 126.5M TO BLADE TIP) AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE.
1.
1.1.
2.
2.1
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.
4.1.
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to advise committee of a further representation from the applicant in respect of the above consultation.
Background
The attached report was first presented to the Planning & Transportation committee on 22 November 2012 where it was continued to the meeting of 13 December. At that meeting it was agreed to continue the matter again pending a site visit and hearing.
Assessment
Following the preparation of the attached report, the applicant has suggested that insufficient consideration has been given to the development’s compliance with the search zone map as contained within the Council document, “Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 12 Assessing Wind Turbine Developments”.
In order to clarify this matter, it is noted that the application site is located within ‘Zone 1’ of the areas of search map within SPG 12 Assessing Wind Turbine Developments. The SPG states that in this zone there is capacity for turbine developments in excess of 1 OOm in height and the landscape characteristics are such that this is considered to be one of the most appropriate areas to site such a development. The applicant suggests that this weighs in favour of the development.
In response to the above, it is noted that the areas of search map was a snap-shot of landscape capacity at the time that the associated study was undertaken (2008). Since then a number of turbine developments have been approved which reduces the landscape capacity of the zone. Indeed, a new study has recently been commissioned to address and update landscape capacity issues throughout the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area which will include the application site. Furthermore the SPG states that the areas of search map was devised using cumulative impact as one of the determining factors and that developers need to take into account the constant and evolving nature of cumulative impacts with the addition of each wind turbine development. On this basis, it is concluded that the zoning map within the SPG does offer support to the proposed development, but this is tempered somewhat by the change in circumstances since the map was prepared. Any additional support offered by the zoning map in the SPG does not outweigh other concerns which are outlined in the attached report.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the committee notes the content of this report and thereafter disposes of the application in accordance with the attached report.
SHIRLEY LINTON HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Local Government Access to Information Act: for further information about this report, please contact Edward McLennaghan on 01236 632496. (27 February 2013)
