Agenda item

Erection of 50m high environmental monitoring mast and associated guy ropes for a temporary period of 18 months [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a full application, submitted by Stephanie Walden, for the erection of a 50m high environmental monitoring mast and associated guy ropes for a temporary period of 18 months.

Officers reminded Members that this was an application for a temporary monitoring mast, not a wind turbine and that determination should be based on this application and not what might happen in the future. Officers updated that 46 letters objecting to the proposal had now been received however a number of them referred to a future wind turbine. He stated that points 2, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 18 listed in the report under neighbours/third party objections also referred to a wind turbine, which was not part of this application. Officers also displayed a template, which accurately showed the width of the proposed mast. A letter of support was submitted from York/Ryedale Friends of the Earth who stated that with climate change there was a need to support such proposals.

Officers reported that no response had been received from Elvington Airfield although it had been ascertained that the proposed site was a “no fly zone” area owing to chemicals stored on site. It was also pointed out that the Control Tower at Elvington Airfield was, at 170 ft, higher than the proposed mast. The publicity period for the application expired on 19 March and Officers requested that, if approval was granted, they would require delegated powers to determine the application subject to receipt of no further objections or issues.

Members expressed concerns at the references to a wind turbine and stated that if approval were granted for the mast that this would in no way show their support for a wind turbine. 

The Chair stated that the first registered speaker had indicated that, owing to circumstances beyond his control, he had been unable to attend the meeting but he had emailed the points he wished considering. His first point related to the siting of the mast and he asked that the Water Authority should consider less intrusive options. His second point stated that if the Sub-Committee approved the application that it would be natural to assume that they would apply the same criteria for a subsequent application for a wind turbine. Finally he felt that many residents in the vicinity of the site would be unaware of the application and he requested either refusal or deferral pending fuller consultation.

In reply to these comments Officers stated that they could only determine the application as submitted and on the site applied for. In relation to the notification of residents they confirmed that the Government recommended the use of site notices rather that individual consultation if an application would affect a wide area.

The Chair of Elvington Parish Council, made representations on behalf of the village, who he stated were without exception universally opposed to the proposal. He pointed out that the application stated that this was part of a wind generation project. The proposal was in the Green Belt and he referred to planning guidance which stated that projects for wind generation normally constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Guidance also stated that the developer not the Planning Officer were required to demonstrate very special circumstances and that these were not mentioned in the Water Authorities application. He questioned whether alternative sites or alternative forms of renewable energy generation had been considered. He also referred to the site visit, which had shown the close proximity of properties, which he felt would have their amenity value, lowered and make the properties unsaleable if permission were granted.

In answer to Members questions, Officers confirmed details of guidance issued in government advice notes relating to developments for renewable energy in Green Belts.  Officers also confirmed that they felt that special circumstances did exist in this case, which outweighed the harm by inappropriateness to the Green Belt.

Members questioned the special circumstances, which applied in this case, and certain members felt that these had not been proven in relation to this application in the Green Belt, which they felt would affect local amenities.

Cllr King moved and Cllr Cregan seconded refusal on the grounds that there were no special circumstances, which justified the proposal. They considered that the mast was inappropriate in the Green Belt together with its impact on local amenities. This motion was lost.

RESOLVED:             That Officers be delegated authority to grant approval subject to the imposition of the conditions listed in the report and subject to no further issues or objections being raised prior to the expiry of the publicity period.

REASON:                  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the Green Belt, visual impact, renewable energy and local residential amenity with particular regard to noise and disturbance. As such the proposal complies with Policy E8 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan (Alteration No.3 Adopted 1995) and Policies GB1, SP2, SP3, GP1 and GP5 of the City of York Draft Local Plan (4th set of changes) dated April 2005.