MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the RHINNS HALL, PORTNAHAVEN, ISLE OF ISLAY

on MONDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 Present: Councillor Sandy Taylor (Chair)

Councillor Gordon Blair

Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie

Councillor David Kinniburgh Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Richard Trail

Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Peter Bain, Area Team Leader, MAKI Richard Kerr, Major Applications Team Leader Charley Rattan, SSE Renewables – Applicant Gordon Day, SSE Renewables – Applicant Kirstanne McDowall, SSE Renewables – Applicant Glen Roberts, Islay Community Council – Consultee Alistair Redmond, Objector David Truitt, Objector (on behalf of Fiona Locke and Callum Torrie) Stuart Graham, Objector Beryl Jackson, Objector John Trawber, Objector

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Mary-Jean Devon, George Freeman, Alistair MacDougall, Robert G MacIntyre and Alex McNaughton.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3. SSE RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENTS (UK) LTD: ERECTION OF 60 METRE HIGH ANEMOMETER MAST FOR TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 6 YEARS: LAND SOUTH EAST OF RHINNS OF ISLAY LIGHTHOUSE, ORSAY ISLAND, ISLE OF ISLAY (REF: 12/02315/PP)

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. The Head of Governance and Law outlined the procedure that would be followed and those who wished to speak were identified. Mr Reppke advised that a letter had been received from Mr and Mrs Rutherford advising that they were unable to attend. They asked that their continued opposition to the mast be noted at the meeting. A copy of this letter was circulated to the Committee. Planning Peter Bain spoke to the terms of the report on behalf of the Head of

Planning and Regulatory Services. He advised that this was a local

detailed application for the temporary installation of a 60m high

anemometer mast on the island of Orsay, off Portnahaven, for the

purposes of wind data collection in connection with the prospective Islay

offshore wind farm currently being devised by the Applicants, Scottish &

Southern Energy. He advised that the offshore wind farm was a project

recognised by the government as being one of national importance. It had

yet to be consented and wind resource information formed part of the

company’s project appraisal for the purposes of the application for

consent for the wind farm, which would be considered by the government

rather than the Council under the provision of the Electricity Act. He

advised that this application for the anemometer mast sought permission

for a 6 year period but the applicants have indicated their willingness for

this to be restricted to a minimum period of 4 years if Members felt that it

was inappropriate to consent it for a longer period.

He referred to a number of slides and showed a picture of Orsay viewed from between the adjacent and overlooking villages of Portnahaven and Port Wemyss at a distance of some 350m. He advised that the island was uninhabited with the only structure of significance being the Category A listed Lighthouse, the presence of which has contributed to what was regarded by many as the iconic status of this small island. The island location also provided the setting for the remains of St Oran’s chapel which was designated a category B listed building and a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

He advised that Orsay island was an area of ‘sensitive countryside’

delineated by the local plan shown here in light green. He advised that

the red stripes on the plan denoted that the area was also subject to a

Site of Special Scientific Interest designation. The effect of policy STRAT

DC 5 in combination with local plan policy LP CST 2 is to confer

‘undeveloped coast’ status on the island. It also lay within a wider local

plan designated Area of Panoramic Quality giving effect to the provisions

of policy LP ENV 10.

He referred to a further extract from the local plan which showed the island in the context of the adjoining settlements at Portnahaven and Port Wemyss and advised that both of these settlements have conservation area status giving effect to local plan policy LP ENV 14. He advised that Structure Plan Policy prescribes those forms of development which may be considered favourably in the context of sensitive countryside designations. He advised that the mast did not fall within any of these categories of development so could only be approved as a minor departure to development plan policy. He advised that Development plan policy provided that prospective exceptions to policy in sensitive countryside required to be evaluated by way of an Area Capacity Evaluation or ACE and he reminded Members that at the last meeting in June, prior to consideration of the application details, the ACE previously circulated was endorsed by the committee as a material consideration in the determination of this application. He advised that the ACE process

identified that the island was characterised by its exposed setting, a level plateau of open grassland, open views from facing settlements with those views being dominated by the presence of the listed lighthouse. He advised that the ACE concluded that there would be little if any capacity to absorb new development successfully and that there were no more appropriate locations on the island for the development than that which has been proposed by the Applicant. The advised that the mast would be twice the height of the lighthouse and its presence would temporarily adversely affect landscape character. It would detract from the scale of the lighthouse and would intrude on its setting as a listed building. It would also detract from the settings of the Portnahaven and Port Wemyss conservation areas. He advised that the development as proposed would therefore have adverse consequences for landscape character and the historic environment and would not satisfy development plan policy as a consequence. He advised that the ACE which had been previously adopted must now be regarded as a material consideration in the determination of this application. Its effect was that the development must be regarded as having an adverse environmental impact and that there were no other sequentially preferable locations on the island, as any prospective alternatives would share the same shortcomings as the application site currently proposed. He advised that the issue in this case therefore became whether development for a temporary period supporting the delivery of a national interest project, despite lack of support by the development plan, the identified impacts on its surroundings, and the extensive opposition by third parties, ought to be approved on a locational need basis, supported by the Applicants’ contention that this is the only technically feasible location available to them onshore for the purposes of monitoring the wind resource in relation to the proposed offshore windfarm project.

Mr Bain then ran through a selection of plans and slides submitted by the Applicant which showed the location of the mast and Orsay island within the wider locality, the exact location of the met mast and its intended location some 200m South East of the lighthouse. He advised that the proposed meteorological mast was a slender, guyed pole structure of 60m in height which would be fitted with meteorological equipment such as anemometers, wind vanes, thermometers and pressure sensors. The guy wires necessary to support the structure would have a diameter of 60m and would have bird flight deflectors fitted at intervals of 4m.

He advised that the Applicant had also prepared and submitted a photomontage of the proposed met mast in response to concerns raised by Officers and members of the public in respect of the anticipated adverse landscape and visual impacts which would arise. He referred to a sliding showing the Category A Listed Rhinns of Islay Lighthouse in more detail. The lighthouse was designed and engineered by Robert Stevenson in 1825 and was a building of national significance and an iconic feature within the part of Islay. He advised that this was the earliest lighthouse on Islay and stood some 30m tall and was the only prominent building on Orsay. The category B listed and scheduled St Oran’s Chapel was located further to the north of the lighthouse.

He advised that the proposed met mast would be located some 200m to

the South East of the lighthouse and would be twice its height. Whilst Historic Scotland have not raised objection to the proposal it nonetheless remained the consideration of Officers that the alien appearance and height of the proposed met mast in such close proximity to the lighthouse would have a materially harmful impact upon its setting, character and cultural significance with similar harmful effect upon the setting and amenity of the Portnahaven/Port Wemyss Conservation Area which overlook the island. He advised that In addition to the potential effects upon impact upon visual amenity, concern had also been raised in third party representations that the met mast might give rise to noise nuisance to these properties arising from the effect of the wind upon the supporting cables and bird diverters. He advised Members that the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have confirmed that the proposal was not expected to give rise to sufficient potential for noise nuisance to warrant refusal.

He advised that within the context of this highly scenic and panoramic landscape the proposed met mast would represent a large and alien feature which was out of scale with the only other substantial man made structure on Orsay island and which would be unduly prominent over a substantial distance including the main bodies of the settlements of Port Wemyss and Portnahaven, both of which are conservation areas and popular tourism destinations.

He advised that under normal circumstances where a development was likely to have such grievous adverse consequences to the appearance and setting of not only the historic environment but also that of the wider landscape a presentation to Members would conclude now with a recommendation that they refuse planning permission.

However, he advised, that in this particular instance the Applicant has put forward the case that the erection of a met mast on Orsay island was necessary to support an off shore wind development which was recognised as being of National importance and that they have submitted details of their site selection process to confirm the technical factors and other constraints which have resulted in the identification of Orsay as the only immediately available, technically suitable location for the proposed development.

He referred to a slide showing the location of the Off shore wind farm off of the west coast of Islay and advised that this project was specifically identified in the Scottish Government’s Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Marine Energy and the draft National Planning Framework 3 and as such was deemed to be a project of National importance. The Applicant has advised of the need to model the expected off shore wind regime to establish a sufficient degree of commercial confidence in the project prior to the commencement of the more expensive and difficult process of collecting data offshore.

In this respect he advised that the applicant has outlined a requirement for a land based met mast which was as representative of the off shore wind regime as was possible – given the location of the proposed off shore wind farm the met mast required to be located on the west coast of the

Rhinns. The elevation of the site required to be as close to sea level as possible and the surrounding topography needed to be as flat as possible with no complex features such as hills or cliffs which would create significant turbulence in the flow of air. The site also required to be reasonably accessible for installation and maintenance with sufficient flat ground to allow the mast to be laid out flat prior to being erected.

He advised that having undertaken a topographical study of the west coast of the Rhinns, the Applicant has discounted the ability to mount the equipment on existing telecommunications masts in the locality and had identified three technically suitable areas of search at Ballanaby/Saligo, Machrins Bay and between Claddach and Rhinns Point. Based upon a purely technical assessment he advised that the Applicant’s preference was to locate the mast at a site by Ballanaby. However when they pursued a planning application for this site in 2011 they became aware of the full extent of nature conservation constraints which primarily related to ornithological interests and included RAMSAR, SAC, SSSI designations and RSPB reserves. Further discussion with Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB confirmed that extensive ornithological study work would be required before development within either of the Ballanaby/Saligo or Machrins Bay areas of search could be considered with only limited prospects of the development being considered acceptable in relation to the qualifying interests of these nature conservation designations. Given the complications and limited likelihood of success within the northern areas of search he advised that the Applicant subsequently focussed their attention on the area around Portnahaven and Port Wemyss between Claddach and Rhinns Point where there were fewer ornithological designations. The Applicant had dismissed the landward areas immediately around the settlements for a number of reasons including unsuitable topography, proximity to residential property and a requirement to address multiple land ownerships. He advised that this area of search has however yielded three sites which have been considered in detail with two of these sites, including Orsay Island being identified as meeting all technical requirements. He advised that whilst the Applicant’s discussions with land owners have been undertaken in confidence they have provided Officers with a copy of a letter from the land owner confirming that this alternative location would not be made available to them. Officers have visited this alternative site and have utilised this as a baseline in the Applicant’s claims in relation to the unsuitability of other locations within this southern area of search.

He advised Members that Officers have examined the claims made by the Applicant in support of their application and subjected these to scrutiny during discussion with the Applicant and walk over site meeting of the areas surrounding Portnahaven and Port Wemyss. Notwithstanding the limitations of Officers’ own knowledge of the technical factors in respect of the proposal, he advised Members that the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services was satisfied that the Applicant’s claim of locational and operational necessity to locate the met mast on Orsay was genuine and as such was a material consideration in the determination of this application.

He advised that the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services report of

handling dated 30th May set out the material considerations which have been taken into account by Officers in addition to the provisions of the Development Plan in assessing this planning application and in making a recommendation to Members and that these included:- Policy and Guidance published by the Scottish Government; the Area Capacity Evaluation endorsed by Members at the June PPSL meeting; the circumstances of the application; he views and comments of consultees, including Islay Community Council who have raised objection to the application; and not least the views expressed in third party representations to the proposal which at the latest count totalled 1 representation in support and 130+ representations raising objection some of whom Members will hear from later in the day.

He advised that the proposed development, by virtue of its height, design and prominence over a wide area, including its impact on the adjacent conservation area settlements of Port Wemyss and Portnahaven, would be materially harmful to the character and amenity of the site and surroundings, the importance of which was acknowledged by the designation of Orsay island as an area of ‘Sensitive Countryside’ within an Area of Panoramic Landscape Quality and an area of ‘Undeveloped Coast’. He advised that it was therefore considered contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan, in particular Structure Plan policies STRAT DC 5 and STRAT DC 8 and Local Plan policies LP ENV 1, LP ENV 10, LP ENV 19 and LP CST 2. He advised that it was also considered that the alien industrial design and siting of this proposed mast in such close and unbroken proximity to the listed lighthouse and at twice its height would have a materially harmful impact upon its setting, character and cultural significance and would materially detract from the setting and amenity of the adjacent conservation area of Portnahaven/Port Wemyss, contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan, in particular Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 9 and Local Plan policies LP ENV 13a and LP ENV 14. However, he advised that despite the aforementioned shortcomings of the proposed development, the Applicant had satisfactorily demonstrated an overriding locational/operational necessity for the development in relation to the progression of an off shore wind project which was deemed to be of ‘National’ importance having been designated and promoted by the Scottish Government as part of its strategic long term proposals for renewable energy development within Scottish Territorial Waters. He advised that such concerns were material planning considerations and in this particular instance it was considered that the overriding need for the development in the National interest outweighed the temporary significant adverse local implications of the development and accordingly this application was commended to Members with a recommendation that they grant temporary planning permission as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the Development Plan subject to the six conditions set out in the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services report dated 30th May 2013. Applicant Charley Rattan advised that he was the Project Manager for the Islay Off

Shore Wind Farm and that he was accompanied by Gordon Day, Wind Resource Analyst and Kirstanne McDowall, Community Liaison Manager. He advised that the core purpose of SSE was to provide the energy people needed in a reliable and sustainable way. He advised that they were a Scottish HQ Company with approximately 20,000 employees in the UK; 120 based in Argyll and Bute, 6 based on Islay. Five apprentices were taken on last year alone in Argyll and Bute by SSE Power distribution. He advised that SSE Renewables (SSER) have invested heavily in Argyll and Bute with a major shareholding in Wind Towers Ltd at Machrihanish. He advised that they were the UK’s 2nd biggest energy generation business and target developer of renewable energy projects. He advised that SSER were the renewable energy division of SSE with several operational Hydro and Wind Farm projects in Argyll and Bute and others in development. He referred to maps showing the site of the proposed off shore wind farm which would be 7 miles from Orsay Island. Gordon Day explained the need for the onshore mast. He advised that it was required to measure the wind to build a picture of the wind regime and that the data collected would be used as a key input to various computer models. He advised that the information from these models would allow SSER to predict the future energy yield of the wind farm and accurately design a layout that would maximise the efficiency of the wind farm and minimise turbulent loads on the turbines. He advised that the Orsay mast would provide an initial picture of the local wind regime allowing SSER to make crucial early engineering decisions such as concept selection. He also explained why the location of the mast was important. He advised that certain criteria needed to be met to make a site suitable. He advised that the mast site needed to be as representative of the wind farm site as possible and considering the off shore location of the wind farm the mast site needed to be on the west coast of the Rhinns. He advised that the surrounding topography needed to be as flat as possible with few features that could adversely affect the correlation. He advised that this ruled out sites too far inshore, too close to complex terrain and on coastal cliff top sites. He advised that separation distances from buildings and forestry had to follow best practice guidelines and that the site should be accessible for the installation and maintenance teams. He also advised that sufficient flat ground was required at the site to lay the mast down prior to it being erected and that the site elevation should be as close to sea level as possible. He advised that it was important to maximise the ‘goodness of fit’ of the correlation between the off shore mast located at the wind farm site and the reference mast on shore at Orsay. He advised that from a technical point of view Orsay was the best site available as the site elevation was close to sea level, there was an open outlook in most directions and there was also no complex land features in the proximity of the proposed mast site. He referred to a map showing the topography of Islay and highlighted a number of sites which were looked at; 3 of which were suitable and 5 which were not. He referred to the mast technical details and advised that the mast measured wind speed at precise heights, wind direction, temperature and pressure. He advised that the mast component dimensions (booms, arms, instrument separation etc) had to meet IEC standards. He advised that mast sharing with communications masts was not possible as IEC standards would not be

met and data integrity would be compromised. Charley Rattan went on to explain the history of the site selection process that was undertaken during 2009 – 2011. He advised that coastal areas along the central Rhinns were considered ideal and that three locations were considered technically viable and that all three were considered to have equally high environmental risk. A preferred site was identified on the central Rhinns and the landowner was willing to sign a lease. However a planning application submitted in October 2011 was subsequently withdrawn in December 2011 due to objections from SNH and the RSPB and following conversations with the Council due to the potential impacts on protected sites and species. It was acknowledged that a greater emphasis on environmental constraints was required and SNH were identified as a key stakeholder in identifying suitable met mast locations. He advised that SSER liaised with SNH in January 2012 on suitable locations which included discussions regarding technical constraints for mast locations. The sharing of existing telecoms etc masts was discussed with SNH but was not possible due to technical constraints. He advised that it was challenging for SNH to identify met mast locations that avoided significant environmental and technical constraints. He advised that the southern area of the Rhinns was considered the least ecologically constrained and potential impacts were considered acceptable. He advised that three sites proposed were taken forward by SSER for greater technical and land owner assessment and Orsay Island was the only technically available site that the land owner was also willing to sign up to. He advised that this application was submitted to Argyll and Bute Council in October 2012 and responses to queries from the Council, the general public and statutory consultees were issued. He advised that at the request of Islay Community Council a photomontage was also created and issued. He advised that a site visit to the area was conducted with Officials from the Council and it was concluded that there were no suitable met mast locations that met all the required criteria apart from Orsay Island. He advised that public consultation events were held in Portnahaven and Port Wemyss. He advised that Planning have recommended approval for the met mast based on the evidence submitted by SSER. He advised that extensive consultation on the planning application had been undertaken and that there were no objections from SNH (subject to conditions), Historic Scotland, MOD (subject to conditions), Highland and Islands Airports (subject to conditions), Argyll and Bute Council Roads and Amenity Services, NATS or the RSPB (subject to conditions). He advised that SSER has confirmed acceptability of the consent conditions. He referred to concerns which had been raised by Islay Community Council and the general public and that SSER had provided a response to these queries and concerns which were detailed in the Planning report. Kirstanne McDowall circulated the photomontages of the met mast and spoke about the community engagement undertaken by SSER. She advised that SSER have carried out on going consultations and visited Islay every 3 months at the request of the Community Council over the past 18 months to update key stakeholders on the proposal and provide an opportunity for the local community to voice any concerns directly. She advised that a project website was created and has been regularly

updated with the latest information on the met mast proposal as it has progressed and that plans for the met mast application were advertised in the local press and were available to view in the Post Office at Portnahaven. She advised that SSER took on board a number of concerns and feedback by reducing the operational period of the met mast from 6 to 4 years, by reducing the mast height from 90 to 60 metres, by producing and continuing to display a publicly available photomontage as requested, and by holding an advertised information event in Portnahaven on 14 May 2013. She referred to socio-economic opportunities for the island in the long term including long term job creation, skills training opportunities, the use of local businesses where possible, growth in local and regional spend in hotels, restaurants, shops etc., and development of local infrastructure including ports and harbours. She advised that businesses could already register for opportunities with SSER in Argyll and Bute and that further opportunities would arise as the Islay project progressed. In summary, Charley Rattan advised that the onshore mast was required as reference for the off shore met mast. He referred to the Rhinns of Islay being heavily constrained and that specific requirements including technical, environmental, safety and land owner agreement required to be met and that Orsay Island met all these criteria. He advised that a detailed and lengthy site selection process had been undertaken in consultation with various stakeholders and that regular consultation with the community was undertaken and feedback received acted on. He advised that SSER were committed to Argyll and Bute and that the met mast and wider projects were expected to bring a number of socio-economic benefits to Islay and Argyll and Bute. Consultees Islay Community Council Glen Roberts had advised that objections to this met mast had been raised by the local community and had been brought to the attention of the Community Council. He advised that the Community Council were objecting as the local community were objecting. Objectors The Chair noted that the objectors to the application had a predetermined order to their presentations and this was acceded to. Alistair Redmond advised that he wished to point out a few inaccuracies with the Applicant’s presentation. He advised that he was not aware of any prior consultation and that the Community Council did not feel the community were adequately consulted. He advised that there were no official objections to the first application submitted by SSER. He advised that this was a clear cut decision for the elected Members and that this was not an anti-position of met masts speech or an anti-renewables speech. He advised that 130 people had signed a petition against this met mast and that the Community Council were also against it. He advised that Members had a duty to support the people of Argyll and Bute

and not the lobbyists of SSER. He advised that any jobs created would go to mainland specialists and that very few local people would be employed. He referred to the Applicant’s comments about an increase in trade to the Island but asked what about the loss to the tourist industry if this landscape was destroyed. He asked why the met mast was needed when information was available through the lighthouse from the Northern Lighthouse Board. He also referred to this hearing being held during working hours which prevented a lot of people who had wished to attend from being at this hearing. David Truitt read out a statement from Fiona Locke who was born and raised in Portnahaven. She advised that the paperwork from Planning acknowledged in detail the impact the met mast would have on the area but went on to recommend approval of it. She advised that it was stated that the wind farm was of national interest but that this overrided local concerns and was far from proven. She referred to the application being for a met mast which was the precursor for the wind farm. She acknowledged that there was a need to diversify energy needed but that the weight of wind in the energy mix did not make sense. She advised that wind energy was high unpredictable and expensive and she failed to see how this was of national interest and that there was too much of rush into wind power. She advised that applying the national interest ruled that any community view was worthless. She advised that this was a real test of principle for elected individuals and this was an opportunity to give power to the community. She asked Members not to be misled by the national interest argument. She referred to Orsay Island being the only place left for the met mast but advised that the mast could be sited off shore but the developers did not want to face the costs this would involve. She advised that this was their problem and not the community’s and that it was normal and acceptable to have a cost risk. She advised that the entire purpose of the mast was to collect wind data and that it would make more sense to locate it off shore where the wind farm was proposed. She advised that the community should not suffer because a commercial developer has chosen a cheaper option. Stuart Graham advised that he shared the objection to the erection of the mast on visual impact grounds. He advised that he had a further objection on the effect it would have on wildlife, particularly birds, not only in the area but also on those passing through. He advised that he was a member of the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). He advised that Orsay was very special, that it was very close to Portnahaven and Port Wemyss yet it was a remote spot and that not many people visited the island. He advised that the wildlife there were largely undisturbed. He advised that it was the westernmost part of Islay which was significant in terms of bird migration. He advised that Orsay was not only a SSSI but it was also a Special Protection Area (SPA) known as the Birds Directive. He advised that the purpose of these SPAs was to protect all wild birds, their nests, eggs and habitats within the European Community. It gave member states of the EU the power and responsibility to classify SPAs to protect birds which were rare or vulnerable in Europe as well as all migratory birds which were regular visitors. He advised that the SPA status was important. He referred to Saligo where the earlier mast site was proposed and advised that it was also within an SPA. He advised that SNH and the

RSPB were concerned about a mast being built there and had wanted an impact assessment to be carried out before agreeing to the construction. He advised that this along with a difficulty with land owners meant the application was withdrawn. He advised that he had contacted the RSPB and SNH to determine exactly why they responded to the Orsay application differently. He advised that both bodies agreed that there was a wide diversity of birds on or near Orsay but a key element of their thinking was that there were fewer geese around Orsay. It was stated that geese did have a track record of hitting wires and that the very endangered species Greenland White-Front did occasionally visit Orsay in the winter and that a large amount of resource and energy has been put into arresting their decline. At the very least, if permission was granted to erect the mast, it must have excellent deflectors on the support wires and that these would need checking at the end of each winter. He advised that having witnessed Whooper Swans flying from Portnahaven directly over Orsay he had raised the issue of migration with them and SNH admitted that they did not know the extent, particularly of night migration. He advised that the RSPB were concerned, but were even more worried about the proposed wind farm sited in a known sea migration route than a temporary mast. SNH also admitted that no one from their organisation had visited the site. The RSPB visited the island back in 2000/2001 when they completed a survey called Seabird 2000. He advised that he visited the island on two occasions in June 2009 and June 2010 as part of the BTO Atlas Survey 2007/2011 and advised the Committee of his findings. He advised that there were 23 species seen across the two visits. Of those 17 species were classed as Amber listed ie they were at risk. A further 2 species were red listed ie they were at even greater risk. He advised that the only confirmed red listed breeding bird was the Herring Gull which declined from 62 birds present in June 2009 to 55 in June 2010. He advised that in all there was confirmed breeding for a further 7 amber listed bird species. He advised that more than his concern about the impact on breeding birds was the effect this mast could have on migrating birds. He advised that many people would be aware that birds migrate and but many people would not be aware that a great deal of bird migration takes place at night. He advised of Orsay being described as a ‘separation point’ with some birds flying to the west of Ireland, some flying to Northern Ireland and others headed into Loch Indaal. He advised that weather was a major factor in bird movement, particularly wind speed and direction. He advised that the juxtaposition of the lighthouse and the mast was another problem. He advised that it was well known that on dark moonless nights, nocturnal migrating birds were attracted to light. He advised that thankfully less flew into the lantern these days but they can remain moth like, flying around the lighthouse. He advised that having a mast nearby would be hazardous. He advised that another problem was when the weather was very misty bird collision rates increased. He advised that it was known that Orsay has viable breeding colonies and that masses of migrating birds flew over it every Spring and Autumn. He advised that the sheer scale and range of the species was, however, not known and that it was crucial that an impact assessment be completed before approval was given to erect this mast. Beryl Jackson referred to the Planning recommendation that the regulations regarding this application should be ignored in the ‘national

interest’. She advised that National Interest was defined very clearly through National Indicators and that there were 45 indictors and that progress in their achievement or not was measured annually. She advised that there were 4 National Indictors that applied to this application. The first being increase renewable electricity production which supported this application and was helped by £133 million of government money, mainly in the form of grants to companies like SSE. She advised that achievement in this indicator was going up. She advised that the other three indicators did not support the application and that these were: (1) improve the condition of protected nature sites – she advised there was no extra funding associated with this indicator, that Orsay was an SSSI and an Area of Panoramic Quality and Specially Protected Area and that the achievement of this indicator was static; (2) improve the state of Scotland’s historic sites – she advised that there was no extra funding associated with this indicator and that the achievement of this indicator was static; and (3) increase the abundance of terrestrial breeding birds which included resident and migratory birds – again she advised that there was no extra funding associated with this indicator and that the achievement in this indictor was going down. She advised that arguably there was a 5th indicator – to improve people’s perception attitudes and awareness of Scotland’s reputation. She advised that the achievement of this indicator was static and that on the Measurement Index of how the world saw Scotland, that Scotland Tourism was rated the highest. She advised that at the information day SSER had admitted that cost was a major consideration in imposing this mast on Orsay, and that the alternatives were more expensive not that there were no alternatives. She advised that SSE would benefit from some of the £133 million pounds set aside by the Scottish Government to promote renewable energy and that it also made a profit in 2012/13 of £1.046 billion and aimed to pay its shareholders dividends of more than 2% over inflation. She advised that one Indictor should not benefit at the expense of another and that the community felt it was only reasonable for SSE to spend some its money on either conducting an Impact Assessment on Orsay or to come up with a more appropriate, if more expensive, alternative to one which would blight a highly vulnerable and protected site. David Truitt spoke to objections raised by Callum Torrie who was a native of Portnahaven. He advised that the bay in Portnahaven, the lighthouse and the island were the most photographed sites on the Islay and he referred to the number of visitors who came to take pictures of this area. He advised that the erection of the met mast at this site would reduce visitor numbers and would have a devastating effect on the economy of the island. He advised that 2 hotels, a shop and a filling station in Port Charlotte would suffer as well as a hotel and shop at Portnahaven. He advised that the elderly residents relied on these shops which relied on trade from visitors and that a reduction in visitors would have an effect on local residents. He advised that there was a need to keep the local shops, the hotel and stunning views for visitors and locals alike. John Trawber initially referred to the collection of data and advised that the proposed mast was to be located 16 km to the south of the off shore wind farm behind a large 30 m granite tower – the Orsay Lighthouse. He advised that at the 14 May 2013 presentation it was stated that

verification of the data would be by correlation to data collected from another smaller temporary mast installed off shore at the wind farm location. He stated that the data collected was extremely important. He went on to say that a recent survey had apparently shown that some existing European wind farms had insufficient spacing between the turbines, causing turbulence and loss of predicted turbine output. He referred to the report of handling which stated that the time period for data collection may be reduced to 4 years from 6 by the Applicant. He advised that he has been in the commercial industry for approximately 50 years and that he understood the importance of up front detailed planning and a correct technical specification. He also referred to the planning report where it stated that Ballanaby/Saligo or Machrins Bay had not been ruled out but would require further investigation and study and he advised that the objectors believed that the 2 year programme float mentioned previously would be better used to locate a more suitable site away from Orsay island. He asked surely it would be better to spend some more of the budget up front and have the data collected more accurately off shore at the actual location of the wind farm. He advised that it was thought that the location of the mast on Orsay should avoid sounding as if it was simply a method of cutting costs. He referred to the report stating that the location of the other two rejected sites could not be publicly disclosed and advised that this would seem to be an unacceptable response from the Planning Department and the Applicant to refuse to provide more detailed information about these sites. He advised that this was a small community and that they were not asking for the land owners who wished to remain anonymous to be identified but, as tax paying public, the objectors believed they should receive all the information and facts relating to the issues in the report. He advised that the island was relatively small with a degree of unemployment, including some families earning only the minimum wage. He advised that he was disappointed that the SSER presentation slide titled “socio-economic opportunities” implied that there may be opportunities for local employment. He advised that in presentations of this nature this type of information should be populated with approximate details of possible jobs and numbers of positions available so that people were not misled nor had their expectations unnecessarily raised. He advised that it was unfortunate that the Planning Department had identified in the report all the reasons and rules why the mast should not be located on Orsay but then to proceed to refer to ‘departures’ which would allow them to override their own controls. He advised that the objectors as a group here today and as a community concerned about the heritage and future of Islay and the Rhinns, and indeed their children’s heritage, plus visitors and tourists to Islay, asked that the Committee reconsider the location of this mast. Members’ Questions Councillor Trail asked if it would be possible to locate the mast off shore instead of on shore. Mr Day advised that construction of the mast off shore would require a significant amount of resources compared to that required for an on shore mast. Councillor Kinniburgh noted that an off shore mast would be constructed further down the line and asked why there was a need for 2 masts. Mr

Day advised that 2 sets of data would be collected from both masts. Initially this would be collected from the on shore mast and then the data would be correlated over a year with an off shore mast. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he had noted from Planning that the bird diverters would be spaced 4m apart on the guy lines but that the Applicants had referred to the diverters being spaced 5m apart and sought clarification on this. Mr Rattan advised that SSER would abide by the conditions imposed if Planning was granted. Councillor Currie referred to the application in respect of the other site which had been withdrawn because of objections by RSPB and SNH and asked why the national importance of renewables could not have overridden any objections to allow development to have gone ahead at that site. Mr Bain advised that potentially that could have happened but the risks would not have been known at that site without first undertaking significant survey work. He advised that site had European designations. Councillor Colville asked if the alternative sites had been technically suitable. He also referred to the sites which had been unable to be negotiated with the land owners and asked if this site had been the easiest site to go ahead with. Mr Rattan advised that this was neither the cheapest or easiest site to go ahead with. He advised that the wish of the land owners not to sign a lease had to be respected. Councillor Colville asked how SSER prioritised wildlife against depopulation of a community. Mr Rattan advised that it was important to take account of the positive elements of this development in terms of jobs against the adverse impact on the area which would be temporary for 4 years. Councillor Colville sought and received clarification that the mast would be 30 cm in diameter and would be made of aluminium and dark in colour. Councillor Blair advised if the decision to reduce the mast height from 90 to 60m and to reduce the term the mast would be erected from 6 to 4 years was taken as a result of the community event held in May 2013. Mr Rattan referred to the visits to Islay every 3 months over a period of 18 months and advised that it was during these visits that concerns were raised and feedback received that resulted in these changes being made. Councillor Blair asked SSER if they were a world leader in wind turbines. Mr Day advised that they were one of the biggest renewable energy generators. Councillor Blair asked, in terms of geography, was the experience SSER had on Islay different to other areas and he was advised that each site had different issues. Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received clarification on what Planners considered was a ‘minor departure’ as opposed to a ‘major departure’ from the Development Plan.

Councillor Currie sought and received clarification that the views of Orsay island were classed as public views rather than the private views of an individual or building and that this was therefore considered a material consideration. Councillor Colville noted that if consent was granted the Applicant would have 3 years to commence development and asked when SSER intended to commence with this development. Mr Rattan advised that as it was now September if planning permission was granted they planned to commence development in late Spring 2014. Councillor Taylor sought and received clarification on what National Planning Framework (NPF) 3 was. He also asked if planning permission was being recommended for the temporary erection of the mast for 6 years or 4 years and was advised that it was being recommended that the mast be erected for 4 years by way of condition. Councillor Colville asked that if permission was granted for this site and then the land owner of the other suitable site changed his mind about signing the lease, could an application, if submitted, for this other site be fast tracked. Mr Bain advised that if such an application came forward it could be possible to fast track. Summing Up Planning Richard Kerr advised that as with all planning applications, the Planning Act provided that determination should be made in accordance with the provisions of the approved Development Plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. He advised that it was therefore necessary in the first instance to consider the effect of the planning policies which pertained to this case and then to weigh in the balance other material considerations of relevance. He advised that there were four primary policy considerations to which regard should be had today. Firstly, the site was located within a ‘sensitive’ countryside designation which only supported small scale development in specific circumstances, none of which applied in this case. It did, he advised, however, provide that in special cases development with a locational need may be approved as an exception to the usual policy position provided that an Area Capacity Evaluation has been undertaken to demonstrate that the site selected was the most appropriate available, and that no sequentially preferable sites existed. Secondly, he advised that the site was located within an Area of Panoramic Quality which accords regional status to the scenic qualities of the landscape. Thirdly, he advised that the site was located adjacent to a Category A listed lighthouse, where it was necessary to have regard to the effect of development on the immediate setting of that building. Fourthly, he advised that the site was overlooked by the nearby Portnahaven and Port Wemyss conservation areas so it was necessary to have regard to the wider setting of those designations. He advised that it had been concluded that the development proposed would have a harmful impact upon the character and amenity of the site and its surroundings including the settings of the listed building and the

conservation areas and accordingly the proposal could not be regarded as being consistent with the Development Plan. Beyond that he advised that it was necessary to have regard to any other material considerations which weigh in decision making. He advised that the first of these was the Area Capacity Evaluation endorsed by Members at the last meeting. He advised that this confirmed the absence of any preferable sites on the island to that proposed. He advised that the second of these was the temporary nature of the development, although proposed for 6 years; ultimately the mast would be dismantled without any lasting effect on the landscape or the historic environment. The third of these, he advised, was the link between the development and a project given national status by the government in its current National Planning Framework. The fourth of these, he advised, was the locational need case advanced by the Applicants on the basis of their assertion that no technically feasible and available alternative sites existed. He advised that the remaining material considerations were the views expressed by consultees and members of the public with Islay Community Council and a significant number of residents having objected. Having regard to all of the foregoing, and, in particular having regard to the fact that the development did not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan, he advised that it was necessary for Members to consider whether on the basis of the recommendation, and what they had heard in the course of the hearing today, that they were persuaded that this was an exceptional case which warranted approval as a ‘minor departure’ to development plan policy, on the basis of its association with a national interest project, on the grounds of the locational need argument advanced by the Applicants. He advised that Planning’s recommendation was that a temporary planning permission ought to be granted for what was an essential element of an off shore renewable energy development of national importance for which no alterative available and technically feasible on shore location existed and that this constituted a locational need which outweighed the identified temporary adverse implications for landscape character and the historic environment. He advised that for that reason the grant of planning permission for 4 years subject also to the conditions in the report was recommended. In terms of the matters raised by objectors he asked Members to have regard to the following: - firstly that consideration must be confined to the merits of the application at hand, irrespective of the acceptability or otherwise of off shore wind power; secondly that it was a matter of record that the proposed on shore wind farm was a matter of national significance given the status it has been attributed by the government in its National Planning Framework; thirdly, in terms of ornithology, SNH was the statutory consultation body in this case and who have not raised objections subject to the usual requirement that bird diverters be fitted and maintained; fourthly, there was no compelling evidence to suggest that the visual impact of the development would be so significant as to deter tourists from continuing to visit Islay; and finally, he advised that the report did refer to one potentially suitable location on the Rhinns which had to be discounted as a result of the land owner not being prepared to make the land available. He advised that whilst planning have had sight of correspondence from the owner to that effect in order to be satisfied that this was indeed the case, it was inappropriate for Planning to disclose this location at it was the subject of confidential discussion which took place between the Applicant and the owner in

advance of the submission of the application, so that confidentially required to be respected. Applicant Charley Rattan advised that the proposed on shore mast would run in conjunction with an off shore mast 2 years down the line and that there was a need for these two masts to run concurrently for at least one year. He advised that this site was certainly not the cheapest option and that it was not a commercial decision to site the mast at this location, it was for technical reasons. He referred to the consultation event held in May in Portnahaven. He also referred to a request that SSER go back to the land owner of the other site and advised that he would be uncomfortable in doing that as SSER did not want to be seen to be pressuring people and that the decision of the land owner had to be respected. He urged Members not to forget the bigger picture. He referred to comments that there would be no jobs from a project of this nature and advised that there would be job opportunities for local people. He advised that SSER were committed to local companies wherever possible and that it would take about 5 years to get the early part of the project mobilised. He advised that the suggestion of a photomontage had been a good one. He advised that 4 operational years was what was required for this mast and the need to overlay this with the off shore mast. Consultees Glen Roberts advised that the Community Council represented the views of the local people and that they must go along with what the community wants and that was that no planning permission should be given. He advised that if the community don’t want it then the Community Council don’t want it. He advised that if the community feel it is not suitable for the island then it is not suitable. Objectors Alistair Redmond advised that this was an easy decision to make and that was to say no to this mast. David Truitt advised that if Fiona Locke was at the hearing she would say that Portnahaven was a unique place with its own character and that the attraction to the mast would not add to that. He advised that Callum Torrie would say that Portnahaven was a beautiful place to visit that and it should be kept that way for the people who live there now, for the tourists visiting and for future generations. Stuart Graham advised that SNH had not objected to the previous planning application, they had asked that an impact assessment be carried out which would have slowed the process down. He advised that an impact assessment was what he wanted for this site as the sheer mass of migratory birds was not known and that there was a need to assess the impact the mast would have on these birds. Beryl Jackson advised that this proposal was a major concern to her. She

referred to the European bird directive. She advised that the bird scarers would not be visible to migratory birds at night or on misty days. She advised that this was two tiny communities with no resources trying to challenge a huge and very wealthy company. She advised that this project would benefit the company but would not benefit the community. John Trawber asked that the position of the mast be reconsidered. He advised that there were other suitable sites that may take additional time and involve further costs but it was important to select a site that the community would support and that they did not support the location on Orsay. The Chair asked all those present to confirm that they had received a fair hearing and they all confirmed this to be the case. They did raised concerns about the understanding of the process and the acoustics of the hall which were noted. Debate Councillor Colville advised that coming to a conclusion had not been easy. He advised that in his experience when presented with a petition that he gave it a lot less weight than if 130 individual letters had been submitted. He advised that if people had taken the time to individually write then that would have carried a lot more weight. He advised that he was mindful that SSER had made every effort to find another site and that he was minded to approve this application which was only for four years and that he was not convinced that tourists would abandon the area because of the mast and that he would support the Planning recommendation. Councillor Trail advised that he would not normally approve a mast on an island which went against policies but there was a need to take account of guidance from the Scottish Government as they could overturn the Committee’s decision. He advised that he agreed with Councillor Colville that the application should be approved on a temporary basis. He advised that the community were grossly underestimating the beauty of the island of Islay if they thought this would turn tourists away. Councillor Blair advised that he had taken the community issues on board. He advised that as an elected Member of Argyll and Bute Council he was concerned about the whole of Argyll and Bute. He advised that looking at the temporary nature of the structure he was minded to go with the recommendation of planning. He advised that he was concerned about the economic future of Argyll and Bute and that there was a need to look at the wider economy of the area and that he did not think this would be as detrimental to the area as people thought. Councillor MacMillan advised that he had taken on board everything that had been said. He advised that the mast was only for 4 years and would be gone before anyone was aware of it. He advised that it was not a big pole and fully agreed with the Planners and supported their recommendation to approve.

Councillor Currie advised that this was an application for the erection of a 60m met mast for a temporary period of 6 years and that we were not talking about an off shore project and the jobs that would go with that. He advised that he had heard no evidence that Members should grant as a ‘minor departure’ from the development plan and that no case had been made that the mast had to be in that location. He advised that there could very well be many other sites on Islay that could be used for the site of the mast. He referred to the 6 years being only temporary but advised that 6 years was a long time away to a lot of people and that it would feel permanent to some rather than temporary. He advised that he was not surprised at SNH’s response to this and that it was not up to this Committee to find another site it was for SSER to do this. He advised that if the Committee said no to this application then SSER would need to have further discussions with other land owners and with SNH. He advised that to say no would not stop the off shore project in a few years time. He advised that the whole report prepared by Planning built up to a recommendation for refusal and that only at the point of the site visit with SSER did this recommendation change to an approval as SSER had stated they could not find another place. He advised that this one reason was not good enough and that a case had not been made to approve this application. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that like any planning hearing it was always difficult to come to a decision. He advised that he was not totally convinced by some of the information that had been put forward. He advised that he had been dismayed to come to the end of the report to find it was being recommended for approval as a ‘minor departure’. He advised that there were so many policies it went against. He advised that the Applicant had stated they would need 4 operational years and that he was not sure if that would fit with the recommendation of 4 years made by Planning. Councillor Taylor advised that he understood the community’s dismay when the report took everyone through the various steps as to why the application should be refused then the recommendation was to approve. He advised that it was of national interest to support off shore wind power. He advised that he would support the Planning Officer’s recommendation. Motion To agree to grant temporary planning permission for 4 years from the date of commission as a ‘minor departure’ to the Development Plan subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report. Moved by Councillor Taylor, seconded by Councillor Colville Amendment The proposed mast would be sited on the small and uninhabited Orsay island, some 350 metres off the coast of Port Wemyss and would be located adjacent to a Category A Listed lighthouse, a prominent and iconic landmark building for this part of Islay. The island location also provides the setting for the remains of St Oran’s Chapel, a Category B

Listed building and Scheduled Ancient Monument. Orsay island is an area of ‘sensitive countryside’ within an area of ‘undeveloped coast’ and is designated as an Area of Panoramic Landscape Quality (APQ). The proposed mast would be approximately 60 metres high, twice the height of the adjacent lighthouse building. The proposed development has generated a substantial amount of local opposition with objections from a significant number of the population of Port Wemyss/Portnahaven and further objection raised by Islay Community Council. The proposed development, by virtue of its height, design and prominence over a wide area, including its impact on the adjacent conservation area settlements of Port Wemyss and Portnahaven, would be materially harmful to the character and amenity of the site and surroundings, the importance of which is acknowledged by the designation of Orsay island as an area of ‘sensitive countryside’ within an Area of Panoramic Landscape Quality and an area of ‘Undeveloped Coast’. It is considered that the alien industrial design and siting of this proposed mast in such close and unbroken proximity to the listed lighthouse and at twice its height would, even for a temporary period, have a materially harmful impact upon its setting, character and cultural significance and would materially detract from the setting and amenity of the adjacent conservation area of Portnahaven/Port Wemyss. It is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan, in particular Structure Plan Policies STRAT DC 5, STRAT DC 8 and STRACT DC 9 and Local Plan Policies LP ENV 1, LP ENV 10, LP ENV 13a, LP ENV 14, LP ENV 19 and LP CST 2. It is considered that the Applicant has not put forward a credible site selection/evaluation process and sufficient justification to demonstrate an overriding locational/operational need for the chosen site and which, in the National Interest, would outweigh the materially harmful impact of the development upon the character and amenity of the area for a temporary period. Accordingly the planning application should be refused. Moved by Councillor Currie, seconded by Councillor Kinniburgh. The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 2 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision Agreed to grant temporary planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons:- 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details

specified on the application form dated 22nd October 2012, supporting

information and, the approved drawing reference numbers 1/5 – 5/5 unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 1 this permission shall cease no later than four years from the date on which the mast is first commissioned. The commissioning date shall be notified to the Planning Authority in writing within one month of the date of the commencement of the development. Within three months of the cessation of the permission the permitted structure shall be dismantled and the components removed from the site, which shall be restored in accordance with a reinstatement scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing in advance by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the permission and in order to protect the amenity of the locale.

3. Bird flight diverters (BFDs) shall be fitted to all of the proposed guy

wires at intervals of 3 metres for the first 20 metres from the ground and then at 5 metre intervals for the remaining height. The BFDs shall be fixed to the guy wires before the erection of the mast and thereafter maintained for its lifetime.

Reason: In order to reduce the potential for avian casualties.

4. All construction and maintenance works relating the installation of the

proposed mast shall be undertaken within the period 1st July – 31st October unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.

Reason: In order to reduce disturbance to breeding birds and pupping seals from activity associated with the installation of the mast and its subsequent maintenance.

5. A minimum intensity 25 candela omni-directional red warning light

shall be fitted to the highest practicable point of the structure before the mast is first erected and shall thereafter be maintained for the lifetime of the mast.

Reason: In the interests of air safety.

6. Development shall not commence until such time as the developer

has provided written notification of the development to UK DVOF & Powerlines at the Defence Geographic Centre. Such notification shall include details of: a. the precise location of the development; b. date of commencement of construction; c. date of completion of construction; d. the height above ground level of the tallest part of the structure; e. the maximum extension height of any construction equipment; and, f. details of the aviation warning lighting to be fitted to

the structure.

Reason: In the interest of air safety. (Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 30 May 2013, submitted)