Agenda item

Officers presented this report and made the following comments:

·         There was a lot to commend about this application but with a heavy heart officers were recommending refusal on the grounds of a potential risk to safety

·         Whilst the probability of this risk was very low, the consequences of such an event should it happen were extremely serious. Officers were not satisfied that appropriate mitigation measures were in place to deal with such a situation

·         Whilst a shorter turbine would be less viable, it was not deemed unviable

·         The application had been made by Ambition Energy who invested in community projects and who brought low energy bills to residents

·         Details of the site were outlined and a representation of how the site would look from different locations with the turbine in place was provided

·         In the long term, the intention was to create a Learning Centre in the long term

·         There were 69 expressions of support and 1 objection from Seabank Power Station on the grounds of safety

·         There was an extremely slim chance that if the turbine were to collapse it could damage one of the cooling towers and risk staff

·         Ambition Energy argue that the scheme is acceptable despite non-compliance with the NPPG. They argue that the financial damage would be lower than claimed

·         Members’ attention was drawn to the legal opinion of Sea Bank and the legal advice sought by Bristol City Council upon receipt of this advice, both of which had been circulated to Councillors in advance of the Committee

·         It was noted that, if the application was approved and its impact could be made acceptable, NPPF 2019 Paragraph 154 was relevant

·         Members’ attention was also drawn to Paragraph 008 of the NPPG Planning Practice Guidance that should be given appropriate weight as well as Paragraph 016 NPPG which indicated that safety risks can be mitigated through appropriate siting and consultation with affected bodies.

·         The applicants have indicated that the turbine cannot be lowered and as a result the mitigation had not been fully addressed and remained a concern

·         Officers were happy that conditions could be made for all other eventualities, including visual impact and flood risk

·         If approved, the application would contribute to meeting the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 included within the Climate Change Act 2008 and forming part of the Council’s Core Strategy

·         Officers considered that mitigation on the grounds of safety had not been full provided and that therefore the application should be refused on the grounds of safety

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

·         The applicant estimated the cost of damage to the tower at £4 Million, whilst Sea Bank estimated £15 Million

·         Ambition stated that the distance to the cooling tower was 130 Metres. Since the tip of the blade was 150 metres away, the distance was within the buffer zone and the damage assessment was carried out on the basis that the turbine could be carried by wind

·         The applicant’s technical assessment was that the assessed risk was a 1 in a 500,000 year event. Sea Bank had not challenged this assessment

·         Officers confirmed that the recommendation contained within the original report had changed in the amendment sheet following legal opinion due to the need to give proper weight to the NPPG and NPPF. There was a change of view of the weight that should be given to this view

·         Any decision to approve the application would still need to go to the Secretary of State as there was no Local Plan Policy for wind turbines

·         Whilst it was noted that there had been a last minute change in the recommendation, this was a similar situation to many other applications where circumstances changed on a fast-moving basis. Whilst this was not ideal, this was a complicated situation following the late receipt of legal advice and counsel’s opinion

·         If the small turbine had been proved to be not viable, this would require greater weight to have been given to the NPPG

·         The safety to the structure risk (1 in 500,000 years) was the reason for the change in weight, not the 1 in 100,000 year risk of safety to life. These figures had been made following a technical and risk assessment of a number of factors such as height, prevailing winds etc.

·         The turbine life span was 25 years before it was decommissioned

Councillors then made the following comments:

·         If the wind turbine was shut down during an event of extremely high winds (ie a severe hurricane), such an event would in all likelihood also directly affect all other structures in the area

·         Whilst the risk of such an event happening was extremely low, the estimated impact was extremely large. The Committee needed to take into account both legal opinions, the relevant National Policy Framework and Guidance together with the serious material issues raised by the objectors

·         500,000 years ago there was a tsunami in that region. The risk seemed reasonable in view of the positive impact of the development on the local community

·         This application deserved support. The Committee needed to take into account the thoroughness of the applicant and that this was an extremely unlikely event which in any case would probably destroy all structures in the area

·         The level of risk was acceptable

·         In view of the small risk, this application should be supported. The UK was the sixth biggest producer of wind turbines globally. The application was very thorough and should be commended

Councillor Mike Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Afzal Shah and upon being put to the vote it was

Resolved (unanimously) – that the application be approved for referral for a decision to the Secretary of State subject to the conditions set out in the amendment sheet.