BOROUGH OF POOLE – ECONOMY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 2 JUNE 2014
BOROUGH OF POOLE
ECONOMY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
2 JUNE 2014
The Meeting commenced at 2.00pm and concluded at 5:10pm
Present:
Councillor Clements (Chairman)
Councillor Mrs Butt (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors J Clements, Howell, Le Poidevin (Substitute for Councillor Mrs Slade), Parker, Pawlowski (until 4.55pm), Mrs Stribleyand Trent (Substitute for Councillor Brooke)
Also Present:
Councillors Brown, Chandler, Mrs Dion, Portfolio Holder for Prosperous and Sustainable Poole, Eades, Parkinson and Mrs Slade
Also in attendance:
Steve Dring, Senior Planning Officer
Rebecca Landman, Planning Officer
Graham Richardson, Head of Tourism
Stephen Thorne, Head of Planning and Regeneration Services
Adene West-Webbe, Communications Officer
Members of the public present: 65 (Approx.)
EOS07.14APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brooke and Mrs Slade.
EOS08.14DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST
There were no disclosable pecuniary interests declared.
Other Non Statutory Interests Members wished to be recorded
Councillors Clements, Howell and Parker each declared an interest in respect of Agenda Item 3 as the Council’s appointed representatives on the Poole Tourism Management Board.
EOS09.14NAVITUS BAY PLANNING PROPOSALS
The Chairman outlined the procedure for the Meeting and welcomed those present before introducing the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services to set out the context of the Planning Proposals and explained the Council’s role as a statutory consultee. The Officer introduced the Report and stressed that the case for offshore renewables was as set out in the National Policy Statement for Energy with provisions for determination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects as enacted through the Planning Act 2008. The Officer also emphasised the purpose of the Meeting as being to formulate, finalise and recommend to Council, the submission to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS)of the Council’s response to the Environmental Statement submitted by Navitus Bay Development Limited (NBDL) of 8 May 2014. The deadline for the Council to submit its response was stated to be 23 June 2014. It was explained that a draft response, as set out in Appendix C, had been prepared by Officers. The Committee was also provided with an assessment of the adequacy of the mitigation measures included in the final Environmental Statement issued by NBDL, with particular regard to those issues raised and submitted by the Council in September 2013 together with any additional issues that had been identified, as set out at Appendix A. This process was informed by the advice that the Council had commissioned from its appointed Environmental expert, as set out at Appendix B. The Officer stressed that individual Members could register their interest separately and make comments.
The Chairman stated that he would encourage both Members and the public to register individually, before the expiry of 28 day deadline set by PINS and to submit comments accordingly.
The Senior Planning Officer outlined the process undertaken since the first draft of the NBDL’s Environment Statement in September 2013 and their draft Supporting Statement. The Officer explained that the Planning Application now submitted had been accepted by PINS and the process was at the Pre-Examination Stage. The Council was required as a statutory consultee to submit relevant representations of issues applicable to the Borough of Poole. Later in the examination process, PINS would publish its matters for discussion and at that stage the Council could provide a much more detailed response in the form of a ‘local impact report’.
The Officer provided a summary of the changes made by NBDL in response to representations made to its draft Environment Statement which formed part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). These were given as:
- A reduction in the numbers of proposed wind turbines from 218 to 194.
- Re-positioning the boundary of the proposed area by 1km (0.6 miles) further away from Poole’s coastline
- The wind turbine blades to be painted light grey instead of white
- The wind turbines to be positioned in straight lines along the north-westerly side to reduce the visual impact from the shore line.
The Officer referred to each of the issues included in the representations made in September 2013 highlighting the following issues that remained unresolved:
- Visualisations
As best practice, NBDL have used 2006 Highlands Council Guidance for wind energy developments. At the draft EIA stage the Highlands Council was updating their guidance. The Council requested NBDL to produce 70-75mm lens pictures from viewpoints in Poole in line with the emerging guidance. NBDL have not done this in Poole. Some extracts from the EIA, were as set out in the Appendix A, detailing NBDL’s views on the significance of the impact i.e. NBDL have concluded in the EIA that views from Poole will not be significant.
As there is still a lot of uncertainty locally as to how the Wind Park will look and without photomontages taken using the latest best practice, Officers reported being unable to determine if there would be a harmful effect to residents, visitors and businesses in Poole.
Consequently it is thought appropriate to raise this again as an issue.
- Offshore Ornithology
At the draft EIA stage the Council raised concerns on the impact upon migrant birds. NBDL have made the following changes:
Mitigation
-Reduced number of turbines to 194 to reduce bird collisions
-Blade tips will be at least 22 metres above sea level minimising bird strikes from low flying birds
-Flashing light on each turbine will reduce attraction to birds.
As the Council does not have the expertise to assess if this mitigation will be effective, it is suggested that PINS look at this issue further.
- Physical Processes
At the draft EIA stage the Council raised concerns overthe impact on the coastline and processes. NBDL have made the following changes:
Mitigation
-A different anchoring systems to minimise sediment disturbance and burial of cabling has been proposed.
There remains concerns about the movement of sediment and Officers reported being uncertain about the need for future beach replenishment, which could have a direct financial impact to the Council. It is proposed that PINS to look at this issue further.
- Marine Mammals
At the draft EIA stage the Council raised concerns overimpact upon mammals. NBDL have made the following changes:
Mitigation
-Less turbines
-Less monopile turbines
-Reduction in sound from piling with soft start procedures
-Best practice to minimise pollution
-Development of a Marine Mammal Protocol and a Project Environmental Management Plan
As the Council does not have the expertise to assess if this mitigation will be effective, it is suggested that PINS look at this issue further.
- Offshore Socio-economic
At draft EIA stage the Council asked that should the development go ahead it would like more benefits to the local economy in particular jobs, local businesses and the infrastructure for the sea front. If the proposals go ahead there were potential benefits to the economy, if Poole was chosen as the Port for the operations maintenance and servicing base.
It is proposed to request PINS to consider that any benefits to the local economy be measured against the negative tourism impacts.
- Tourism
At draft EIA stage the Council raised concerns about impact on tourism suggesting that mitigation measures include the provision of a Visitor Centre and appropriate marketing.
In consultation with the Council’s Tourism Manager it is proposed that the Relevant Representation entitled Tourism be submitted in the following terms:
‘The Council would wish to raise concerns in relation to the magnitude of significance afforded to the potential negative impacts on tourism during both the construction phase and the operational and maintenance phase. The projections put forward by NBDL on potential impacts suggest ‘not significant’ and the Council request PINS to scrutinise this determination as impact of this order would be significant. The Council also requests PINS to scrutinise the mitigation proposal put forward to ensure its adequacy to offset the potential impacts’.
The Senior Planning Officer raised a new item that the Council hadn’t included in its response to the draft EIA in September 2013:
7.Macro Climatic Impacts
This item has been identified by the Council’s environmental consultant. The Council would wish the Examining Authority to seek clarification of the carbon savings from the generation of renewable energy and how these are offset against the carbon costs during the whole life-cycle of the Project.
The Chairman invited the following Speakers to make representations in the order in which they were registered. A summary of the points raised:
David Darling/Brian Finch, Friends of Harbour Reach - Objector
-A supporting DVD was presented during the representations.
-The issue was not about wind farms but the choice of where to build them.
-Each of the 194 wind turbines was 1.5 times as high as the Isle of Wight.
-The Region is exceptional and is of value both locally and nationally and should be protected.
-There is sufficient wind power nationally for other proposals with the lowest negative impacts.
-The cable requires a working area 22 miles long and 40m wide, equivalent to an 8 lane motorway, causing inevitable damage to trees across
8 protected areas, including an area within the New Forest National Park.
-The area derives its wealth from tourism and a tiny decline would completely negate any economic gains. None of the offshore wind farms sited in the North Sea have such an impact.
-The highest level of environmental protection was afforded to the region including designations such as; RAMSAR, SSSI, National Nature Reserve, and hosts England’s only natural World Heritage Site.
-UNESCO wrote to the Government in May 2014 registering concern at any potential impact of the Project in particular the domination of man-made structures in a mainly natural setting.
-The Wind Farm would be visible from all four areas of scientific interest, being less than 9 miles from the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
-The Region is regarded to be important for marine wildlife and the areas around the Project protected.
-The marine environment would be directly affected by construction activity with 5 million square metres of seabed affected and 0.5 million tons of rock imported.
-The disturbance and injury to sea birds will be caused by the turbine speeds of 200mph as the site is on migration routes.
-The Wind Farm will create a serious noise nuisance as sound travels over water and is not absorbed by the air.
-The Royal Yachting Association stated in 2009 that it could not see any part of the Development being developed safely and that it poses a risk to Search and Rescue Agencies, limiting the use of helicopters and increasing the likelihood of collision by small craft and from vessels unable to spot the red navigation lights.
DrMartin Price, East Dorset Friends of the Earth - Supporter
-The proposals accord with the Borough of Poole’s strategic objective.
-The development would lead to an increase in jobs.
-It will help provide security in terms of future energy supply.
-The development would help the Government reach its carbon reduction target.
-The Wind Park would not be visible from Poole’s beaches.
-There is an environment cost in not pursuing the development.
-The environmental impact is a better alternative to possible options of fracking for shell gas or nuclear.
-The costs are outweighed by the benefits.
Roy Pointer, Poole and Christchurch Bay Association - Objector
-The proposals are regarded to be; Too big, too close and in the wrong location.
-The Council’s concerns were strongly supported in terms of:
i)Visual impact
ii) Impact on Birds
iii) Physical processes
iv) Marine mammals
v) Tourism
vi) Carbon ‘cost benefit balance analysis’.
-Suggested addition concerns include:
Loss of UNESCO World Heritage Status
Noise issues
Shipping dangers
Impact on the Alderney Gannet that migrates through area of proposed wind park.
May not be economic benefits to Poole as Portsmouth is better suited to the operations base as it could also service another wind farm east of the Isle of Wight.
-Why take the risk?
John Sprackling, Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents' Association - Objector
-Visualisation of the proposals should be provided using the headlands of Purbeck and the Isle of Wight to illustrate the scale of the wind turbines
-The proposed height of the blades is 1.6 times taller than Salisbury Cathedral’s spire.
-Dorset employs an estimated 40,295 jobs within the tourism sector and any drop in visitor numbers would have a detrimental effect.
-Navitus Bay Development Limited’s own figures suggest a 20% drop in the number of visitors during the four year construction phase and14% thereafter.
Terry Stewart, Dorset Campaign to Protect Rural England - Objector
-Concern was expressed at the visual impact.
-Reference was made to UNESCO’s comments on the potential impact upon the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and the scale of the Project being in contradiction to the overarching principles of the World Heritage Convention.
-In delivering the electricity to the National Grid significant loss of trees, crossing 3 SSSI sites, the Avon and MoorsRivers, 2 streams, 13 roads (including the A31 and A338 and 7 footpaths, it will damage the environment, wildlife and recreation.
-It was questioned why £M’s of Green Subsidies should be provided from English household electricity bills to the Developers EDF, who are 50% French state owned and with the other 50% owned by up to 42 Dutch Local Authorities.
-The Developers will be paid 3 x greater for the electricity generated compared to a supply from a standard gas powered Power Station.
-Offshore wind parks are more expensive that on shore wind parks
-The Government’s Chief Climate Advisor has reportedly stated that Britain has approved enough wind turbines to meet the legally binding climate change targets for renewable energy by 2020.
-There is no requirement to build any more wind farms offshore as government targets have already been met.
Tony Hamilton, Agenda 21 – Supporter
-Reference was made to the comments by Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General’s comments regarding the threat of climate change.
-Asked for the report to include positive comments as well as negative comments as Poole should be doing the most it can for its residents.
-The Environment Impact Statement should be viewed in the context of providing a solution for the benefit of future generations.
-The Council should issue a positive statement in support of the proposed development.
-The ‘NIMBY’s’ are influenced by inaccurate and misleading information.
-The production of renewable energy should be supported.
-Claims that the Development would be noisy and detrimental for migrating birds should be disregarded.
-The Wind Park should not be regarded as an industrial site but as providing simple graceful structures.
-Visual impressions are misrepresented by those not in support.
-Agenda 21 supported the wind turbine planning application East Stoke, nearWareham and were pleased that South East Dorset is able to contribute to renewable energy for the Nation.
-Support for sustainable energy sources should be provided.
Martin Rodger - Supporter
-Visual impact is dependent upon visibility due to prevailing weather conditions and the limitations of human eyesight.
-The apparent height of the wind turbines is often exaggerated by those opposed to such offshore developments but is irrelevant, given the slender nature of the blades as objects viewed from a distance.
-With the best eyesight, in good light conditions and with perfect contrast, the visual impact would be to just make out a line of one arc-second wide.
-Outer blades viewed from a distance of 20km would not be invisible edge on.
-Analysis of data provided by the Met Office states that at a distance of 21km object would be invisible 60% of the time.
-Excellent visibility conditions occur on average only 80 minutes in any
24 hour period, including the hours of darkness.
-The Princess Amalia Wind Park off the Dutch coast is situated 12 nautical miles from shore and apparently has no visual impact.
-Opposition to wind Parks, when constructed, often fades away.
D Hedgeman, Brownsea Island Ferries Ltd (formerly Harvey’s Boats) - Objector
-The experience off the West Coast of USA was to drive away visitors from the Big Sur area.
-Wind turbines are being replaced by solar energy in the Californian region of the USA.
-The jobs of those 14-20 staff employed currently by the Brownsea Island Ferries Ltd would be placed in jeopardy.
Susan Chapman, Agenda 21 - Supporter
-Climate change was man-made.
-The documents produced from Poole were full of the wrong kind of fear as the fear should be of the ecological tsunami thundering towards humanity, while we play with the pebbles on the beach.