ywindythesecond
13-May-14, 22:48
You might have noticed an item in Org Latest News http://www.caithness-business.co.uk/article.php?id=4924 about this. It is actually a news release about a Highland Council meeting on Wednesday 14th May. The Council don't usually do News releases about Council meetings and there is no clue in the text to show why they did one.
Well one reason is that I sent the undernoted letter and Comment to every member of the Planning Development and Infrastructure Committee, and the other is that another person independently set a completely different one.
Must have hit a nerve.
Dear Member
PDI Committee Meeting on Wednesday 14 May 2014
Item 12. Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy in Caithness
On Wednesday 14th May Members are asked to:
i. note the initial conclusions and recommendations from a consultant’s draft report
ii. agree the next steps in finalising the report, to enable it to be published and have weight within the planning process; and
iii. note the intention that a further report will be brought to a future meeting of the Committee.
You are being asked to enable a report to be published and have weight within the planning process but the report is not available for you to read, and as far as I can see there will be no further opportunity for you to debate its content and merit.
The report has taken more than two years to reach this stage - it must therefore be very weighty indeed - and it demands democratic scrutiny.
The report was commissioned because of concern over the accumulating visual impact of windfarms in Caithness and the express wishes by Members for better guidance. At that time cumulative visual impact was to be avoided for fear of creating a windfarm landscape. Parts of Caithness are already windfarm landscapes and the report’s main thrust is in how to extend cumulative visual impact - where none exists, make some. Where some exists, maximise it.
This is not how democracy is supposed to work. I urge you to reject the report until it is fully available albeit as a draft for proper consideration.
There are a number of issues in the report I wish to draw to your attention. I have therefore attached a copy of the Committee report in which I have made a number of observations in red.
Yours sincerely
file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Stuart\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_image002.jpg
Stuart Young
OBSERVATIONS ON:
The Highland Council
Agenda Item
12
Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee
Report No
PDI 9/14
14 May 2014 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy in Caithness Report by Director of Development and Infrastructure
Summary
This report presents conclusions and recommendations from a draft Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy in Caithness, which has been produced for the Council. The assessment has been funded by Scottish Government grant, for which The Highland Council and Argyll & Bute Council submitted a joint bid. Landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts, are typically key considerations for wind energy proposals and Caithness has experienced considerable development pressure. The report presents the initial conclusions and recommendations to Committee. Members are asked to agree the next steps in finalising the report, to enable it to be published and have weight within the planning process.
Members are asked to agree the next steps, not to debate the merits of the report
1. Background
1.1 Members will recall that The Highland Council was successful, with Argyll & Bute Council, in bidding for Scottish Government funding to undertake cumulative landscape and visual assessment of wind energy developments in parts of the two Councils’ areas.
This was in response to concerns over the growing cumulative visual impact in Caithness and expressed wishes from members for clear guidance.
Land Use Consultants (LUC) were engaged to undertake the work. In Highland the bid was focussed on Caithness and on the Ardross (Easter Ross) area, both being areas which have experienced considerable development pressure. Work to date has been focussed mainly on Caithness in order to advance that sufficiently within the resource available. Officers have reviewed LUC’s draft material for Caithness and provided technical feedback to LUC, who have now produced a second draft for that area. This report presents the initial conclusions and recommendations contained in the latest version – see Appendix 1.
1.2 The consultant’s report is a technical study. It has been produced to inform our policy/guidance. In particular it will feed in to revision of the Onshore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance, which is currently in ‘Interim’ form as approved by Committee in March 2012. It provides evidence on which we can base our spatial steer
It does not provide evidence, it simply describes what you can see for yourself
– and assessment – of development proposals. In doing so it will help in the identification of further development potential, as well as development limitation.
1.3 This report asks members to agree the next steps in finalising the report, to enable it to be published and (whilst it is not in itself the policy or guidance of the Council) have weight as a consideration within the planning process.
2. LUC’s Draft Report – Initial Conclusions and Recommendations
2.1 LUC’s draft report provides broad guidance on how future development may be steered towards or away from certain areas, in order that the spread of cumulative effects is limited. The extract appended to the Committee report provides a brief overview of the assessment undertaken, a description of existing and potential cumulative patterns across the study area, identifies categories of cumulative effect and makes recommendations for areas where those categories are considered to apply. The four categories (which are explained in more detail within appendix 1) are:
Consider the definitions of the four categories
Areas where receptor sensitivity to potential cumulative effects is a limiting factor to further development;
either
a) too many voters live here or
b) we might get into trouble with Europe
Areas where additional development may give rise to the extension of cumulative effects in relation to existing and emerging development patterns;
This will extend the local area of windfarm development
Areas where additional development could be sited with reduced potential for cumulative effects in association with existing development patterns; and
This area is already awash with windfarms so a few more will be neither here nor there
Areas where cumulative effects could be limited by siting additional development in association with existing patterns of development.
This area hasn’t been spoiled yet so lets extend into it and create more unacceptable cumulative impact
Well one reason is that I sent the undernoted letter and Comment to every member of the Planning Development and Infrastructure Committee, and the other is that another person independently set a completely different one.
Must have hit a nerve.
Dear Member
PDI Committee Meeting on Wednesday 14 May 2014
Item 12. Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy in Caithness
On Wednesday 14th May Members are asked to:
i. note the initial conclusions and recommendations from a consultant’s draft report
ii. agree the next steps in finalising the report, to enable it to be published and have weight within the planning process; and
iii. note the intention that a further report will be brought to a future meeting of the Committee.
You are being asked to enable a report to be published and have weight within the planning process but the report is not available for you to read, and as far as I can see there will be no further opportunity for you to debate its content and merit.
The report has taken more than two years to reach this stage - it must therefore be very weighty indeed - and it demands democratic scrutiny.
The report was commissioned because of concern over the accumulating visual impact of windfarms in Caithness and the express wishes by Members for better guidance. At that time cumulative visual impact was to be avoided for fear of creating a windfarm landscape. Parts of Caithness are already windfarm landscapes and the report’s main thrust is in how to extend cumulative visual impact - where none exists, make some. Where some exists, maximise it.
This is not how democracy is supposed to work. I urge you to reject the report until it is fully available albeit as a draft for proper consideration.
There are a number of issues in the report I wish to draw to your attention. I have therefore attached a copy of the Committee report in which I have made a number of observations in red.
Yours sincerely
file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Stuart\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_image002.jpg
Stuart Young
OBSERVATIONS ON:
The Highland Council
Agenda Item
12
Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee
Report No
PDI 9/14
14 May 2014 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy in Caithness Report by Director of Development and Infrastructure
Summary
This report presents conclusions and recommendations from a draft Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy in Caithness, which has been produced for the Council. The assessment has been funded by Scottish Government grant, for which The Highland Council and Argyll & Bute Council submitted a joint bid. Landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts, are typically key considerations for wind energy proposals and Caithness has experienced considerable development pressure. The report presents the initial conclusions and recommendations to Committee. Members are asked to agree the next steps in finalising the report, to enable it to be published and have weight within the planning process.
Members are asked to agree the next steps, not to debate the merits of the report
1. Background
1.1 Members will recall that The Highland Council was successful, with Argyll & Bute Council, in bidding for Scottish Government funding to undertake cumulative landscape and visual assessment of wind energy developments in parts of the two Councils’ areas.
This was in response to concerns over the growing cumulative visual impact in Caithness and expressed wishes from members for clear guidance.
Land Use Consultants (LUC) were engaged to undertake the work. In Highland the bid was focussed on Caithness and on the Ardross (Easter Ross) area, both being areas which have experienced considerable development pressure. Work to date has been focussed mainly on Caithness in order to advance that sufficiently within the resource available. Officers have reviewed LUC’s draft material for Caithness and provided technical feedback to LUC, who have now produced a second draft for that area. This report presents the initial conclusions and recommendations contained in the latest version – see Appendix 1.
1.2 The consultant’s report is a technical study. It has been produced to inform our policy/guidance. In particular it will feed in to revision of the Onshore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance, which is currently in ‘Interim’ form as approved by Committee in March 2012. It provides evidence on which we can base our spatial steer
It does not provide evidence, it simply describes what you can see for yourself
– and assessment – of development proposals. In doing so it will help in the identification of further development potential, as well as development limitation.
1.3 This report asks members to agree the next steps in finalising the report, to enable it to be published and (whilst it is not in itself the policy or guidance of the Council) have weight as a consideration within the planning process.
2. LUC’s Draft Report – Initial Conclusions and Recommendations
2.1 LUC’s draft report provides broad guidance on how future development may be steered towards or away from certain areas, in order that the spread of cumulative effects is limited. The extract appended to the Committee report provides a brief overview of the assessment undertaken, a description of existing and potential cumulative patterns across the study area, identifies categories of cumulative effect and makes recommendations for areas where those categories are considered to apply. The four categories (which are explained in more detail within appendix 1) are:
Consider the definitions of the four categories
Areas where receptor sensitivity to potential cumulative effects is a limiting factor to further development;
either
a) too many voters live here or
b) we might get into trouble with Europe
Areas where additional development may give rise to the extension of cumulative effects in relation to existing and emerging development patterns;
This will extend the local area of windfarm development
Areas where additional development could be sited with reduced potential for cumulative effects in association with existing development patterns; and
This area is already awash with windfarms so a few more will be neither here nor there
Areas where cumulative effects could be limited by siting additional development in association with existing patterns of development.
This area hasn’t been spoiled yet so lets extend into it and create more unacceptable cumulative impact