COUNCILLORS have decided to carry out a site visit before determining the planning decision on a wind turbine application which received sixty letters of representation.

The application for full planning permission for erection of one wind turbine of 81 metres in height on land to the North East of Brigton Farm, Laurencekirk, was discussed by members of the Kincardine and Mearns area committee last week.

It was explained to councillors on the committee that the wind turbine was being applied for in order to be connected to the national grid to help sustain the applicant’s business.

They were also told that of the representations, 52 were in support of the proposal; for reasons including that the turbine would help address climate change, would reduce reliance on foreign resources of fuel/power and help secure Britain’s energy security.

Eight representations were against the proposal. This included an objection from Mearns Community Council.

The main reason for the objections was the visual impact on the landscape that the turbine would cause. Other reasons for objecting to the application included noise concerns, the impact on tourism and heritage of the area, preservation of the landscape, the fact that if approved the whole area of the Mearns will be open for turbine development and health concerns within 10km of turbines.

It was explained to the committee that the single turbine is very close to the proposed site of two smaller turbines, however this application could not be taken into account as it is yet to go through planning. The recommendation on the application was for a delegated grant.

One objector attended the meeting to discuss his concerns. Mr David Johnston, an artist who paints landscapes in the Mearns, urged members of the committee to refuse the application.

He said: “This is a case of the interest of local people being ignored by the Council to appease national energy aims, we need to remember that local democracy is an important part of planning.”

He also described how the language used in the report about the application shows that planners found it “difficult to find a reason to recommend” the plans. Mr Johnston argued the case passionately for refusing the turbine.

The applicant, Mr McWilliam, also made his case to the committee explaining his need for further income to allow his business to continue growing. He also defended the positioning of the wind turbine on his land, after it was pointed out that it was far away from any of the farm houses.

Mr McWilliam explained that the proposed site was the best for creating wind power and was next to a site which allows easy access to the national grid.

Following the presentations the members of the committee then discussed the application.

Provost Bill Howatson suggested a site visit to allow the committee to see where the turbine would be placed.

Councillor Mike Sullivan however had concerns about this. He said: “It will be extremely difficult to envisage something which is 81 metres high without some point of reference.

“This is going to save an awful lot of C02 emissions. This is a good project and I think it is not going to prove much of an intrusion.”

Councillor Sullivan then proposed that the committee agree to the recommendation for delegated grant, this was seconded by Councillor Graeme Clark. However this did not get the support needed to be approved Members agreed by a vote of 4 to 7 to go with Provost Howatson’s motion, which was to carry out a site visit.

Vandalism at the toilets on the beach front at Stonehaven was so bad last year that the Community COuncil had to close them a month early as the writing on the walls was so bad they “wouldn’t want families seeing it.”

The vandalism reached a point that it was happening every day to the toilet block which the Community Council took over the running of from Aberdeenshire Council. As well as graffiti on the walls in black marker pen, the person or persons responsible had been taking power tools into the toilets and drilling holes in the walls. On one occasion a step ladder was used to steal the lights from the free public facility. Whilst the incidents have been reported to the police, it was explained that there is very little the police can do unless those responsible are caught in the act. Members of the Community Council were told that a police officer could be standing outside the cubicle whilst someone vandalises the inside yet nothing could be done as they did not see the vandalism take place.

At Stonehaven and District Community Council’s meeting this week it was discussed whether the Council would continue to run the toilets and whether they could take on such “determined” vandals. Some Community Councillors felt they should try to continue to keep them open despite the fact that it cost over double the estimated £500 to keep them running last year. However other members of the Council felt it was not their responsibility to run the toilets and that they should be handed back to Aberdeenshire Council or put through asset transfer. However it was explained that the local authority would simply shut the toilets. Community Councillor David Fleming felt that they should come up with a way to keep the toilets open saying they should “not give in to the vandals.” A number of options including a security camera were discussed and will be further explored at the next meeting.

The chair of the Kincardine and Mearns area committee has claimed that there was no way to save the Heugh Hotel and that the committee was “forced” to grant the change of use application.

Councillor Paul Melling discussed the decision with members of Stonehaven and District Community Council at their meeting this week and explained his use of the casting vote which resulted in change of use being granted for the hotel.

He said: “I don’t think anybody particularly wanted to shut it as a hotel but we were forced as a committee.”

He explained that they had very little choice as to what to do, as if they did not agree with the officers recommendation they were legally left with no other options.

He continued: “We can quite clearly see the uncomfortable position we were in. We had a split committee and it was up to me to use my casting vote.

“I did feel that we didn’t have any other option as the report before us from the owner said it isn’t a viable place as a hotel and there wasn’t suitable income for them to run it as a hotel.

“We had to give them the opportunity for their future. As sad as it was we were not in a position to tell others to do this or to do that with their lives.”

Commmunity Councillor Allan Sutherland questioned the point of a vote if the committee had no options. He said: “Supposing the Councillors had voted against a change of use, are you saying that decision would have been overturned?”

Cllr Melling explained that he sought legal advice and that if the committee had refused change of use then there was nothing to guarantee that the owners of the Heugh couldn’t just abandon the hotel, leaving the building derelict.

He also explained that there was no policy to support refusing the application and so the decision would have been appealed and permission would have been granted anyway.

When lodging their objection to the plans for the Heugh Hotel the Community Council had used the policy from the emerging local plan of advertising businesses as going concerns for twelve months prior to change of use being granted as a reason for refusal. However it was explained to the council that this policy was not yet in force.

This caused Community Councillor Andrew Morton to accuse the Council of “cherry picking policies.” Cllr Melling assured them this is not the case and explained that until the new local plan is agreed that the policies in place are that of the current plan.

Councillor Mike Sullivan said: “We all deplore the fact that Stonehaven has lost another hotel, but in this case we have only lost six rooms. Is is sad but it is not catastrophic.”

Councillor Graham Clark explained that the vote had not been pointless. He said: “Yes we can change things. If we can’t change things there is no sense in having Councillors. Unfortunately in this situation it was a split vote and we lost it.”

A member of the public at the meeting then asked about how Cllr Melling cast his deciding vote, he asked how the decision was made if it was completely up to the chair or if he had to go with the “Status-quo.”

Cllr Melling explained that the final decision was purely his choice.

Finally what the Community Council did feel has come from the Heugh hotel situation is a clear indication that the policies have to be in place to allow them to reach a decision on planning applications. It was discussed that because of the nature of the Community Council they will always be too close to decisions as they will know the parties involved.

They said this was particularly relevant to the Heugh as they all know the owner and know the amount of hard work he has put into the hotel, and how much it has benefited Stonehaven over the years.