Item No 6 (a)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

13 JUNE 2011

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 04/02501/FUL

OFFICER: Mr C Miller WARD: Selkirkshire PROPOSAL: Wind Farm comprising eight wind turbines, wind monitoring mast, connection building, site access roads, drainage infrastructure, borrow pit and temporary site compound SITE: Land at Broadmeadows Farm, Selkirk APPLICANT: GreenPower (Broadmeadows) Ltd AGENT: None

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site lies west of Selkirk and immediately north of the settlements of Broadmeadows and Yarrowford, comprising part of Broadmeadows Farm. In the initial application submitted in 2004, the site comprised of 390 hectares of upland sheep grazing with some conifer plantations. However, the site area has now been reduced by one third as a result of the 2010 amendment.

The area containing the turbine envelope consists of the western flank of Broomy Law which rises to 463m above sea level and the side of Thorny Cleuch. Broomy Law is exceeded in height by several summits to the west including Brown Knowe, Hare Law and Wanders Knowe. The hills to the east towards the Yarrow and Tweed Valleys are lower although the Three Brethren is the same height as Broomy Law.

The remainder of the site consists of rolling farmland down to the Yarrow Valley and is shaped by the valleys of several burns including the Gruntly and Old Broadmeadows Burns. The site includes several plantations on the lower slopes of Broomy Law as the access heads down via existing farm tracks then onto new works through Yarrowford to the A708 public road junction.

The site was reduced in 2010 as a result of the amendment scheme, restricting the western boundary to exclude the southerly ridges of Whitehope and Hangingshaw Rigs. The turbine envelope area was reduced by one hectare.

The nearest dwellinghouses to the site are located at the Broadmeadows Farm complex (including the owner’s house and Heath Cottage) and Hangingshaw to the south. Williamhope to the north of Broomy Law also contains residential property. Apart from farm tracks within the site, there are also a number of recreational walking/riding routes including the Southern Upland Way (SUW), which passes east to west outwith but close to the northern edge of the site. The Minch Moor Road lies outwith to the southern edge of the site.

The site lies outwith any statutorily designated landscapes, designed historic gardens or Conservation Areas although it lies approximately 500m from the western edge of

Planning & Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 6 (a) the Eildon Hills/Bowhill Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and about 8km from the Upper Tweeddale AGLV, both of which contain smaller National Scenic Areas (NSA) within their boundaries. It also lies close to Hangingshaw/Bowhill Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes (HGDL) and Newark Castle/Wallace’s Trench Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development has changed during the processing of this application. The original submission proposed the erection of 13 turbines giving a total output of up to 36MW. The turbines were originally located partly within the current reduced site south of Broomy Law but there were also seven turbines to the west of the current site boundary on the ridges of Whitehope Rig and Hangingshaw Rig.

The location and number of turbines were altered in 2010 resulting in eight turbines being proposed in a more concentrated area between Broomy Law and Thorny Cleuch. Comparisons between the two schemes show that six of the turbines have moved only slightly whereas the two turbines at Thorny Cleuch are new and replaced the seven turbines which were originally sited on two ridges further west. The current scheme would still produce up to 20MW of electricity and the turbines would be 70m high to the hub with a blade diameter of 84m, reaching 112m from base to blade tip. In comparison, the recently refused scheme at Minch Moor proposed turbines of 100m height. They would be of modern steel and three-bladed rotor design, positioned on steel ring and concrete raft foundations with hardstandings. Each turbine base will require 350 cubic metres of concrete and measure 25 by 60m.

The proposals also involve a connection building between the site and the proposed electricity route which will feed power out from the wind farm to the Yair Sub-station 10km to the east. Some tree felling will be necessary to achieve this. The connection building will be 5.3m high by 18.5m long with colours and materials still to be agreed .The electricity route to the Yair sub-station will be the subject of a separate Section 37 application to the Scottish Government. The applicant states that Scottish Power would be responsible for the route although it would be buried “where practicable” and certainly within the application site.

There will also be a temporary site compound to the south of the turbine envelope adjoining Moon Plantation and a borrow pit with stone crushing facility immediately to the west. All stone needed for construction and access tracks is intended to be provided from this borrow pit. The 2010 amendment removed the on-site concrete batching plant from the proposals. The compound will measure 70 x 50m comprising of 500mm of granular material and hardcore and containing an accommodation building, fuel/water storage, generator, secure storage areas and car parking.

A new anemometer is now proposed to the southern edge of the turbine envelope. Planning permission has just been granted for the retention of the existing anemometer for a further two years.

The access is proposed from a single point on the A708 between Broadmeadows and Yarrowford, involving creation of a 2.5 by 120m visibility splay to avoid undue tree loss. The current proposal clarifies the fact that there will only be one site access though the previous submission had suggested a possible second access to the west at Lewenshope. The route for construction traffic will be from the A68, A6091, A7, B7014, A707 and finally onto the A708. Swept path analyses are still required to ascertain what accommodation works along these routes will be necessary and this could involve bridge parapet removal and tree canopy reduction. A Traffic

Planning & Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 6 (a)

Management Plan would be agreed with the Council to cover these details as well as timings, advance signage and other mitigation

Within the site, there would be 6km of new site roads compared to 9.6km under the previous larger proposals. The access will be a new construction from the A708 and will rise through a deep cutting as it heads north from Yarrowford and to the west of Broadmeadows Farm. The access will then turn to the east and north alongside the Old Broadmeadows Burn before turning towards the turbines themselves. The access road will be similar to forestry track construction but wider at 5m with drainage/cable trenches. The margins of the access roads will be reinstated and re- seeded. There will also be major site drainage works in association with the construction of the development, including upslope drainage ditches, infiltration swales, two attenuation ponds (feeding into the Gruntly and Old Broadmeadows Burns), wetlands and a limited number of discharge points.

Planning permission is sought for an operational life of 25 years after which time the facility will be decommissioned and the site restored to the satisfaction of the Council.

PLANNING HISTORY

Two wind monitoring masts have already been approved in association with this wind farm development and location. One mast was approved near to the Broomy Law summit in 2002. After two renewals in 2006 and 2008, the latter granted consent until 2013. A second mast was approved north of Whitehope Rig in 2009 and this has just received renewal for a further two year period.

In considering the impacts of this development, particularly on the landscape, Members should also be aware of cumulative impact. In this regard, the Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (CLVIA) submitted by the developers identifies, amongst other developments, the Minch Moor wind farm scheme which lay in very close proximity to the Broadmeadows site. Although the distance has now been increased as a result of the Broadmeadows amendment, the nearest turbine would have been sited just over 3.5km east of Turbine 12 in the Minch Moor scheme.

Members may now be aware that the Minch Moor scheme has been determined and refused on appeal to the Scottish Government. Whilst a refused scheme (after appeal) should hold little weight in terms of assessment on cumulative impact, the proximity of the scheme and the issues identified by the Reporter leading to the refusal should be given significant weight in analysing and assessing the Broadmeadows application against National and Local Policy.

The Minch Moor application for twelve turbines of slightly lesser height was refused by the Committee in August 2010 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is contrary to Policies I19, I20, and N9 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018 and Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Adopted 2009 in that:

x The proposal will be located on the fringe of, and have a significantly detrimental influence on, sensitive landscape types as defined in the Borders Landscape Assessment 1995 which are of an inappropriate scale and character to accommodate the proposals successfully, due to the smaller scale nature of the landscapes, the height of the turbines compared to the height of the hills and the relatively narrow width of the

Planning & Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 6 (a)

ranges of hills between the valleys providing insufficient landform screening from sensitive receptors.

x The proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the area, including the hills between the Tweed and Yarrow Valleys, the valley landscapes themselves, the landscape designations and the surrounding countryside which is of high scenic value and contains nationally listed and locally proposed designed landscapes and gardens.

x The turbines will have a significant detrimental visual impact on the area as a result of skyline and blade overtipping impacts on high sensitivity road, recreational and landscape receptors, exacerbated by the impacts of widespread forestry clearance and required aviation lighting.

x The proposal will cause significant and unacceptable visual cumulative impacts when considered with schemes approved or proposed, including coincident and sequential impacts from roads and paths in the area, especially the Southern Upland Way.

2. The proposed development is contrary to Policies N14 and N15 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 –2018 and Policy BE2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Adopted 2008 in that it would result in significant adverse impacts on the setting of Scheduled Monuments and insufficient information has been supplied to properly determine the impact of the development on the archaeological interests at the site.

The Reporter then considered a subsequent appeal and upheld the Council’s decision, dismissing the appeal in April this year on adverse landscape and visual effects contravening Development Plan Policies and outweighing national policy support for onshore wind energy development. The main adverse effects he identified were: x Impacts on the quality of the landscape at the Minch Moor summit and views southwards x Effects on the Upper Tweeddale AGLV. x Effects on the Southern Upland Way. x Views from Broomy Law. x Views from The Three Brethren. x Views from the Duchess’s Drive.

These effects were sufficient to justify refusal of the application although impacts from public roads such as the A72 and B7062 were also noted and added weight to the refusal.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Environmental Statement (ES) 2004 – incorporating a Non-Technical Summary, the ES Main Report, Figures, Appendices and a Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (CLVIA) Design Statement 2004 Needs and Benefits 2004 – updated 2010 ES Erratum - 2005

Planning & Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 6 (a)

Supplementary Environmental Information 2009, containing three volumes – a revised CLVIA, Hydrological Impact Assessment and response to issues raised by Historic Scotland with photomontages.

Amended ES 2010 – incorporating a Non-Technical Summary, the ES Main Report, Figures, Appendices, a Planning Statement and a Geotechnical/Hydrological Report.

Additional Ecological and Nature Conservation Surveys/Reports – some not available for viewing online as they relate to European Protected Species.

Various letters and submissions from the applicant to respond to concerns raised by the Council, consultees and public. The most recent and significant of these including the submissions dated – x 2 November 2009 identifying the steps being taken to overcome the issues relating to cultural heritage, the Appropriate Assessment and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) comments on landscape and visual impacts. x 23 December 2009 responding to comments from the Council’s Landscape Architect, Ecology Officer, SNH, SEPA, Cultural Heritage issues, flood risk, electricity, access, quarrying and electro-magnetic interference. There is also comment on specific third party representations including safety in relation to horse riders/general public, flood risk, ornithology, cumulative impact etc. x 3 August 2010 introducing the revised submission and identifying the major changes to the scheme and reasons for them. x 1 March 2011 responding to points made by the Council’s Engineers regarding the Appropriate Assessment and stability of slope in relation to access works. x 16 March 2011 responding to the objections from the Council’s Landscape Architect in relation to special landscape designations, cumulative impact, access works and industrial character of the turbines. x 29 April 2011 relating to the perceived delay in determining the application.

All the aforementioned supporting information is available for viewing in full on the Council’s Public Access web site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan – The New Way Forward 2001-2018

PRINCIPLE S1 - Environmental Impact POLICY N1 - Local Biodiversity Action Plan POLICY N2 - International sites POLICY N3 - National Sites POLICY N5 – Local Biodiversity Action POLICY N6 - Environmental Impact POLICY N7 - Protection of Nature Conservation Interest POLICY N8 - River Tweed System POLICY N9 - Maintaining Landscape Character POLICY N13 - Gardens and Designed Landscapes POLICY N14 - National Archaeological Sites

Planning & Building Standards Committee 5 Item No 6 (a)

POLICY N15 - Regional and Local Archaeological Sites POLICY N16 - Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording POLICY N17 - Listed Buildings POLICY N20 – Design POLICY E16 – Rural Economic Development POLICY E22 - Protection of the Tourist Industry POLICY C8 - Access Network POLICY I5 - Cycling POLICY I13 - Water Quality POLICY I14 - Surface Water POLICY I19 - Renewable Energy POLICY I20 - Wind Energy Developments

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan: Adopted February 2011:

PRINCIPLE 1 – Sustainability POLICY G1 - Quality Standards for New Development POLICY BE1 - Listed Buildings POLICY BE2 - Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments POLICY BE3 - Gardens and Designed Landscapes POLICY NE1 - International Nature Conservation Sites POLICY NE2 - National Nature Conservation Sites POLICY NE3 - Local Biodiversity POLICY NE4 - Trees Woodlands and Hedgerows POLICY NE5 - Development affecting the Water Environment POLICY EP1 - National Scenic Areas POLICY EP2 - Areas of Great Landscape Value POLICY D4 – Renewable Energy POLICY H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity POLICY INF2 - Protection of Access Routes POLICY INF6 - Sustainable Urban Drainage POLICY D1 – Business, Tourism and Leisure Developments in the Countryside

Other Planning Considerations

A Planning Framework for Wind Energy Developments: Policy Guidelines 1995 – now superseded by Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy - approved May 2011 The Borders Landscape Assessment 1998. Visibility Mapping for Windfarm Developments – The Scottish Borders October 2003. Landscape and Development SPG (approved March 2008) Local Biodiversity Action Plan (launched June 2001) Renewable energy SPG (approved March 2007)

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) (Scotland) 1999 Scottish Planning Policy National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 National Planning Policy Guideline 5: Archaeology and Planning1994. National Planning Policy Guideline 6: Renewable Energy Developments (Revised 2000) National Planning Policy Guideline 18: Planning and the Historic Environment 1999. Planning Advice Note 42: Archaeology – the Planning Process and Scheduled Ancient Monuments 1994. Planning Advice Note 45: Renewable Energy Technologies 2002.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (a)

Planning Advice Note 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation 2006. Planning Advice Note 56: Planning and Noise 1999. Planning Advice Note 58: Environmental Assessment 1999. Planning Advice Note 60: Planning for Natural Heritage 2000. Planning Advice Note 73: Rural Diversification 2005. Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape SNH 2009

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Road User Manager: No objections to the initial scheme welcoming production of stone and concrete on site but seeking engineering drawings for the road and junction improvements and a before/after survey regarding potential public road damage.

Landscape Architect: Recommended refusal of the initial application after assessing the application against Local Plan Policy D4 and contravention of its criteria as follows: x Although outwith any designated landscapes, it will have visual effects on the Eildon Hills/Bowhill AGLV (500m away) and the Tweedsmuir Hills/Upper Tweeddale AGLV. x Whilst within an “Upland” Type landscape, it is close to “River Valley” and “Upland Fringe” types and will have effects at less than 2km. The height of the turbines is also dominant adding around 40% to the perceived height of Whitehope Rig when approaching Yarrowford, representing a significant change to the adjoining foreground setting of the “River Valley” type. The issue of remoteness should also be considered in this transition from more intimate landscape types to the commencement of more remote “Upland” types, influencing people’s perceptions as they enter the more remote parts of the Borders. x There is only a limited degree of containment from landform and vegetation, representing approximately 50% within 5km. The remainder affected include Broadmeadows, Clovenfords, parts of the A72, A708 and associated valleys including hill tops between the Tweed and the Yarrow and up to 6km of the SUW – sometimes at very close range. Further visibility at 5-10km is possible around Selkirk including a section of the A7. x Impacts on high sensitivity receptors are considered to be higher than accepted elsewhere in the Borders. Although the figure is given as 36 properties most significantly affected, this is likely to be higher due to the intermittent and seasonal nature of tree cover. Close visibility is predicted at Yarrowford and a number of properties also at Clovenfords and Selkirk in the 6-7km range. x Several “A” Class roads have line of sight views to the turbines carrying significant tourist traffic including the A72 south from Clovenfords, the A708 from Philiphaugh and the A699 near Selkirk. x Whilst the wind farm will be visible from Scott’s View at 18km and is classified as of minor impact, it will still be a distraction on the skyline in probably the Border’s most celebrated view. x Coincidental cumulative impacts are most likely to occur with Minch Moor when the wind farms will be seen as one from several directions. Together with the wind farms at Langhope Rig and Long Park, there is great potential for further sequential cumulative impact

Planning & Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 6 (a)

Also makes several comments on the initial ES in relation to the following: x The 30km study boundary is too wide. x Consideration of significance is a matter of professional judgement. x The design evolution has not resulted in a “better” layout in rows and grids. x Access tracks could cause significant scarring (eg. below Brown Knowe) and the ES has not addressed this adequately. x The lack of a proposed electricity route and the placing of the sub station within an area of Policy woodland will cause additional visual impacts at an elevated position. x The ES does not take into account the Draft SPG on Designed Landscapes which is suggesting a number of designed landscapes of regional significance including an additional ten that would be impacted by this development – including Old Broadmeadows, Newark Castle, Yair and Ashiesteele. These impacts have, therefore, been underestimated. x Viewpoint analyses are not matters of fact but professional judgement and the judgements from specific viewpoints in relation to areas of landscape character should be considered of limited value. Some viewpoints will be affected by the choice of viewing position. It is noted that there is acknowledgement of significant effects on the Landscape Character Type 25 “Upland Valley with Woodland: Lower Ettrick/Yarrow”.

Concludes that there are too many criteria within Policy D4 contravened by the proposed development and too many adverse impacts. The area is a high quality landscape valued as a backdrop to river valleys and as upland in its own right, sustaining the ridge experience of the SUW and containing landscapes being investigated for further designation. Impacts would also be experienced to unacceptable levels on the settlements of Yarrowford, Clovenfords and Selkirk, resulting in large out of scale structures with an industrial appearance. Impacts will also be noticeable on tourist routes including the A72 and A708. Concludes by stating – “In my opinion, the development has the potential to be significantly intrusive to a large number and variety of receptors and it should therefore be refused”.

In response to the revised scheme, noted that the scheme had been reduced from 13 to 8 turbines and there had been a consequent reduction in visual impact. Still concludes that the number of affected receptors remains largely as before and that the application fails the landscape tests set down in Policy D4, impacting on a high quality landscape which forms the setting of local settlements and where the turbines would form a jarring industrial intrusion.

Many comments are reiterated from his previous response although additional comments are made as follows: x The review of local landscape designations leading to a forthcoming SPG would place the whole site within a Tweed and Ettrick Special Landscape Area, thus rendering the site potentially sensitive. x Whilst the reduction in turbines has resulted in certain areas no longer having visibility, most of the sensitive receptors still have visibility including Broadmeadows, north facing slopes of the Yarrow Valley (including the A708), Clovenfords, south facing slopes of the Tweed Valley including the A72 between Clovenfords and The Nest. Hill tops remain as affected as before and, at greater distance, there are still impacts from parts of Selkirk and areas around Selkirk including the A699.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 6 (a)

x The removal of western turbines does create a larger gap between the development and Minch Moor reducing the level of coincident cumulative impact but it is debatable whether this is an improvement. There would be even less impact on the experience of sequential cumulative impact when walking along the Southern Upland Way between Blake Muir and the Three Brethren, both the amended application site and Minch Moor impacting significantly and representing potential loss of enjoyment to users. x The access works require significant cut and fill including a cutting almost 10m deep and 50m wide which will have a significant impact on the setting of Broadmeadows village which is a planned designed landscape. Further cuttings are proposed up the face of Broomy Law and such impacts have not been considered in the ES accompanying the amended scheme.

Ecology Officer: Concerned that insufficient information was initially submitted within the Hydrology Impact Assessment in terms of peat probing, drainage, run-off, construction methods, SUDs etc leading to the conclusion that an Appropriate Assessment would be needed in terms of impacts on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This also required further information on track construction, mitigation, and operation. Without such information, the application should be refused.

Welcomed the Environmental Management Plan proposals on mammals but sought checking surveys 6 months before works commence and similar surveys for bats if trees were to be removed. On ornithology, noted that the SNH objection had been withdrawn regarding the rare Schedule 1 Raptor but concerned that two turbines were within disturbance distance of black grouse and recommends a Legal Agreement to seek habitat compensation on and off site through a Habitat Enhancement & Management Plan. This should also include Curlew and Lapwing.

Any tree felling should be carried out outwith the breeding birds season and there should also be a breeding birds survey. Prior to approval, there should also be agreement on a Clerk of Works, the Habitat Enhancement Plan, a Construction Method Statement and a Before/After Control Impact study.

Reiterated potential significance of effects and need for an Appropriate Assessment, quoting differences with the Minch Moor application, greater uncertainty over effects, the views of SNH and actual evidence of a slippage event and siltation in 2003.

Noted the request of SNH for the Council to carry out an Appropriate Assessment in terms of impacts on the River Tweed SAC and that this was outwith the technical expertise of SNH although they had advised on what information would be required. Following provision of further information, noted the uncertainty over whether the proposals would affect the integrity of the SAC and sought a meeting with all parties. Also note acceptance from SEPA of the drainage strategy and impacts as well as the conditions suggested by the Flood Prevention Officer.

Following a meeting with the developer, SNH and SEPA, agreed that the Council’s engineers would provide more information on slope stability in response to the Geotechnical and Hydrological Report and that if they were satisfied, then the Appropriate Assessment could be concluded and notified to SNH to ascertain if they would withdraw their objection.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 9 Item No 6 (a)

Considered comment from the engineers which raised issues over the need for the depth of the access cutting, keeping the access cutting dry after development, methods based upon assumption rather than ground investigation, levels of groundwater and concerns over proximity of the access roads to the Old Broadmeadows Burn. Noted that full ground investigation works would be proposed at the detailed design stage.

Taking into account these views, considered that the track cutting could inadvertently act as a flood channel beyond the development period and that this should be controlled by condition. Also sought the views of SNH on whether modelled assumptions were sufficient in this instance to complete the Appropriate Assessment without further ground investigation works.

Council Archaeologist: Initially concerned at the indirect but significant impacts on Wallace’s Trench which would be contrary to Structure Plan Policy N14. If the scheme was approved, then a condition would need to be imposed requiring a Written Scheme of Investigation and a programme of archaeological work. Subsequently objected to the development due to the adverse impacts of turbines 1- 3 on Wallace’s Trench and the Minch Moor Road unless these could be removed or relocated. This assessment was done using the six criteria recommended by Historic Scotland in assessing impacts on settings. This also led to an objection regarding the impacts on the setting of Newark Castle against Policy N14 as the landscape setting is crucial to the understanding and appreciation of the castle. Four turbines visible even without any tree felling and there would be significant alteration to the monument. There may also be unknown archaeology affected requiring a further survey and signs would be needed marking existing features.

If approval is granted, then there should be mitigation via developer contributions and conditions imposed seeking watching briefs, field surveys and in-situ protection.

Upon submission of the amended scheme, remains opposed to the scheme for the aforementioned reasons as contrary to Structure Plan Policy N14 but with the following amended points to be noted: x Still not clear if a systematic field survey of remains was undertaken to inform the amended scheme although this can be covered by condition prior to development. x The new layout has removed any concerns over impacts on Wallace’s Trench by moving the turbines off Brown Knowe. x The new layout has significantly increased setting impacts on Newark Castle, showing some if not all turbines being visible in southerly views to the castle, nor are there any viewpoints from the A708 when the castle first comes into view. The developer’s assessment that the setting of the castle is the “valley floor” is not accepted, as the hills also contribute to the setting for historical and defence reasons. The castle was built to dominate the valley and hills, the old drove road and various fortifications at ridge level indicating the road was an important part of visibility from the castle. The ability to appreciate the castle within its historical and landscape context is seriously compromised by the amended scheme.

Environmental Health Officer: Sets maximum noise thresholds for the nearest domestic properties both financially and not financially involved in the development. For the former, the levels should not exceed the greater of 45dB(A) or 5dB(A) at 10m height and wind speeds of up to 12m/s above agreed prevailing background noise level. For the latter, should not exceed an external freefield LA90, 10min level of the

Planning & Building Standards Committee 10 Item No 6 (a) greater of 35dB(A) or 5dB(A) at 10m height and wind speeds up to 12m/s – 43dB(A) during night hours.

Any tonal elements need to be assessed against the joint Nordic Method and shall not exceed 2dB above the “Masking Threshold for Tones in Noise”.

Repeats this advice for the revised scheme.

Flood Prevention Officer: Felt that the development would not increase erosion and deposition characteristics of watercourses but concerned that two burns were not included in the ES, that the gradient discharge at one point was too steep, drainage mitigation into the Old Broadmeadows Burn was needed and a Flood Alert Action Plan needed. Bridges and culverts should be carefully designed.

Comments on the revised scheme that part of the access road lies within a 1 in 200 year flood event. Notes that the revised ES and Geotechnical and Hydrology Report includes the omitted burns and addresses the concerns over flood risk by limiting discharge points and introducing storage ponds and swales. All drainage proposals and the Drainage Management Plan should be controlled by condition and all drainage completed before other work commences. The applicant should also agree to receive flood alerts and prepare an action evacuation plan.

Countryside Ranger /Access Officer: Three rights of way through the site should not be obstructed, one of which would have been affected had the western access been used. Any diversions would need agreement. Also other tracks with public access.

In response to the revised scheme, comments that there are no rights of way affected within the site but there are other tracks to which the public have access, including the SUW and Core Path 66 linking it with Broadmeadows. The Minch Moor Road is a right of way outwith to the south-west side of the site. All of these paths need to remain open and free from obstruction. In accordance with SPP and in recognition of the proximity of the wind farm and cumulative effects, £8,000 developer contribution is sought towards maintenance and marketing of the SUW and wider path network.

Statutory Consultees

Historic Scotland: Objected to turbines 1-3 of the initial scheme in terms of impacts on Wallace’s Trench which was sited to be prominent in views from the west and has to be appreciated in its open setting. If the turbines were removed or relocated, the objection could be withdrawn. Limited reference to settings of Newark Castle and Wallace’s Trench and mitigation. Further information needed on impact to listed buildings and designed landscapes, especially Bowhill. Unlikely to have impact on Hangingshaw.

Upon submission of the revised scheme, noted that there were no changes in the overall significance of impacts on cultural heritage and that the revised scheme does not raise any significant adverse impacts on historic environment features within their remit.

Scottish Government: No comments as they could be involved in future stages of the determination process. Minimal impact on trunk road network though movement of the turbines would require Highway Agency approval.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 6 (a)

On the revised scheme, offers no comments on air quality or noise in relation to the ES. Transport Scotland recognises the low percentage of increased traffic on the trunk road and offers no comment.

Ministry of Defence: Initially considered that the impacts on the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station were acceptable but sought further information when the scheme goes ahead regarding construction, height, position and lighting. Would ensure aircrew avoided direct overflight.

Subsequently reiterated no objections subject to the above requirements and explained more about the noise generation budget allowance within 50km of Eskdalemuir. The site is 30km away and the noise generated by the proposed development falls within the budget allowance. Request all turbines are fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting at the highest practicable points or the hubs with 200 candela lighting.

Responded to the revised application with the same comments and requirements although the previous budget allocation has been replaced with a new one given the reduction in the scale of the scheme.

Scottish Natural Heritage: Initially could not offer comment until the CLVIA included the new Minch Moor layout but recommended concurrent determination by the Council. Lodged holding objection regarding impact on protected raptors, seeking further survey and assessment. Also required more information on impacts on black grouse through vantage point watches and collision risk assessments.

Following surveys, sustained objection over the rare Schedule 1 raptor given the knowledge of nesting, establishment of a pair and sightings 2004-07. Felt the turbines would prevent establishment of a scarce population and did not consider the lack of breeding to be evidence of abandonment. Also expressed concerns over the black grouse population viability due to the westerly turbines and expressed the view that the works would have a significant effect on the River Tweed SAC and that the Council should carry out an Appropriate Assessment.

Following further survey work, withdrew objection to the impacts on a Schedule 1 raptor, accepting the claims that there was no longer any significant activity and that two observations of flight were not enough to indicate establishment.

Following submission of the CLVIA, cultural heritage and additional hydrology information, lodged objection on the grounds of impacts on the River Tweed SAC and requested the Council to undertake the Appropriate Assessment then reconsult with SNH. Within the Assessment, issues of instability and erosion should be considered, flood risk, impacts of cuttings in boulder clay, the views of SEPA, drainage proposals and mitigation measures.

Also considered the development to be unacceptable for a variety of landscape and cumulative reasons, notably: x The impacts taken with Minch Moor on the Yarrow Valley, especially Viewpoints 17 and 19. Sequential visibility as a recurring feature would establish an unacceptable character and impact on the amenity of the valley. x Impacts from the Duchess Drive ie Viewpoint 18.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 12 Item No 6 (a) x Impacts on the Eildon Hills AGLV about 2km distant, especially when taken with Minch Moor. x Impacts on the SUW which provides appreciation of the upland landscape and where turbines are particularly close to it. Unacceptable cumulative impacts especially shown in Viewpoints 1, 2 and 3. x Impacts from Clovenfords where most views are towards the hills and turbines ie Viewpoints 4 and 5. x Impacts from transport routes, especially when taken with Minch Moor. x The need for concurrent determination with Minch Moor. x Concerns over design. x Impacts on landscape character types in terms of the contrast between the upland type and the more intimate valley types, detracting from the settled character and affecting the contrast between the two types.

Expressed concerns over the design of the development appearing as two groups of turbines separated by the valley of the Cameron Burn, visible on Viewpoints 4, 5, 10, 13 and 18. When taken with Minch Moor, also appear as three separate sites. Turbines 1 and 11 extend to the edge of the summits giving more prominence from the north.

Subsequently accepted the developer’s findings regarding potential impacts on the other Schedule 1 raptor discovered within the site and that there is no mitigation required for the raptor species. Also stated that cumulative assessment of both the Broadmeadows and Minch Moor scheme should be dealt with consistently and equitably.

After consideration of the revised plans, objects to the proposal on the basis of potentially significant impacts on the River Tweed SAC but does not object on the basis of landscape/visual impact or impacts on black grouse or Schedule 1 raptors.

In terms of the SAC, the Council requires to undertake an Appropriate Assessment based upon the drainage strategy and construction on glacial till, especially designed to deal with times of flood risk. Admits lack of expertise on such matters and suggests the involvement of the Council’s own engineers and SEPA. Provides further information on the qualifying interests of the SAC and advice on the potential effects of the development including siltation, changes to surface water/ground movement, effectiveness of drainage on glacial till and functioning of the attenuation ponds, Requires further contact to verify if objection can be withdrawn.

In terms of the landscape and visual impacts, accepts the assessment methodology used in the amended scheme and agrees with the judgements on sensitivity of receptors, magnitude of change and impact evaluation. Accepts that the revised design has improved the layout with some improvements on landscape character impacts although the impacts still remain significant, especially on the “Southern Uplands with Scattered Forestry” Type represented by Viewpoints 1-3 and the “Upland Valley” Type in the Yarrow Valley represented by Viewpoints 18 and 19. Remains concerned over impacts on landscape character types in terms of impacts on neighbouring types. They state – “In all three landscapes, the uplands where the wind farm is proposed, form an important influence on their character and this relationship will be altered by the introduction of the turbines”.

Continuing concerns over the proximity of the wind farm to the Eildon Hills AGLV, impacting adversely on its landscape and recreational qualities. Remains concerned over visual effects from other receptors as per previous advice although welcomes

Planning & Building Standards Committee 13 Item No 6 (a)

the improvements to the scheme in creating a more coherent cluster and horizontal spread. Remains significant impacts on the SUW, from Clovenfords towards the skyline and in the Yarrow Valley especially from Viewpoints 17 and 19 (with attendant track visibility).

Welcomes the improvements in site layout and design where the scheme now appears as one coherent cluster rather than as two or three disparate groups. The design from many viewpoints is improved although still express the same concerns over cumulative impacts when taken with Minch Moor, especially with regard to sequential visibility from the Yarrow Valley, the A7, the A699, the SUW and AGLV.

Makes further comment on the Vegetation Impact Assessment and otter mitigation which depend on the Appropriate Assessment, mitigation needed for tree felling disturbance to bats, removal of concerns over impacts on a Schedule 1 raptor and black grouse and impacts on SUW users.

SEPA: No objections but various conditions required to cover impacts on water from construction works including run-off mitigation, a drainage strategy before determination and SUDs. Also sought conditions on pollution prevention, fuel storage, foul drainage, bridge crossings and air quality. Direct consent would be needed for discharges to watercourses and SNH would be relevant body to comment on Hydrological Assessment

No subsequent objection on flood risk grounds, satisfied that the development complies with SPP7 “Planning and Flooding”, agree with the flow estimates and seek the 25m buffer zone from the turbines to the watercourse to be a planning condition. Run-off from hard surfaces is a matter for the Council to consider to be controlled to greenfield rates. Road crossings and culverts need to be designed to 1 in 200 year flood events.

On the revised scheme, offer no objections though expect the Council to investigate flood risk. Accepts that the reduced scheme has also reduced the hydrological impact and reiterates previous advice on road crossings. Advise run-off rates to be checked by the Council for post-development periods but recognises the amended drainage mitigation measures will reduce rates below greenfield run-off.

The surface water drainage strategy is satisfactory although any discharges will be controlled by CAR Licence and General Binding Rules. Watercourse crossings will need to be agreed.

Scottish Water: No assets affected so no objections although notification required if any were affected.

Health and Safety Executive: No comments as remit only extends to health and safety of people at work. Same comments on revised scheme.

RSPB: Initially concerned about the adequacy of the ES and felt adverse impacts on black grouse were likely. Felt that further surveys were required for moorland birds and that there was under recording of birds of prey and nocturnal species. Further vantage point watches would be needed for various raptor species and black grouse. The ES underplayed the significance of merlin. Black grouse impacts of most concern with most activity occurring within 1.5km of lek sites and 8 turbines being within that range. Insufficient evidence about impacts from other wind farm sites and concerned at collision risk and the suitability of the site for habitat and feeding encouraging more birds. Mitigation also lacked detail.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 14 Item No 6 (a)

Subsequently lodged holding objection due to presence of a pair of rare Schedule 1 raptors nesting in close proximity to the site. Requested further assessment due to collision risk reducing survival and breeding chances. Sought vantage point watches and assessment of construction and operation activities. Following further survey information and vantage point watches, sustained objection due to continued presence of the raptor and low-level observation being typical of the species. They are elusive, long-lived, slow to mature, faithful and absence for one or more seasons is not unusual. The Borders population of one pair needs to be allowed to consolidate.

Following further observations and fieldwork, withdrew objection on impacts on the rare Schedule 1 raptors but then became aware of the existence of another pair of different Schedule 1 raptors nesting within the site and was sufficiently rare to result in serious concerns in terms of negative impacts, collision risk, displacement etc. Sought further assessment and mitigation including desk top and field survey work including vantage point watches during the breeding birds season.

Further discussion with the Raptor Study Group and supplementary information from the applicant has persuaded them that there is no longer sufficient grounds for objection to the presence of the birds. However, black grouse are evident around the site and there are no objections provided a Habitat Management Plan is produced and off-site habitat compensation measures for black grouse are agreed prior to commencement.

Scottish Wildlife Trust: Objection to turbines 1-7 and requirement for more robust assessment of impacts on black grouse. Importance of area in Borders Local Biodiversity Action Plan, being an important habitat where the black grouse population is not decreasing and there could be collision risk and cumulative impacts.

Remains opposed in terms of impacts of the revised scheme on the black grouse population where the Borders is an important potential base for recovery of the dwindling species. Although the scheme has been changed, the black grouse population has extended to the east of the wind farm at Foulshiels and now surrounds it on three sides, increasing the possibility of traversing the turbines with subsequent collision risk.

Walkerburn and District Community Council: No response.

Ettrick and Yarrow Community Council: Quoted opinion surveys in the local community. Before submission, 41.6% were in support and 45.5% opposed though in Lower Yarrow, this changed to 35.3% in support and 56.4% opposed. After submission and a 68.5% response (163 questionnaires returned), 58.3% opposed the scheme and only 23.9% supported it. This represented significant opposition on grounds of landscape impact, tourism, noise, construction traffic etc. The supporters quoted renewable energy benefits and the Community Fund. Submitted further opposition on the visual and physical intrusion to the Yarrow Valley and a critique of the Hydrology Report maintaining there was still a flood risk and mitigation was inadequate.

Remain opposed to revised scheme.

Clovenfords and District Community Council:

Planning & Building Standards Committee 15 Item No 6 (a)

Felt that the 30MW annual output did not outweigh the disadvantages and objected to the initial scheme on the grounds of visual impact on the houses in the village and from the A72, audible impact on up to 50 properties in the Peel area, impacts on long distance footpaths including the SUW, impact on horses/riders, impacts on tourism, impact on the landscape, cumulative impacts including from the Duchess’s Drive and request for a public hearing due to the application being classified as “Major”.

After consideration of the revised scheme, opposes the application for the following reasons: x Accepts wind energy as part of the renewables aim but concerned that the level of approved wind turbines in the Borders is significantly above any other Scottish local authority per 1000 population and that such total and cumulative figures are despoiling the landscape and scenery. x Significant impacts of both the Broadmeadows and Minch Moor schemes on the upland landscape in an area to the south-west yet to be approved for wind energy. This more remote “Upland” landscape type with wild qualities would result in a closure of circle of visibility and represent unacceptable cumulative impacts. x Detrimental visual impact from excessive height of turbines out of scale with the rolling hills and forestry. x Shadow flicker and movement along the A72 and B710 to the detriment of road safety. x Visual impact of the revised design from Clovenfords remains unacceptable even though fewer turbines will be visible. There will still be 100 properties with views of turbines or tips from their windows or gardens. x Peel, Craigmyle and Ashiestiel are 3.5km from the development and Williamhope and Hawthorn within 1.5km. Deeply concerned about noise and low-level, low frequency noise affecting the peaceful setting of these properties. x Contravention of Local Plan Policy D4 for the aforementioned reasons. x Detrimental impacts in close proximity to the SUW and impacts on walkers’ enjoyment, exacerbated if the Minch Moor scheme was approved. Identified in the Draft SPG that such routes should have a 2km buffer within which schemes should be considered as prominent – the scheme is within 1km with no intervening landform. There will also be disturbance to horse riders and cyclists and cumulative noise impacts from 8 turbines. x There remains significant adverse effects on the viewpoints from the summits of Minch Moor, Brown Knowe and the Three Brethren, identified in the SPG as important scenic viewpoints. Impacts will render their iconic status meaningless x The development will have a negative impact on tourism through prominence to tourist routes such as the A72 and A708, especially as they traverse landscape types of high visual sensitivity. x The development would have significant detrimental impacts on the Eildon Hills AGLV, thus being contrary to the 1995 Planning Framework for Wind Farms. x Concerns over construction disturbance, aviation lighting and that a photomontage continues to misrepresent Viewpoint 3 where a band of forestry reduces the impacts from the Three Brethren – though the forestry has since been felled. x The reduced electricity output should not indicate the proposal is small scale nor should an average 6MW output outweigh the unacceptable adverse impacts of the proposal.

Selkirk Community Council: On the revised scheme and whilst supporting the national goal to reduce carbon footprints, recognises the impacts on tourism and general attractiveness of an unspoilt area. Concerns over impacts on walkers and

Planning & Building Standards Committee 16 Item No 6 (a)

visitors using the SUW, impact on natural heritage, intrusion into the local landscape from many properties within Selkirk, landscape impacts of an overhead electricity line to Yair, stifling of other wind farms within the Eskdalemuir Seismic array, little community benefit and impact on the economic regeneration of Selkirk. Recommends refusal for these reasons unless they can be mitigated.

Other Consultees

Visit Scotland: Whilst supporting green energy, expresses concerns over exposed skyline turbines impacting on visitors’ enjoyment, visibility from major tourist viewpoints (Scott’s View, Three Brethren, Bowhill etc), impact on Tweed Trails initiative and cumulative impacts on the SUW.

Scotways: Objects to the amenity of the three popular rights of way being seriously compromised by the close proximity of the development, including the SUW. The great majority of walkers are not in favour of walking past turbines, quoting set-back requirements from Welsh Assembly Advice Note.

Upon revised scheme, continues to object to the impacts on the identified rights of way (four in the immediate vicinity) and other general access routes. A Core Paths Plan is being prepared by the Council. Welcomes the improvement in separation from Minch Moor Road but previous concerns still not met in entirety. Comment that all rights of way fall within the 6km radius identified as having significant landscape and visual amenity effects, that the SUW is also used for shorter walks, that significant effects over 5.5km still represent a large proportion of a shorter walk and that the 2km buffer from the SUW criticised in the Wind Farm SPG by the applicants is actually only 160m at its closest point.

NERL Safeguarding: No objections to revised scheme although any changes must be notified.

BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding: As the revised scheme is outwith areas of concern from Edinburgh and Glasgow Airports, no objections.

OFCOM/NTL: Initial comments based on analogue reception and no problems expected as homes would be using the Selkirk and West Innerleithen Relays. Isolated properties may experience signal interference but this could be handled by a Legal Agreement to seek rectification by developer.

Subsequently identified an Airwave Fixed Link within 3km of the development and recommended various contacts in that regard.

CSS Spectrum Management Services Ltd: No objections to the initial scheme.

Joint Radio Company Ltd: No links within 1km so no objections. Analyses proposals on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry and foresees no problems although further consultation would be necessary if proposals are changed.

Walkerburn Action Group: Objection on the grounds of incorrect location, impacts on protected and other raptors, impacts on red squirrels/bats, inadequate construction mitigation, impacts on tourism, impacts on the landscape, impacts on the historic character of the Minch Moor Road, cumulative impacts on the SUW and questionable viability of on-shore wind farms.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 17 Item No 6 (a)

Broadmeadows Action Group: Objected to the initial scheme on the following grounds: x Detrimental impacts on the “River Valley” landscape type whereas “Upland” types have been chosen for other wind farms. x Sequential impacts on the skyline and on the SUW, backed by new photomontages. x Cumulative impact concerns on Wallace’s Trench and need for new CLVIA. x Newark Castle and Bowhill viewpoints compromised and detrimental impacts on protected landscapes/listed building x Minch Moor Road undervalued. x Hydrology Report underestimates flash flood concerns and landslip. x Low frequency noise and impacts on nearby houses. x Aviation lighting. x Contrary to National Policy, Development Plan Policy and Wind Energy SPG. x Turbines too high and too close to settlements, affecting 68 properties in Yarrowford alone. x Impact on tourism.

Further objection based upon increased visibility due to the need for aviation lighting as required by the MOD. This would be especially noticeable from Clovenfords, the Yarrow Valley and various major public roads.

Objects to the amended scheme on the following grounds: x The impacts remain unacceptable on amenity. x Additional turbines are within the 2km buffer of Yarrowford recommended to be retained by Scottish Government Policy and there will be major and significant effects on residents. This worsens the previous effects. x Four turbines continue to breach the skyline against local plan policy. x Sensitive receptors continue to experience the same significant effects including property within 2km, from Clovenfords, the SUW (which is valuable also for short walks) , the viewpoint from the Three Brethren, the summit of Brown Knowe, the Minch Moor Trail, the Duchess’s Drive and Harehead Hill. x The impacts on tourism and recreation will be significant. x 25 years is not “temporary” in terms of longevity of impact. x Detrimental impacts on the Eildon Hills AGLV by changing and affecting the landscape immediately adjoining it. x Contravenes local plan policy in terms of impacts on landscape types. x Provides independent quotes about the attraction, value and beauty of the scenery and walks in the vicinity of the wind farm. x Assesses proposals against the Council’s Draft Wind Energy SPG considering it to be in breach due to the area being one of significant protection, seeking 2km buffers from the SUW, impacts from the iconic Three Brethren viewpoint, impacts from Brown Knowe, impacts on residences within 2km and visual impacts on landscape character types.

Also opposes the scheme and comments that the development breaches SNH “Strategic Locational Guidance” for on-shore wind farms especially as the development will have significant adverse effects on landscape character and recreational parts of the Eildon Hills AGLV. Also challenges the noise assessments and considers the impacts to be greater on Broadmeadows and Yarrowford properties given the close proximity. Also power generation will be severely curtailed if turbines have to be amended to lower the noise levels. Echo and white noise are

Planning & Building Standards Committee 18 Item No 6 (a)

also dismissed and background noise readings have been unrepresentative. Nor are there any assessments of noise on SUW users. There should be an independent noise assessment carried out.

Provides four additional photomontages and a supporting statement to demonstrate the significant visual impacts of the amended scheme - from Clovenfords, the summerhouse in Bowhill grounds showing the impacts on Newark Castle, the A708 at the bridge at Yarrowford and from the Three Brethren.

Objects to the application in terms of the hydrological assessment and flood/drainage mitigation, stating that the flood risk events have been underestimated from past experiences, deposition of material has been a feature of such events, increased likelihood of more frequent events, attenuation ponds are limited in effectiveness, there are no calculations about their size or volume of water expected and the steep topography of the valley sides will still cause downhill rushes of water. The mitigation measures are, therefore, inadequate to prevent increased flood risk on the Yarrow and to the village of Yarrowford.

British Horse Society: Concerned that 3 turbines are within the recommended buffer from horses and riders and there would be detrimental impact on horse riding. Developer should contribute to equestrian access/tourism in the area. Objects to the application, enclosing their advisory statement on wind farms and adding further concerns over turbines 4, 5 and 9-11 being dangerously close to equestrian access paths, especially the historic Minch Moor Road. This will also detrimentally affect the contribution of horse riding to the tourism economy. Seek amendment to ensure separation distances are four times turbine height from the Minch Moor Road and old Drove Road.

Scottish Badgers: A badger survey should be undertaken as there has been evidence of badger activity near to the southern end of the site. Suggests 30m each side of the track and the height of the blade tip plus 30m from each turbine.

Scottish Youth Hostel Association: Objection for reasons of significant impacts on long distance footpaths, compound works close to the Youth Hostel, noise, visual impact, increased flood risk, lack of electricity route, inconvenience from construction traffic, height of turbines visible to hill walkers and from the A68 and Soutra.

Southern Upland Partnership: Minch Moor Road is central to the network of routes they are promoting and three turbines are only 125m from the track whereas the British Horse Society suggests three times the height of the turbines. Plans require modification.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

In response to the original planning application and the subsequent amendment to turbine locations and numbers in 2010, there have been a total of 231 households opposed to the scheme, 7 with general comments and 280 in support of the scheme. There was also a petition in support with 85 names on it. Although the scheme changed in 2010, all comments should be considered in assessing the application as it has been amended without withdrawal and submission of a new application. In addition, many people rely on their previous comments and have not written in again. Most of the objection and support letters originate from the initial scheme.

All correspondence is available for viewing on the online file contained on the Public Access system. Members are also advised to view the representations on the Minch

Planning & Building Standards Committee 19 Item No 6 (a)

Moor application (03/00627/FUL) as some objectors to that scheme also refer to the Broadmeadows application. The main grounds of objection include the following :

x Detrimental visual impacts on countryside amenity in an area of high scenic value which has received praise in many publications for its attraction and views from paths and summits. x Detrimental and prominent impacts on, and contravention of national and development plan policies on protection of, the landscape and cultural heritage. Particular regard to the wild unspoilt countryside, proximity to an AGLV, the Three Brethren, Duchess’s Drive, Newark Castle, designed landscape at Bowhill and Wallace’s Trench. x Detrimental impacts on the Minchmoor Road in terms of historical significance. x Noise impacts and underestimation of low-frequency noise in night hours. x Impacts on other more local archaeological sites. x Major visual impacts on nearby individual houses and settlements such as Yarrowford, Clovenfords and Selkirk, contrary to national policy. x Detrimental impacts on SSSIs, the SAC and other hydrology in the area with no reference to the Glenkinnon Burn SSSI and inadequate assessment of ground conditions, stability, glacial till etc.. x Impacts on and contamination of drinking water supplies. x Devaluation of residential property. x Damage to the local road systems caused by construction traffic which could last for 12 months. x Insufficient separation from and detrimental impact on walking routes and walkers, especially the SUW, Minch Moor Road and the Three Brethren. x Detrimental impacts on the safety of walkers, horses and horse riders with possible blade failure risks. x Detrimental impacts on the use of the recreational routes for cycling and could have major impacts on national and international mountain biking events at Minch Moor. x Detrimental impacts on tourism and return visits in the area which is recreation-based. Quotes the Scottish Government report “The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism” which notes reduction in value of scenery and potential economic impacts. x Detrimental impacts on wildlife in the area, especially Schedule 1 raptors, black grouse, merlin, owls, bats, otters, badger and red squirrel. Black grouse are listed for conservation action and have a stable and important Borders population increasing in the vicinity of the wind farm. x Cumulative detrimental impacts on the landscape, especially taken with the Minch Moor scheme. x Sequential cumulative landscape impacts along the Yarrow Valley. x The landscape, visual and cumulative assessments are flawed and fail objectivity tests. Viewpoints are missing or poorly positioned, especially from footpaths. Conflicts with landscape assessment, visual parameters, issues of significance and magnitude of change. x Despite these flaws, ES still concludes there to be significant impacts on the SUW and Bowhill. x Ancillary impacts on the landscape from track construction. x Doubts over the efficiency of wind energy and total contribution to energy needs compared to wave or tidal power. More efficiency if sited offshore. Developer exaggerates benefits. The local economic benefits are overstated and are outweighed by the disadvantages.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 20 Item No 6 (a)

x There should be an upper limit on the number of wind farms as too many have been approved in the Borders. x Detrimental impact on flora and further surveys required as initial ones incorrect. x Insufficient detail over electricity routes and impacts, which should have been incorporated into the ES. x Detrimental impacts on ground stability, exacerbating landslip and flooding especially with increased rainfall in the future. The hydrology report is only based on theory with little fact and inadequate consideration of boulder clay. x The Royal Society of Edinburgh Report 2006 questions wind power and ROCs should not be supporting a particular technology. x Light pollution from the red lights required by the MOD x The site layout is unbalanced and incoherent. x No evidence of considering alternative sites. x Low-flying aircraft risk x The scheme should be considered against the Dunion Hill refusal. x The zone for assessing cumulative impact should be widened to 45km. x Quarrying details insufficient. x Support for renewable energy but not at the site in question. x Site should be reinstated to its former condition. x Impacts on existing woodland plantations

As a result of the amended scheme in 2010, additional points have been raised by respondents including the following: x The scheme increases the detrimental visual and noise impacts on Yarrowford and any improvements through separation with Minch Moor are marginal. x If the scheme is allowed, it would stifle other schemes from going ahead because of the MOD Eskdalemuir Seismic Array restrictions. This would impair the community-based wind farm scheme planned for Selkirk to the disadvantage of the economy of the town. Modifications could be made to the turbine design at this stage. x Background noise assessments misleading. x Inadequate neighbour notification. x Conflict with the Draft Wind Energy SPG in terms of impacts on the SUW. x Approval for a smaller scheme will set a precedent for expansion. x The scheme is against Scottish Historic Environment Policy in terms of impacts on Newark Castle. x The scheme occupies grid capacity at Yair Sub-station. x The Community Fund is inadequate. x An updated radio/TV interference assessment needed.

Those who wrote in support of the scheme, included the following points: x Renewable energy is the future for electricity production and is a fast growing industry. x Wind energy is clean. x There is a need for small, well-sited wind farms and the proposals are compliant with Government policy to increase renewable energy production and reduce greenhouse gases. x Wind farms have general public support. x Their impacts are temporary.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 21 Item No 6 (a) x The initial scheme was acceptable in the landscape and had minimised its environmental effects including those on nature, water supplies etc. x Benefits could result from the development including habitat enhancement, improved recreational access, the local trades economy and a considerable Community Fund. x The UK has a large wind resource to be used and there is suitable wind speed at the site. x The revised scheme has been blended into the landscape and addresses previous concerns.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main planning issues relevant to the determination of this application are whether or not the proposals comply with national and local planning policies governing the location of wind turbine developments, particularly in relation to landscape and visual impact, cumulative impact, noise, traffic, tourism, recreation natural and cultural heritage.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Application

As previously noted, the proposals being determined differ from those submitted in 2004. The 2010 amendment reduced the number of turbines from 13 to 8 by removing all seven turbines from the Whitehope and Hangingshaw Rigs and providing two new turbines on the slopes of Thorny Cleuch with minor revisions to the positions of the remaining six below Broomy Law. This was accompanied by a revised set of ES documents and by full re-notification and reconsultation in 2010. It is this revised proposal which requires to be determined. As the scheme is still quoted as capable of producing up to 20MW of electricity per annum, the application should be classed as a “Major” category of application and determination by the Planning and Building Standards Committee is necessary. Any subsequent appeal against refusal of the application would need to be considered by the DPEA.

There have been requests from some objectors to be heard at a pre-determination hearing under the 2009 Development Management Regulations (Regulation 27) where the applicant and parties who have made representations on the application are given the opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a Committee of the Council. This provision would only apply to a major application where it is deemed to be significantly contrary to the development plan and interpreted as being against the key provisions of the Plan rather than contrary to individual policies thereof. Although the current application is a “major” application, it is not considered to be significantly contrary to the development plan.

Whilst the 2010 ES documents are the most updated documents which should be referred to in assessing this application, the 2009 CLVIA, Hydrological Assessment and Cultural Heritage submissions should also be considered alongside the original 2004 Environmental Statement documents which still hold information and sections to be read in conjunction with the later documents. All documents are available on the Council’s Public Access system and were noted earlier in this report under the “Applicant’s Supporting Information” Section. The only documents not available to view relate to sensitive nature conservation matters.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 22 Item No 6 (a)

Planning policy

Scottish Borders Council Policies

The development requires to be assessed against a number of relevant policies in the Consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018 and Consolidated Local Plan 2011. The approved Structure Plan policy I19 “Renewable Energy” supports the development of renewable energy that is developed in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Structure Plan also identifies areas for search for wind energy developments based upon a broad methodology of designated landscape sites being marked as sensitive. Diagram 18 consequently demonstrates that the site falls within a Preferred Area of Search.

Policy I20 states the criteria against which any proposals for wind farm developments will be assessed. These are x Impact on the landscape character x Structure Plan environmental policies x Impact of noise on residential and other noise sensitive developments x Interference with aircraft activity x Significantly increased risk of shadow flicker or driver distraction or x Any unacceptable cumulative impacts.

All Structure Plan policy assessment must be guided by the Borders Landscape Assessment.

The Adopted Local Plan supports large scale and community scale renewable energy development through policy ‘D4 Renewable Energy Development’. This policy identifies the key features considered necessary in identifying appropriate locations for wind farm developments. Appropriate locations normally being (a) within large scale landscape settings defined as Upland Type in the Landscape Classification hierarchy contained in the Borders Landscape Assessment, and (b) enclosed by surrounding landform thereby minimising external visibility of the development. The area where the windfarm is proposed is described in the Borders Landscape Assessment as part of “Landscape Type 4 BG Southern Uplands Type with Scattered Forest – Broadlaw Group”. The site is also close to “Type 12 Undulating Grassland – West Gala”, “Type 22 Upland Valley with Pastoral Floor – Upper Yarrow” and “Type 25 Upland Valley with Woodland – Middle Tweed/Lower Ettrick & Yarrow”.

Whilst these policies are generally supportive of renewable energy development, they set out a series of criteria against which any particular scheme should be assessed. These are taken in turn by subject below.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy for the Scottish Borders has been developed as a requirement of Scottish Planning Policy to give more detailed advice on this type of development. The SPG was presented to the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 16 May 2011 and was approved as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. In addition, it should be noted that the Council is in the process of carrying out a review of local landscape designations across the whole Council area, due to be reported to Committee during 2011 as an SPG. The emerging work is suggesting that the site could fall within a new Tweed/Ettrick Special Landscape Area replacing the current AGLV.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 23 Item No 6 (a)

The Wind Energy SPG should be considered in assessing this application as it indicates the Council’s more detailed guidance and recent thinking on renewable energy and wind farm developments. It advises that there are only limited opportunities remaining for windfarm proposals of a sufficient scale in the Scottish Borders. The spatial strategy of the Wind Energy SPG clearly demonstrates this. The application site is identified as being within an Area of Significant Protection, partly as a result of buffer protections to the SUW and views from the Three Brethren.

Scottish Planning Policy

In addition to the Structure Plan and Local Plan policies, national policies will need to be taken into account. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) published in 2010 sets out the national policies on renewable energy developments.

Of relevance to the consideration of this proposal is Para.37 which states that “The planning system has an important role in supporting the achievement of sustainable development through its influence on the location, layout and design of new development. Decision making in the planning system should contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the commitment to reduce emissions by 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, contribute to reducing energy consumption and to the development of renewable energy generation opportunities”.

These targets are set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 which requires all public bodies to act: • in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the emissions targets in the Act, • in the way best calculated to help deliver the Government’s climate change adaptation programme, and • in a way that it considers is most sustainable.

The Scottish Government targets for electricity to be generated from renewable sources have increased from figures of 80% by 2020 and 31% by 2011, to 100% by 2020 following a statement by the First Minister on 18th May 2011.

Whilst other technologies will contribute in the longer term, hydro and on-shore windfarms will be the main contributors to meeting this target. Planning authorities are encouraged to support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.

Guidance is given in the SPP on the criteria that should be included in Development Plans. It also notes that when considering cumulative impact, planning authorities should take account of existing wind farms, those which have permission and valid applications for wind farms which have not been determined. Decisions should not be unreasonably delayed because other schemes in the area are at a less advanced stage in the application process.

The SPP also states that that planning authorities give full consideration to sites that have ease of connection to the existing grid thus allowing early achievement of this target.

The SPP in paragraph 187 states: “The design and location of any wind farm development should reflect the scale and character of the landscape. The location of turbines should be considered carefully to ensure that landscape and visual impact is minimised”.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 24 Item No 6 (a)

Whilst the former SPP6 has now been revoked, PAN 45 “Renewable Energy Technologies” still contains valid advice about the type of criteria that should be used in assessing wind farm developments, including noise, landscape impact, ornithology and cumulative effects. Annex 2 on production of SPGs has now been replaced by web-based advice. SNH have also produced useful advice, especially the 2009 publication “Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape”.

Other wind farm decisions

During the processing of this application, there is much reference to the nearby Minch Moor planning application as well as a decision on the Dunion Hill development near Jedburgh. Given the proximity of the Minch Moor development to the Broadmeadows application site and the similarity of issues, it is considered that the appeal decision on that application should be given significant weight in assessing and reaching a decision on the Broadmeadows application, indicating the way in which the Government – through the DPEA – would currently assess a wind farm in the locality proposed.

Landscape and visual impacts

In the decision letter on the Dunion Hill Wind Farm, the Reporter identified that all landscape and visual effects were taken to be adverse and that he agreed with this stance, albeit public opinion would often be divided. Certainly, this is an approach taken across all decision making on wind farm impacts in the landscape and is evidenced by the number of representations against the current application based on adverse landscape impact grounds. The Reporter in the decision on the Minch Moor application also chose his assessment of landscape and visual effects from those with the greatest magnitude.

In their advice note “Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape”, SNH state:

“It is therefore important that care continues to be taken to ensure that further windfarms are sited and designed so that adverse effects on landscape and visual amenity are minimised, and that areas which are highly valued for their landscapes and scenery are given due protection.”

The Council’s Development Plan Policies I19, I20 and D4 recognise the crucial role and quality of the Borders landscape to the character, attraction and economy of the area, identifying the types of locations where wind farms are more likely to be accepted than others and what type of containment and avoidance of skyline impact would be sought. This has been developed by the Wind Energy SPG through a series of landscape constraint filters to create a Spatial Strategy Map, intended to demonstrate the Council’s approach to wind farm development by classification of area protection.

The application site and its immediate surrounds have no formal landscape designations although the Eildon Hill’s AGLV lies about 500m away from the eastern edge of the site. SNH in their aforementioned advice note, do not suggest that such landscapes would have no value. As with the Dunion Hill and Minch Moor decision processes, the landscape at Broadmeadows must be judged on its own merits and in the context of landscape classification and the qualities afforded to the area by landscape designations to the west and particularly to the east of the development site eg. the Eildon Hills/Bowhill AGLV, the Upper Tweeddale AGLV and the Bowhill, Glen, Haining and Hangingshaw Gardens and Designed Landscapes.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 25 Item No 6 (a)

Landscape character

The Borders Landscape Assessment 1998 has been seen as an impartial and helpful analysis of landscape characteristics in the region. It forms a major basis for the Council’s Development Plan Policies on wind farms. Structure Plan policy requires that the impact of development on the landscape character be assessed and guided by the Borders Landscape Assessment. The policy applies a broad ‘area of search’ methodology whereby areas containing designated sites, such as National Scenic Areas and Areas of Great Landscape Value, are described as sensitive, and those areas not containing any such designations are described as preferred. Diagram 18 “Wind Energy Development – Area of Search” in the Structure Plan identifies that the current site falls within a “Preferred Area of Search” principally as this site contains no designations that would identify the landscape as being of special quality. However, as previously mentioned, the absence of designations does not imply necessarily that the site’s sensitivity to such a development would be any less than other sites. The capacity of the landscape must be considered as to its ability to accommodate the proposed development.

The Wind Energy SPG utilised a series of constraints to inform the final Spatial Strategy Map which identifies the site in the red zone of “Areas of Significant Protection”. Whilst the presence of the SUW and views from the Three Brethren contributed to the protection classification, the visual sensitivity of the landscape character types to change were also considered. All of the following landscape character types were considered to have moderate to high sensitivity to change, especially when considered from “A” Class roads. The precautionary zoning of the wind farm site at Broadmeadows should be a strong indication that there are significant and over-riding reasons why development would not be acceptable on grounds of impacts on landscape character.

The area where the windfarm is proposed is described in the Borders Landscape Assessment as part of “Landscape Type 4 BG Southern Uplands Type with Scattered Forest – Broadlaw Group”. The site is also within 1km of “Type 25 Upland Valley with Woodland – Middle Tweed/Lower Ettrick & Yarrow” (River Valley) and is close to and has effects on “Type 22 Upland Valley with Pastoral Floor – Upper Yarrow” (River Valley) and “Type 12WG Undulating Grassland: West Gala” (Upland Fringe).

Landscape Type 4 BG is an upland classification which is favoured by development plan policies, exhibiting high summits, extensive coniferous plantations and a wild land atmosphere, but with high visual sensitivity due to the number of “A” Class roads passing through the area. Whilst the site falls within this landscape classification where the larger scale landscape should be more suited to visually accommodate large structures, it is also on the edge of the upland area and very close to river valley and upland fringe types as identified above. As evidenced by a number of the viewpoints, public views of turbines and tips from these adjoining landscape classifications demonstrate a lack of containment and impact of scale that would not normally have been experienced in the type of upland areas currently favoured by the Council. It has effects at a range of less than 2km on these adjoining landscape classifications and cannot, therefore, be considered to fully comply with criterion 2 of Local Plan Policy D4.

The site is also straddling a ridge within a relatively narrow range of hills between the Tweed and the Yarrow Valleys, behind the summit of Broomy Law, although the 112m turbine heights will project well above the 463m AOD summit as evidenced by

Planning & Building Standards Committee 26 Item No 6 (a) the viewpoints from Clovenfords. Figure A29 in the 2010 ES demonstrates that a significant proportion of the area within 5km of the site will still have a view of the wind turbines even allowing for the screening effects of landform and despite the revisions to the scheme. This includes the villages of Broadmeadows/Yarrowford, the north facing slopes of the Yarrow Valley (including the A708), some of the south facing slopes of the Tweed Valley south of Clovenfords including the A72 and a number of hill top areas between the Tweed and Yarrow including a 6km stretch of the Southern Upland Way. Slightly beyond the 5km range, there is also significant visibility from Clovenfords village, areas of Selkirk including the A699 and the Hartwoodmyres area on the south side of the Ettrick. The presence of lower hill tops, associated field patterns, boundaries and forestry all present scale indicators which could only serve to emphasise the large scale and dominant impact of the turbines, which are very close to the edge of river valley and upland fringe landscape classification types.

This complexity and intricacy of relationships with adjoining less suitable landform and landscape types is highlighted in the Wind Farm Spatial Strategy. This illustrates a mixture of areas close to the Area of Significant Protection within which the site sits. The fact that the site is close to other areas of protection highlights the concerns of the Council over lack of containment and impact on adjoining landscape classification types.

The ES Amendment submitted by the applicant identifies that there will be a number of moderate to major impacts on landscape character types, especially from Viewpoints 1-3 on the nearby hill summits, Viewpoints 4 and 5 at Clovenfords, Viewpoint 10 at Selkirk on the A699 and Viewpoints 17-19 in the Yarrow Valley. The applicants believe there are reductions in impact on landscape character types at some distance from the site but concede there would still be significant effects at closer distance. The modest and intimate nature of the “River Valley” type at Yarrowford, for example, would be dominated and severely affected by the height and proximity of the wind turbines clearly visible above the village at Viewpoint 17.

It is considered that the fringes of an upland type classification will be likely to be more vulnerable and susceptible to detrimental impacts and may struggle to possess the scale and screening landform of more inland parts of such upland areas. In his decision on the Minch Moor scheme, the Reporter identified the fact that the area was “…in a transitional location in landscape terms”. Given the position of the wind farm at the “entrance” to the upland type landscape, there is also concern that the remote qualities and grandeur of scale exhibited by this part of the Borders will be degraded if the area is entered through a wind farm. This would have a detrimental impact on people’s perceptions and experiences of the area and on the reasons for the landscape classification in the first instance.

The issues of the disparity of scale between the turbines and the hills and landscape types is evidenced by the comments of the Council’s Landscape Architect who compared the 112m turbine height to the difference between the Yarrow valley floor and the tip of Whitehope Rig of approximately 290m. Whilst it is appreciated that seven turbines were moved off Whitehope Rig, the height of Broomy Law, which contains the turbines on its downslope, produces a difference of 303m with the Yarrow valley floor. The turbines would, therefore, represent 37% of the perceived height of the hill, adding that height to the hill from views along the valley floor on the A708 and at Yarrowford. It is considered that this proportion is significantly out of scale with the upland landscape within which the turbines are proposed, when viewed from adjoining, more modest and intimate, landscape types.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 27 Item No 6 (a)

The applicant has provided a rebuttal of these points in their supporting letter dated 16 March 2011. Their comments have not addressed or reduced the concerns on landscape classification identified above.

Cumulative impacts on landscape character type have also been considered by the applicant with a natural concentration on the potential impacts in association with the Minch Moor wind farm. Whilst other wind farms such as Bowbeat, Langhope Rig and Long Park have been considered, from the summits in particular, the refusal on appeal of the Minch Moor scheme determines that the impacts of the more distant wind farms on landscape character are less pronounced and would not justify refusal of the scheme for this reason. This was also the view of the Reporter on the Minch Moor case.

It is concluded that the proximity to, and prominence from, less suitable landscape classification types determines that the fringe location within an upland type is not acceptable in landscape impact terms nor in compliance with the initial criteria contained with Structure Plan Policy I20 or Local Plan Policy D4. The development also conflicts with the SPG where the “Significant Protection” zoning was partly informed by sensitivity and visibility of landscape character types. SNH also express concerns over detrimental impacts on landscape character.

Visual Impact

The effects of the development on views requires to be considered as a separate, but related issue, and is mainly concerned with the impact of the development on the perceptions of those who view the landscape within which the proposal is to be located.

Policy D4 of the Local Plan provides a useful assessment tool, based on the Macaulay Enterprises Study “Visibility Mapping for Wind Farms in the Scottish Borders”, for turbines with a 100m high blade tip. This guidance provides a useful benchmark for making a judgement on this issue, since PAN 45 also contains a similar method of assessing visual impact. The guide suggests that receptors within 0-5km of a proposal will experience visual intrusion (dominant and major impacts) as a result, and those 5km or more away will experience a moderate impact. PAN 45 suggests that up to 2km away the proposal will have a prominent impact, while a 2- 5km distance will result in a relatively prominent impact, with 5km or more having an impact in clear visibility.

Policy D4 states that sites contained by surrounding landscape are preferred as these can benefit from the screening of surrounding hills. Figure A30 in the ES Amendment identifies the areas where the wind farm would be visible within a 5km radius and Figure A24 shows the 30km radius. The 5km plan indicates the small areas of reduced visibility of the wind farm resulting from the amended turbine layouts and reduction in numbers compared to the initially submitted scheme – mainly confined to remote western parts, Philiphaugh and south of Clovenfords. The 30km plan demonstrates loss of visibility from Peebles in particular. The improvements made as a result of the amended scheme are recognised and welcomed in this respect. They were, indeed, partly made as a result of Council concerns being expressed over the original scheme submitted.

Nevertheless, there are still impacts on views to sensitive receptors and these must be carefully assessed in line with Local Plan Policy D4, the SPG, the SPP and PAN 45.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 28 Item No 6 (a)

Visual Impact : Residential Receptors

Taking into account the previously mentioned distances and indices of significance from receptors, the revised scheme continues to cause major concern in this respect.

Appendix A10a of the ES Amendment updates the impacts of the revised scheme on residential receptors. The applicant accepts that the revised scheme would still affect the receptors to the same extent within the 5km radius with 74 properties now having visibility of up to three additional turbines – this is identified particularly at Yarrowford where properties would be significantly affected, especially at the western end of the village. The increased impacts on Yarrowford have been identified by representations from the Action Group and local residents and can be clearly identified in Viewpoint 17. It is considered that these impacts are unacceptable in such close proximity (less than the 2km recommended in PAN 45) and will affect a significant number of properties. The SPG also presumes against any wind turbines within 2km of residences unless scale, landform and screening can demonstrate otherwise. The SPG also points out that garden ground and curtilage are taken into account as well as window direction. It is considered that there are a number of affected residences within 2km of the wind farm, especially at Yarrowford, where impacts will not be mitigated to the extent of acceptability and compliance with the SPG. The skyline backdrop only serves to emphasise the impacts of the turbines

The Appendix also identifies a total of 422 properties within the 5km radius having views of the amended wind farm, identifying further significant impacts on properties in the Yarrow Valley west of Lewenshope and at Bowhill. Whilst it is noted that the layout may result in most of the 422 properties having views of a reduced number of turbines, this does not make the impacts on the number of properties acceptable at such close range in many cases. As the Council’s Landscape Architect has noted and whilst there is no accepted threshold for what number of affected properties would constitute unacceptability, the number of properties does represent “…a higher level of impact …than has been accepted elsewhere in the Borders”.

In association with Appendix A10a, Figure A29 shows the locations of the residential receptors within the 5km zone but also, significantly, important areas of sensitivity just outside at 6 and 7km, most notably at Clovenfords and large areas of Selkirk. Viewpoints 4 and 5 indicate the impacts of the scheme from Clovenfords village where the Community Council have argued that 100 properties would have views of the turbines from their windows or gardens and the applicant’s own Table C indicates over 200 properties with impacts, noted as Code 9. The viewpoints demonstrate all 8 turbines and even 5 hubs would be visible at 5.9km distance from the central roundabout in the village. Moving into outlying residential areas invariably results in clearer and more elevated views, exhibited by Viewpoint 5.

Any reductions in numbers or horizontal spread as a result of the revised scheme are noted from this position but do not remove significant concerns over this important criterion of Local Plan Policy D4. It is also not accepted that the applicant’s assessment of directly facing windows and comments about screening effects of buildings diminish the detrimental impacts on residential amenity. As noted by Clovenfords Community Council, residential enjoyment of property is not simply limited to outlook from habitable room windows. SNH also comment on the natural outlook from Clovenfords being to the hills and skyline to the south. Viewpoints 4 and 5 are, of course, limited snapshots which also serve to emphasis the wide visibility of the wind farm from houses and roads elsewhere within the village. The impacts are also continue along the A72 to The Nest roundabout.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 29 Item No 6 (a)

The impacts from Selkirk will also be significant and are noted in Table C as Code 17, again indicating over 200 properties which could expect to experience views of the wind turbines. Of these, half would be expected to experience the most significant effects. Viewpoint 10 from the A699 near to Selkirk Golf Course indicates visibility of 7 turbines and 4 hubs at a distance of 7.9km although residential properties affected in Selkirk will be at closer range.

It must be noted that the numbers of properties impacted at Clovenfords and Selkirk are outwith the 5km radius and thus the 422 properties noted by the applicant as having visibility of the wind farm are more than doubled within an additional 1-2km of the radius edge. Although it is noted that properties further afield to the west in the Peebles area no longer have any view of the amended wind farm scheme, the number of residential properties affected and the number of turbines, blades and hubs visible from them within 5-7km are significant – and many experiencing the impacts at very close range in Yarrowford and Broadmeadows.

In summary, the revised location of the wind turbines and reduction in numbers has not improved the impacts on residential receptors to any acceptable degree, such impacts remaining significant and adverse to a large number of properties in several settlements within 7km of the wind farm. For these reasons, the proposal remains contrary to the relevant criterion of Local Plan Policy D4 in terms of detrimental visual impacts on the sensitive residential receptors. It also fails to comply with the SPG on impacts within 2km of residential properties.

Visual Impact: Road Receptors

Policy D4 identifies major tourist routes and popular public viewpoints as sensitive receptors which should be considered in assessing the visual impacts of a wind farm development. The SPG quotes Figure 8 in PAN45 and identifies several main tourist roads where wind farms within 2km would be seen as sensitive and problematical. In terms of relevance to the Broadmeadows scheme, the A7, A72, A708 and A699 are identified. The ES Amendment also identifies these roads as having visibility of the amended wind farm but, apart from a short section of the A708 at Yarrowford and Old Tinnis, considers the impacts not to be significant.

It is considered that these impacts have been underestimated and that there is undue reliance on distance and intervening screening which can be seasonal. It should also be noted that the Reporter, in determining the Minch Moor appeal, felt that such impacts on “A” Class roads added weight to his findings and reasons for refusal, especially when turbines were in the direct line of view of roads and in skyline positions.

The A72 is a significant arterial traffic route traversing the Borders from east to west and connecting two major towns together with larger villages and significant rural hinterlands. It would also be expected to carry a significant amount of tourist traffic not only as a general connection route but also given the tourist attractions and destinations in the Tweed Valley. Viewpoint 4 from Clovenfords roundabout on the A72 shows the “straight ahead” view greeting westbound traffic – of all eight turbines on the skyline at less than 6km distance, showing 5 hubs with no intervening landform or tree screening. Indeed, the effects simply continue as road users travel south from Clovenfords, over the initial rise then down towards The Nest roundabout where Figure A31 demonstrates a constant “straight ahead” view of 7-8 turbines on the skyline at reducing distance.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 30 Item No 6 (a)

This sustained and “head-on” skyline impact from the A72 around Clovenfords is considered to be significant and the findings of the applicant that there would only be “moderate” impacts to road users in this regard cannot be accepted.

The A708 Yarrow Valley road is also a significant tourist route and Viewpoints 17 from Yarrowford village and 19/20 from further west along the road indicate the skyline and dominant impacts expected as road users travel along the road. Figure A31 shows the length of theoretical visibility expected of the wind farm from Philiphaugh continually to Yarrowford with many potential head-on views of the wind farm on the skyline. From study work associated with Minch Moor, it is known and accepted that the A708 on this stretch has significant amounts of roadside screening in places and that it twists in sections to prevent clear head-on views - although the expectation is that several views will be obtained sequentially closer to Yarrowford itself, when the impacts are particularly significant for some length, as the road passes through the settlement, especially between Broadmeadows and Yarrowford.

Beyond Yarrowford, the impacts will then be most noticeable to eastbound road users, Figure A31 showing main areas of theoretical visibility at Old Tinnis and north of Easter Kershope, together with some visibility at Yarrowfeus. Viewpoint 20 shows the latter visibility of five turbines and three hubs at 7.9km whilst Viewpoint 19 at Old Tinnis shows much greater impacts of all 8 turbines and 7 hubs at 2.7km distance, close to a “head-on” view. The impacts to eastbound road users towards Yarrowford are expected to be greater than to westbound traffic. Figure A31 shows, in total, the stretches of A708 which will have theoretical visibility and will be expected to be significantly more noticeable than the refused Minch Moor scheme, given the location and proximity of the Broadmeadows scheme to Yarrowford on the southern slope of Broomy Law where levels drop to the Yarrow valley.

The valley landscape is of a much smaller scale when viewed from this stretch of the A708 nearer to Yarrowford and the impacts on road users are expected to be significant because of the proximity, skyline position, height of turbines and location of the turbines in line of view. The effects are considered to be more significant and less localised along the road than identified by the applicant who considers significant impacts only for “short sections”.

Viewpoint 10 highlights the windfarm from the A699 at a bend in the road by the golf course, east of Selkirk. This demonstrates 7 hubs and tips at a distance of 7.9km. Again, these would be viewed on a bare hillside skyline albeit part of a saddle of hill tops which provide a backdrop to Selkirk. There would also be direct head-on views of the turbines to west bound traffic as the A699 turns to the west then to the north- west on the approach to Selkirk. The amount of traffic on this busy “A” Class link between St Boswells and Selkirk can be expected to be more significant than the A708, passing through a popular recreational area on the outskirts of Selkirk. For these reasons, it is considered that the impacts from this road are greater than identified by the applicant in their submissions and represent significant unacceptable visual impacts.

Figure A31 also demonstrates theoretical visibility from the B7009 Ettrick road on the rural western parts of Selkirk, including the public road linking this to the A7 via Hartwoodburn and Middlestead. Viewpoint 14 in the central part of this zone indicates all 8 turbines and hubs at 5.9km with visibility impacted to some extent by conifer screening. Such screening is not considered permanent nor constant as road users travel this road, especially as the link roads from the A7 and Ashkirk drop down to join the B7009, giving clearer visibility above tree lines. Viewpoint 16 at Woll Rig indicates the view greeting road users as they travel from Ashkirk – a wide panorama

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31 Item No 6 (a) over to the skyline of the hills and clear visibility of all 8 turbines and hubs at 7.6km. The impacts from these roads on the south side of the Ettrick are also considered significant and it is felt that the applicant has underestimated the visual impact from these roads.

These are the major impacts expected from public roads in the area although there will be other effects either on more minor roads or on “A” Class roads at greater distances, including the A7, the A68, the A6088, the A707 and B710. All significant impacts identified from the public roads represent unacceptable impacts on sensitive receptors against Local Plan Policy D4 and also in contravention of the SPG in proximity to Yarrowford.

Visual Impact: Recreational Receptors

Policy D4 of the Local Plan and Government advice require assessment of visual impacts to include the views of the development experienced by tourists and recreational users away from accommodation and public roads. The SPG also attaches significance to long distance footpaths and iconic scenic viewpoints accessed by the public, affording the SUW and Three Brethren 2km protection buffers - though in the case of the latter, it was recognised that the buffers were a minimum distance and that there may be the need for protection outwith them.

The development site is within a well used upland recreational ridge and is bordered on its northern boundary by the SUW. There are a number of other routes and paths immediately adjoining the site including the Minch Moor Road and Core Path 66 linking the SUW to Broadmeadows. The SUW is a Core Path and claimed Right of Way. There are also a number of other access routes in the area exercisable through the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, including paths on the south side of the Yarrow Valley (Duchess’s Drive) and paths through the Bowhill Estate.

As the hills and ridges are used by walkers, horse riders and even cyclists in this area, significant summits and viewpoints should also be taken into consideration in terms of visual impacts as a result of the wind farm proposals. The appreciation of an area’s scenery and attraction for recreation will be enhanced by the views from these summits and this played a significant role in the Reporter’s decision on the Minch Moor application – when the summits of the Three Brethren, Minch Moor, Blake Muir, Broomy Law and Fastheugh Hill were visited and considered.

It is considered that the recreational use of this part of the Borders is significant compared to other more remote parts away from areas of population. The ES for the Minch Moor scheme quoted Forestry Commission figures from 2001 suggesting between 6,220 and 9,365 people per annum could be expected to use this part of the SUW (between Yair and St Mary’s Loch). This would be in addition to the use of the other paths, riding routes and cycle ways. The proximity of Selkirk, Clovenfords, Caddonfoot, Innerleithen, Walkerburn, Traquair, Yarrowford and smaller areas of population undoubtedly also contribute to the use of the hillsides and paths in the vicinity. There is also a general trend for increased recreational usage in the area since the SUW figures were collected, given the success and recent development of the Glentress and 7stanes projects. Various points raised by members of the public and walking groups also point out the importance of the SUW for shorter walks. It is also recognised that hillwalkers are susceptible and vulnerable to landscape change.

Whilst it is noted that the revised scheme provides greater distance between the Minch Moor Road and the actual turbines themselves, the most prominent and close range visual impacts will still be experienced by recreational users (walkers, riders

Planning & Building Standards Committee 32 Item No 6 (a) and cyclists) on the paths and hill tops in the vicinity, most notably at the Three Brethren and on the SUW where turbines still fall within 200m of the latter.

The applicant summarises that the predicted effects from the hills and long distance walks in the area can be shown on Viewpoints 1-3, 6, 9, 18, 21 and 22. Figure A31 shows the predicted visibility within 5km, stretching from the Three Brethren to Brown Knowe. In particular, the stretch of SUW affected by visibility is argued to be only significant along 5.5km of its route compared to its total length of 122km. This is from the point at Minch Moor when it emerges from the forest, following the ridgeline past Brown Knowe and the Three Brethren until it reaches the Yair Hill Forest (Viewpoints 1-3).

The applicant accepts that the impacts on this stretch are “Major” in terms of impacts on visual amenity and that receptor sensitivity is high – yet the conclusion is that because it is only on a 5.5km stretch out of 122km, the impacts should be considered acceptable. There is representation from others to suggest that short walks along stretches of the SUW are a feature of this area where the impacts and magnitude of change are not dampened by any knowledge of the route actually being 122km long. It is also not accepted that the only viewpoints from summits to the turbines from the SUW are from distances greater than 6km. Viewpoints 1-3 are all at distances of 2km or less. Parts of the 5.5km within 2km of the SUW are protected by the SPG and there is no evidence in the photomontages or on site that any intervening screening or landform would allow the scheme to be considered acceptable or in compliance with the SPG.

Viewpoint 1 at Brown Knowe shows the view east along the SUW with the Three Brethren and the Eildon Hills in the background. The impacts are considerable on this open vista when the nearest other consented turbines would be Langhope Rig and Long Park at 12km. The appreciation of the Eildon Hills NSA/AGLV and the wide open Merse Land of Berwickshire will be severely impaired in this direction, notwithstanding the more distant and minor impacts of the aforementioned wind farms. The turbines will be dominant at only 1.7km distance.

Viewpoint 2 looking south from the SUW to the west of Broomy Law shows turbines dominating the wide open vista which currently allows full appreciation of the Southern Uplands Broadlaw Group. At distances of closer than 300m, the impacts will be massive and damaging on this viewpoint and the enjoyment of recreational users of the SUW. In the background, Langhope Rig would be noticeable at 11.4km but this would represent a minor and limited interruption to the view which, in any case, would be contained below the skyline of the distant hills.

Viewpoint 3 looks west from the Three Brethren and is one of six iconic viewpoints identified in the SPG in the same category as Ruberslaw and Penielheugh. This is a viewpoint also visited and assessed by the Reporter on the Minch Moor appeal when he commented on it being a “fine viewpoint” and that approval of the Minch Moor scheme would mean wind farms could be seen in most directions. He concluded there would be a moderately significant effect from this viewpoint and this featured as one of his main reasons for refusal. The turbines for the Broadmeadows scheme would be viewed at 2km rather than 6.2km distance and would increase in significance and impact on view as a result. The Langhope Rig and Bowbeat wind farms would be minor intrusions into the fine open westerly view and would still allow a clear view due west if the Broadmeadows scheme was rejected.

No other SUW or hill summit viewpoints are produced by the applicant in close proximity to the wind farm, only much more distance views from the SUW at Lauder,

Planning & Building Standards Committee 33 Item No 6 (a) the Eildon Hills, Duchess’s Drive, Deuchar Law and Dollar Law. With the exception of the Duchess’s Drive (see below), the views over distance from these viewpoints combined with other existing or consented wind farms do not result in any significant impacts that could justify refusal of the scheme on the grounds of visual impacts on recreational users. It could be argued that the importance of Scott’s View (Viewpoint 8) should warrant special consideration as mentioned by the Council’s Landscape Architect but, in reality, the proximity of Long Park (at 13.3km) and Langhope Rig (at 22.2km) would suggest that refusal of the Broadmeadows scheme at 18.2km would be unreasonable. It would result in a flanking of the Eildon Hills with wind farms which is undesirable in its own right but, given the distance on the horizon, the turbines will cause little significant interference to the enjoyment or appreciation of the viewpoint or the NSA.

There are other summits in the vicinity of the Broadmeadows wind farm which also warrant mention and which are frequented by walkers and riders. The Reporter visited Minch Moor, Broomy Law and Blake Muir when considering the Minch Moor appeal and felt that the impacts of that scheme from the summits was significantly adverse to the enjoyment of the landscape and the wildness aspect. It was clear to the Reporter that these summits were well used and were signposted as part of long or shorter distance walks. The Broadmeadows scheme may have a slightly lesser effect on views from Minch Moor and Blake Muir but consequently much greater impacts on Broomy Law because of proximity. It has to be concluded that the impacts would still be significant from these summits and would greatly impair users’ enjoyment of the area, scenery and walking/riding experience.

The Reporter also identified the importance of the viewpoint from the Duchess’s Drive in the Bowhill Estate where a clearly signposted circular walk took walkers onto the north-facing slopes of the Yarrow Valley and a clear view across to the Minch Moor scheme where he felt “…the wind farm would have a significantly detrimental effect on this viewpoint”. This featured as an important element in his decision to refuse the scheme. Viewpoint 18 from higher ground demonstrates the view across to the turbines where all 8 would be visible mostly on the skyline without any intervening screening. Other existing or consented schemes are at much greater distance than 4km and will have minimal impact compared to the Broadmeadows turbines. The applicant recognises the impacts from this viewpoint would be major and of great impact to walkers.

In terms of assessing sensitive receptors and the visual impacts of the proposals, it is considered that the area is well used for recreation compared to more remote upland areas and there is a greater degree of exposure to users who are more vulnerable to such landscape change. Given that the relevant viewpoints demonstrate major or significant impacts on the areas frequented by the users, including at public viewpoints and on the SUW, then the development is considered to be significantly intrusive to tourist and recreational receptors on paths and land away from public roads. For these reasons, the application is considered to be contrary to the relevant criterion of Local Plan Policy D4 and the SPG. SNH also express concerns over impact on the landscape from public viewpoints and the SUW.

Visual Impact: Landscape Designation Receptors

As previously mentioned, the application site does not contain any designated or historic landscapes although this does not suggest that the landscape should not be valued and protected. Indeed, it lies within relatively close proximity to and in between some of the finest and most respected landscapes in the Borders. The Eildon Hills/Bowhill AGLV and Upper Tweeddale AGLV lie approximately 0.5km to

Planning & Building Standards Committee 34 Item No 6 (a) the east and 8km to the west of the site, both containing more restricted NSA’s. There are also listed Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes at The Glen, Hangingshaw, The Haining and Bowhill. The submitted ES identifies significant impacts from within the western part and on the limited upland areas on the fringes of the Eildon Hills AGLV but not from the designated Designed Landscapes.

It is considered that there will be significant visual impact as a result of the impacts of the development on the Eildon Hills AGLV. Viewpoints 3 (Three Brethren) and 10 (Selkirk A699) from within the AGLV demonstrate significant effects, the former being impacted by “…large scale vertical elements and movement into a large scale open landscape with few dominant features from this particular viewpoint”. From Viewpoint 10, it was noted that “The amended layout would produce an additional group of turbines onto the skyline of the Southern Uplands…”. Both impacts from each viewpoint were considered to be significant and are indicative of other viewpoints not represented within the remainder of the western part of the Eildon Hills AGLV. It should also be noted that Viewpoint 15 from within the Bowhill Estate reveals a moderate effect, the choice of viewpoint being criticised by some who feel that there are more open and more representative areas from the policies that would give rise to more significant effects.

Indeed, the Reporter in his Minch Moor decision letter actually stated the following – “…a prime purpose of the AGLV hereabouts is protection of the setting of Bowhill”. Whilst Minch Moor had little impact on the setting of Bowhill, the proximity of the Broadmeadows scheme to the AGLV boundary on Fastheugh Hill and the views gained from Bowhill policies would suggest much greater impacts. Viewpoint 15 and the additional Historic Visualisations from the approach to Newark Castle indicate significant impacts on the setting of Bowhill, sufficient to add weight to the consideration that there are adverse impacts on the Eildon Hills AGLV against Local Plan Policy D4 and the advice in the SPG.

Whilst there has been no degree of significance attached to the effects on Designed Landscapes, apart from parts of Hangingshaw, great importance is attached to the woodland screening within these landscapes. As mentioned above, such screening is intermittent and greatly dependant on where the viewpoints are taken from. Other representations would suggest there are parts of the Designed Landscape at Bowhill offering clearer views of the turbines where the effects would be much more significant. Obviously, the approaches to Newark Castle demonstrate the difference that a few hundred metres can make to visibility – a point made by the Council Archaeologist in his response to the amended scheme.

Furthermore, the Council have produced a Draft SPG on Designed Landscapes which has been out for consultation. This identifies the high quality of the landscape between the two AGLVs and lists an additional ten potential designed landscapes of “regional significance” within approximately 10km of the application site. This includes potential designations at Elibank, Yair, Ashiesteele, Newark Castle and Old Broadmeadows amongst others.

The Council are also currently working on a review of Local Landscape Designations and the production of an SPG. The current intention is to replace AGLVs and place the Broadmeadows site within a “Tweed and Ettrick Special Landscape Area”. If this is subsequently confirmed during 2011, then it would be afforded additional protection through the Development Plan Policies and the aims of the Wind Energy SPG.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 35 Item No 6 (a)

These potential designations can be taken to indicate that the Council believe the landscape to be more worthy of protection than in other areas outwith official landscape or garden designations. Consequently, the current assessments of landscape sensitivity for these sites will have been underestimated and it is considered that further work on this would be necessary and that this has not been undertaken – even in anticipation of the intended designations.

Given the identified detrimental impacts on officially designated landscape areas/designed gardens and the potential increase in these impacts as a result of the Council’s proposals to formally designate further regional designed landscapes within 10km of the development site and a Special Landscape Area, it is concluded that the impact on landscape receptors is unacceptable and the proposals would not be in compliance with Policy D4 of the Adopted Local Plan or the Wind Energy SPG. SNH also express concerns over adverse impact of the wind farm on the character and qualities of the Eildon Hills AGLV.

Other Visual Impacts

There have been other concerns raised about the visual impacts of various ancillary parts of the development, including the electricity connection to the east of the site at Yair, the improvement and construction of new site roads, the borrow pit, site compound and control building. Apart from the electricity connection, all other issues can be controlled by planning condition and are not seen as determining factors in the application. The site is sufficiently large to accommodate such work without undue impacts on the landscape, subject to adequate controls imposed by planning conditions.

The access track to the development will involve significant amounts of cutting, especially the initial section as shown in the drawings contained within the Geotechnical and Hydrological Report, where the access road turns to the north-west beyond the initial plantation. It is estimated this cutting could be 10m deep and 50m wide and that further smaller cuttings would be needed as the access winds its way up towards the turbine locations. The Landscape Architect has pointed out that a Visual Impact Assessment of the impacts of the access works has not been undertaken although the applicant has responded to the concerns in the letter of 16 March 2011.

In terms of overall landscape impacts, the access tracks higher up the hill will generally be hidden behind contours, plantations and farm buildings. There will be some impact from Yarrowford village with the new access junction, visibility splays and tree felling to pass the initial access through. The main cutting should generally be concealed by the remaining woodland either side of the track to the farm and also alongside the Gruntly Burn. It is not considered that these impacts, in themselves, would determine that the application should be refused. Conditions could be imposed to seek further details of the access roads, tree felling and additional landscaping.

The electricity supply has been questioned in terms of its route to the Yair substation. There have been concerns and objections on landscape and ecological impacts although it is recognised that the process for achieving approval lies outwith the direct planning system. Whether the line be under or over ground, there are likely to be impacts to be considered which can only be properly considered by the Government through the Section 37 application. The Council and SNH will be consultees in that process and will be given the opportunity to influence the outcome. As such works do not require formal planning permission, any potential difficulties with the route cannot be used as a reason to oppose the application for the turbines.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 36 Item No 6 (a)

Visual Impact: Design

As PAN 45 states in para 79, the visual impact of wind farms will be affected by their siting, layout, style and colour ie. their design. The applicant, in revising the position, layout and number of turbines in 2010, has claimed that the new design relates well to the local topography and presents a balanced cohesive grouping. They claim an improvement in the previous layout and design of 13 turbines which were seen, especially from the north, as two or even three distinct groupings on the skyline. SNH note and welcome the changes in the design of the scheme and it is accepted that the reduction in turbines and removal of the seven turbines from the western rigs has resulted in a more clustered and focused grouping.

Concerns regarding landscape impact from sensitive receptors are unlikely to be able to be resolved by design adjustments, however, given the location of the site in relation to landscape classifications, the scale and nature of the landform, the direct and skyline views and the impacts on roads, residential and recreational users. The height of the turbines could be adjusted perhaps but this is not likely to resolve all issues satisfactorily, nor has it been an amendment made in 2010 or offered by the applicants since.

Visual Impact: Cumulative visual impact

The SPP considers that in taking into account cumulative impacts in terms of visual and landscape considerations, the relevant factors should be set out in the Development Plan and SPG. Local Plan Policy D4 refers to the visual impact of the cumulative effect and the Council’s SPG on Wind Energy discusses what issues cumulative impact causes and what approach should be taken to it.

It lists the impacts stated in the web guidance notes attached to PAN 45 and describes the three types of cumulative impact identified by SNH –

Combination – two or more developments visible in the same view. Succession – two or more developments from same viewpoint but observer has to turn Sequence – have to travel to different viewpoints to see two or more.

SNH also outline a difference between cumulative visual effects and landscape effects, the latter being character changing.

The SPG takes the approach of “cluster and space” ie. concentrating wind farm development around some existing wind farms and keeping the spaces in between, wind farm free. In this way, there is avoidance of the most pernicious form of cumulative impact which is sequential where wind farms are present as features over very wide areas and with few or no areas left unaffected.

In approaching the “cluster and space” strategy, the SPG identifies the location of existing or approved wind farms then identifies high visual sensitivity sites using landscape classification when viewed from roads, strategic footpaths (including the SUW), viewpoints (including the Three Brethren) cultural and natural heritage sites (including Bowhill).

As previously mentioned, the outcome of the Spatial Strategy for the Broadmeadows revised location indicates that the turbines lie within the highest protection area. The location, however, on the edge with other sensitivity areas would strongly suggest

Planning & Building Standards Committee 37 Item No 6 (a) that this was not the type of location sought by the SPG for the purposes of wind farm development and avoidance of cumulative impact through retention of sufficient space between the clusters – especially with the prospect of sequential cumulative impacts when travelling past or through the site.

Much of the background work and assessment of the Broadmeadows application has unavoidably been linked with the Minch Moor scheme given its proximity and similarity of issues. Even though PAN45 and the SPP consider that all schemes should be taken into account at all stages in the process, it is not considered that schemes refused on appeal should have any material weight in assessment of cumulative impacts on undetermined applications.

Consequently, only impacts from the nearest other schemes noted in the ES should be considered in terms of cumulative impact assessment – notably:

Langhope Rig – approved for 10 turbines 100m to blade tip and located 11km to the south. Longpark – existing wind farm of 19 turbines 100m to blade tip and located 12km to the north-east. Bowbeat – existing wind farm of 24 turbines 76m to blade tip and located 18km to the north-west.

Coincident cumulative impacts normally are only classified as major within a 5km range of at least two sites and wind farms more than 10km apart will usually only display cumulative effects in the low or moderate categories. The refusal of the Minch Moor scheme has resulted in a large reduction in the possibility of coincident cumulative effect, the nearest wind farm to the Broadmeadows site being Langhope Rig where this would only occur as part of elevated views from summits ie. Viewpoints 1-3. The ES predicts these impacts as Major as well as from Viewpoint 10 at Selkirk A699 car park (with visibility of the Long Park development) and Viewpoint 21 on the SUW at Deuchar Law. The Reporter on the Minch Moor appeal also considered cumulative impact to be significantly detrimental to views from the SUW at Broomy Law, taking into account Langhope Rig, Long Park and the Minch Moor scheme itself. Although the amount of coincidental cumulative impact has greatly reduced as a result of the refusal of the Minch Moor scheme, the impacts from sensitive receptors on the SUW and within the Eildon Hills AGLV serve to reinforce the detrimental visual impacts from those receptors previously identified. Coincident cumulative impact would be particularly noticeable with the Long Park and Langhope Rig schemes on the edge of Selkirk (Viewpoint 10).

The ES does not attach any great significance to the potential of significant sequential cumulative effects, mainly as a result of the assessment from public roads in the area. However, it is considered that this underestimates the impacts as a traveller enters the zone of visual influence of one site soon after leaving the zone of its neighbour – thus spreading the extent of the effects of wind farms on the landscape more widely. For example and prior to the refusal of the Minch Moor scheme, the Broadmeadows scheme would be widely visible from Clovenfords on the A72 as would the Minch Moor scheme from the same road a few miles up the Tweed Valley. The same would have applied to the A708 where the linear nature of the two schemes and accentuated gap between them (following the Broadmeadows amendment) would have merely served to emphasis the repetitive and sequential nature of views as road users travel along that road.

Even though such sequential cumulative impact has been greatly reduced with the refusal of the Minch Moor scheme, the introduction of the Broadmeadows

Planning & Building Standards Committee 38 Item No 6 (a) development into an upland landscape verging on river valley types and significant numbers of sensitive receptors, in an area currently without wind farms, would increase sequential occurrences when travelling to or from the northern parts of the Borders where wind farms are more prevalent. In these respects, the influences of Longpark and Langhope Rig remain significant.

It is also felt that the sequential and successional cumulative impact from the A699 on the approach to Selkirk is underestimated (around Viewpoint 10) given the clear visibility of Longpark at 13.5km. The impacts here are of a town potentially ringed with wind farms and there should have been more significance attached to sequential cumulative impact.

The ES does identify the issue of cumulative impact over approximately a 34km stretch of the SUW. It is acknowledged that impacts are significant from Deuchar Law but the applicant considers that significant effects only occur otherwise close to the Broadmeadows wind farm within 6km. It is considered that the impact on the SUW is more significant than identified in terms of sequential cumulative impact, from Deuchar Law in the west to beyond the Three Brethren in the east (within the ZTV), including notable viewpoints that lie within AGLVs and alongside the footpath. There is concern that the SUW could become devalued as a popular long distance walk if much of it becomes a “walk between wind farms”.

In conclusion and even allowing for the refusal and discounting of the Minch Moor scheme, there would be unacceptable coincident and sequential cumulative impacts resulting in detrimental effects on the landscape character and quality together with views from public roads and long distance walking routes.

Access and transportation

Policy D4 seeks assessment and consideration of access to the wind farm both during its operation and especially during the construction phase, which can be much more disruptive. There have been a number of third party representations regarding the impacts of the construction traffic on road safety, the fabric of the road and the local population.

In the initial scheme, there was a possibility of the development utilising two access points from the A708, the current access at Yarrowford and one further west at Lewenshope. The 2010 Amendment confirmed only the Yarrowford scheme would be used via a new junction with 2.5 x 120m visibility splays designed to minimise tree loss along the public road. The access roads within the site would be 5m wide utilising cuttings where necessary. As a result of the amendment to the scheme and the removal of turbines from the western part of the site, the amount of track length within the site has reduced from 9.6 to 6km.

The applicants have carried out assessments of the routes to be used for the construction of the wind farm, using traffic survey points on the A707, A708 and B7014. All traffic increases were considered to be within tolerances of safety on the routes in question, the largest increases occurring in month six of the construction period where HGV levels on the A708 and B7014 could rise by up to 16.4%.

Initial surveys of the route have identified eight locations that may require mitigation works (including Yarrowford Bridge) although a detailed route review would still be needed. Tree lopping will also be required along the route. The applicants also intend to produce a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), through agreement with the Council,

Planning & Building Standards Committee 39 Item No 6 (a) to further mitigate the impacts of the works, including addressing road safety concerns.

The Road User Manager raises no objections to the proposals on the basis of submission of an acceptable TMP, before/after monitoring of the public road, and engineering drawings of the access roads and junction detail. Quarrying of stone from within the site for the roads is welcomed. There is also no objection from Transport Scotland in terms of the construction access using the A68 and A7 to reach the site.

Although it is accepted that there will be relatively significant local impacts on road systems, especially on the A708, as a result of the construction phase of this development, its temporary nature and the various safeguards suggested should provide sufficient mitigation to allow access to be satisfactorily addressed.

Hydrology

The ES and associated Hydrological/Geotechnical Reports assessed the proposals for impacts on the water environment and the potential for flooding, especially during the various stages of construction. This included an assessment of slope stability in relation to the access road construction in particular and provided information needed for the Appropriate Assessment identified as required by SNH, in terms of potentially significant impacts on the River Tweed SAC. The reports identified that existing watercourses such as the Yarrow and Gruntly Burn were susceptible to flooding, erosion and sedimentation, and that private water supplies could be sensitive to change in water quality and quality. They also identified bedrock geology as being important in this assessment and the need for full monitoring and a Water User Management Plan.

The Geotechnical and Hydrological Report submitted by the applicant’s engineers in 2010 identified previous landslips on the Old Broadmeadows Burn and carried out an assessment of the stability of glacial till where access roads were crossing it. The report updated the previous hydrological report by suggesting a Drainage Management Plan in compliance with SEPA and the findings of the previously submitted Hydrological Impact Assessment. They also proposed early installation of the drainage system which would include upslope drainage ditches, infiltration swales, two attenuation ponds, permanent wetlands and a reduced number of discharge points. They estimated the mitigation to have a neutral or better effect on the issue of flood risk and that there would be no significant adverse effects on the River Tweed SAC – the latter issue is dealt with in the Natural Heritage section.

Members should note that there is a large amount of public concern over the potential of the scheme to worsen flood risk on the Yarrow and the burns feeding into it. This is detailed in many letters on the Public Access system including the responses from the Broadmeadows Action Group. They do not consider that the additional reports address the existing problems or potential impacts sufficiently.

However, SNH, the Flood Prevention Officer and SEPA are generally content with the mitigation measures proposed. The Flood Prevention Officer welcomes the limited discharge points, storage ponds and swales. He requires all drainage proposals and the Drainage Management Plan to be controlled by condition and all drainage completed before other work commences. He also requires the applicant to receive flood alerts and prepare an action evacuation plan. SEPA recognises the amended drainage mitigation measures will reduce rates below greenfield run-off and seeks conditions covering a drainage strategy, SUDs, pollution prevention, fuel

Planning & Building Standards Committee 40 Item No 6 (a) storage, foul drainage, bridge crossings and air quality. The Council’s Ecology Officer also comments on the importance of a post development strategy to avoid the access road cuttings acting as inadvertent flood channels.

There remain local concerns over the flood risk issues but as the expert consultees are now satisfied with the additional submissions and mitigation, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and the submission and agreement of various Drainage Strategy and Management Plans, it is concluded that the impacts of the development on hydrology can be managed to acceptable levels.

Cultural Heritage

Government and Local Development Plan Policies and guidance require full assessment of wind farm developments against those buildings, structures and deposits which contribute to an area’s historic environment. The ES and Appendix 11 of the 2010 Amendment firstly identify the receptors which are represented by 77 Scheduled Monuments, 224 statutorily listed buildings (10 of them being Category “A”) and five Conservation Areas. As a result of desk and limited walk-over surveys, additional archaeological sites are also identified within the revised site, principally consisting of locally important quarrying pits. It was also noted that Medieval remains may exist on the Yarrow Valley floor and that the Minch Moor Road and Old Drove Roads outwith the revised site are of historical significance.

In terms of impacts within the study area, the construction of the turbines and formation/improvement of roads are not considered by the applicant to cause any undue problems or impact on any archaeological remains of anything other than local significance. Appendix A11A details the features. The Council Archaeologist remains concerned over the comprehensiveness of the assessment for archaeological interests within the site, stating that it is not clear if a systematic field survey has been undertaken to assess the revised layout. Nevertheless, he accepts that this could still be done prior to construction and would recommend a condition in this regard. Otherwise, he recommends conditions seeking watching briefs, field surveys and in-situ protection.

In assessing the impact on external receptors, there would be 77 scheduled monuments which would theoretically experience effects but the applicant considers that all would experience minor, low or negligible impacts. Of these, perhaps the most important monuments in relation to the development are Wallace’s Trench and Newark Castle. The predicted effects are identified in Appendix 11D of the ES Amendment 2010.

In relation to Wallace’s Trench, the principal purpose and characteristics of the feature to control traffic and provide a break in the landform are not significantly different today, despite afforestation. The Reporter considered the feature to be of little importance in reaching his decision, describing it as “…a relatively modest feature in a heather-covered area of hillside”. The initial scheme concerned Historic Scotland and the Council Archaeologist, the former requiring at least three westerly turbines to be removed or resited.

However, the amended scheme has removed seven turbines from the western part of the site on Whitehope and Hangingshaw Rigs, leading the applicant to conclude there would be no effects on the monument, stating “No turbines would be visible in the approach to it or from the monument itself and its setting would not be affected”. Historic Scotland also welcome this change and raise no objections to the impacts on Wallace’s Trench. Similarly, the Council’s Archaeologist now accepts that the revised

Planning & Building Standards Committee 41 Item No 6 (a) scheme will have no significant impacts on the setting of the feature and has removed his objections in this regard. This is also the case with the Minch Moor Road which he had originally felt was undervalued by the applicant in terms of its historic significance.

Notwithstanding the lack of comment by Historic Scotland on the indirect impacts of the revised scheme on the Scheduled Monument of Newark Castle, the Council must also assess the impacts under Structure Plan Policy N14. New Historic Scotland guidance on setting definition recommends six criteria in assessing development impacts – visual impact on historic setting, visual impacts on current setting, existing impacts of the built environment, impacts of the development on the ability to understand/appreciate, ability of landscape to absorb development and effects on the quality of the setting. If these criteria are used, then it is considered that there will be adverse impacts on the setting of Newark Castle. The Council’s Archaeologist believes that the revised scheme has increased the detrimental impacts on the Castle setting despite the applicant stating in Appendix 11D that the visible turbines “…will be outside of the key setting of the valley floor and the castle will remain the principle focus of the setting”.

The Council’s Archaeologist states that the new layout has significantly increased setting impacts on Newark Castle, showing some if not all turbines being visible in southerly views to the castle. He also points out that there are no viewpoints from the A708 when the castle first comes into view. The applicant’s assessment that the setting of the castle is the “valley floor” is not accepted, as the hills also contribute to the setting for historical and defence reasons. The castle was built to dominate the valley and hills, the old drove road and various fortifications at ridge level indicating the road was an important part of visibility from the castle. The ability to appreciate the castle within its historical and landscape context is seriously compromised by the amended scheme.

The Historic Visualisations are used by the applicant to confirm their opinion that there will be no impact on the setting – but they only serve to emphasise the large and out-of-context intrusion of the structures on the skyline above the castle. Significant visibility of the turbines is noted leading to any logical conclusion that the setting of the castle is significantly compromised by the presence of the turbines. It’s historic and scenic appreciation will be much damaged by the scheme, the presence of tree cover doing little to screen the actual impacts from all but the closest part of the approach to the castle.

There is clearly a difference of opinion between the applicant and the Council’s Archaeologist over what constitutes the setting of the castle but the evidence led by the Archaeologist suggests that the correct definition of setting should include the ridge line beyond the castle. The Wind Energy SPG also requires careful consideration of the cumulative impacts of wind farms on the setting and views from castles.

It is concluded that the development is contrary to Structure Plan Policy N14 and Local Plan Policy BE2 due to adverse impacts on a Scheduled Monument. Should Members be minded to grant permission and without prejudice to the aforementioned advice, then conditions need to be attached covering watching briefs, protection of in situ features, interpretation signage, field surveys and advance notification of works. Developer contributions would also be recommended for Newark Castle to partially mitigate against detrimental impacts.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 42 Item No 6 (a)

Natural Heritage

The main determining issues with natural heritage initially related primarily to impact on birds and, in particular, two different species of Schedule 1 raptor. Since 2004, a particularly rare raptor species was noted but in subsequent detailed surveys and vantage point watches, no significant further evidence of the species were found. SNH, the RSPB and the Council were then able to conclude that there was no further evidence and that the wind farm was not posing any form of threat to that particular species.

However, it was subsequently noted that another Schedule 1 raptor species had a nest near to the development area. Following a further desktop appraisal by the applicant, both the RSPB and SNH were satisfied that the regional population would not experience any significant adverse impact or losses and that it would continue to expand. Faced with this advice, the Council would also accept the impacts of the development on this species.

The ES also contained further surveys of black grouse, finding no leks within the boundary but several just outside. Previous concerns had always expressed strong interest in the impacts on leks to the west of the site and given that turbines had been removed from this area, the applicant concluded there were no significant impacts. Other responses have suggested that lekking is now occurring to the east of the site (Scottish Wildlife Trust) and that there would be a degree of cross-flying between them. It is identified that this species would be vulnerable to collision risk as the population was fragile and prone to disturbance. It is also identified as a species of conservation concern.

Impacts on black grouse remain of concern to the RSPB and the Council’s Ecology Officer. Should the development go ahead, then it would be necessary to agree a Habitat Management Plan through legal agreement to restore habitats outside the turbine envelope to reduce collision risk. The Ecology Officer also recommends that the applicant confirms their agreement to providing off-site habitat measures pred- determination. However, the development should not be opposed for reasons of impact on black grouse

In terms of other birds, low values have been attributed to most species except for moderate local values attributed to red grouse, common snipe, Eurasian curlew, common cuckoo, long-eared owl, tree pipit, common redstart and Eurasian nuthatch. Artificial nest sites are recommended to compensate for the loss of a long-eared owl nest site. The Ecology Officer recommends that if approval is given to the scheme, there should also be a breeding birds survey carried out and that the aforementioned legal agreement should include provision for curlew and lapwing. No tree felling would be allowed during the bird breeding season.

Other surveys were carried out in terms of other wildlife potentially affected, including effects noted on otter, bats, brown hare, mountain hare and hedgehog. In particular, it was noted there was an internationally important otter population on the Yarrow Water outwith the study site with a holt near to the access point. The applicant proposes to avoid tree felling in the vicinity and not carry out any access works if there are young present in the holt. A licence will be required for any temporary disturbance.

An issue of badger presence has also arisen which has not been noted in the ES. There should be a requirement for further survey work and mitigation, to be controlled by condition.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 43 Item No 6 (a)

Similarly, bat roosts could potentially be affected principally from tree felling to accommodate the access and sub-station. However, it was not considered to represent an impact that required specific mitigation. Nevertheless, any tree felling may still present a risk and further bat surveys would be needed prior to any felling. Mitigation is also proposed in the form of an Ecological Clerk of Works, Habitat and Environmental Management Plans and a Construction Method Statement. Within these plans there should be safeguards to avoid felling during the breeding bird season and monitoring of before and after impacts, together with updated checking surveys before works are carried out. These matters can all be controlled by appropriate conditions.

In terms of fauna and sensitive habitats, no significant impacts were noted subject to mitigation as detailed in the Hydrological Impact Assessment and Geotechnical Report.

The other significant issue that has arisen with regard to impact on natural heritage, is the potentially adverse impact of the wind farm and its construction on the River Tweed SAC. SNH identified these impacts in their consultation replies and were particularly concerned at the potential for flood risk, pollution and sedimentation of the SAC. They lodged a holding objection and requested the Council carry out an Appropriate Assessment to consider the effects.

The applicant has now submitted two specific documents in relation to the issues of flood risk, ground stability and addressing impacts that would be considered in an Appropriate Assessment. There have also been meetings with them, SNH, SEPA and the Council to discuss the issues arising and what additional information may be required. As previously mentioned, input from the Council engineers had also raised issues over assessment/mitigation based on assumption rather than ground investigation and the size of the initial road access cutting as well as the cutting beside the Old Broadmeadows Burn. After seeking further advice from SNH on the Engineer’s comments, an Appropriate Assessment was concluded raising no determining issues subject to several conditions including the need for an Ecological Clerk of Works, Construction Method Statement and Drainage Management Plan. The Assessment is available for viewing in full on the Public Access web site. Members will be updated at the Committee meeting on the position of SNH regarding the Assessment with respect to whether they have withdrawn their objection.

It is concluded that the proposals will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural heritage of the local area, subject to conditions and a legal agreement requiring the relevant safeguards and plans.

Noise

The impacts of mechanical and aerodynamic noise caused by wind turbines are a material factor in assessing wind farm developments, SPP and PAN 45 providing advice on them and the latter sets out detailed best practice, including compliance with ETSU-R-97. The ES Amendment 2010 complies with this best practice having carried out baseline measurements at the three nearest properties – Williamhope, Hangingshaw Cottage and the landowner’s house at Broadmeadows. A further reading was also carried out at Heath Cottage and this proved to have the closest reading to the established maximum daytime figures – at 1dB. However, all readings were shown to comply with the PAN best practice.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 44 Item No 6 (a)

There has been much criticism in third party representations over the issue of noise, especially in relation to the nearest houses and area of settlement at Broadmeadows and Yarrowford. Complaints about points of background measurement, low-level frequency noise and echo in the valley have also been made although the applicant has stated that the turbines (whichever design is chosen) will create less noise than the ETSU noise rating maximums. They have also stated that the turbines can be slowed if noise levels are exceeded.

The Environmental Health Section have assessed the proposals and have set a series of thresholds for operational noise and tonality. There is no criticism from them over the noise assessment methods or findings and the achievement of the thresholds can, therefore, be imposed by planning conditions.

Noise from construction activities could also be controlled by conditions and guidance in the Traffic Management and Construction Management Plans.

It is concluded that noise impacts have been demonstrated to be controllable with the use of appropriate conditions.

Driver Distraction

The ES and subsequent figures addressed the impacts of the turbines when viewed from public roads, particularly the A72 at Clovenfords and the A708 at Broadmeadows/Yarrowford. At the distances involved and even with the distraction of blade over-tipping, there has been no safety problem identified by the Road User Manager. The greatest possibility is likely to be at Yarrowford in terms of the height and proximity of the turbines to the road – but the position of the turbines north-west of the road would reduce the prospect of sunlight refracting and being scattered through the moving blades. There will also be visibility in the drivers’ eye view from the A699 approach to Selkirk and from the west when viewed from the A7 and roads converging on the B709 – but again with the distances involved, there is not expected to be any significant problem from shadow flicker or moving blades causing driver distraction..

Tourism and recreation

The SPP and PAN45 identify tourism as a well established and valuable contributor to a rural economy which is based upon natural, scenic and cultural heritage. The potential detrimental impacts on tourism are, therefore, a significant material consideration in assessing wind farm proposals.

The ES recognises that the wind farm site is in a highly scenic area which is popular with tourists, especially those attracted for the major recreational benefits of the Tweed Valley Forest Park, Bowhill, Glentress, the 7 Stanes route, the SUW, the Minch Moor road etc. It is known that cycling and the routes in the area are a major source of visitors/revenue to the area. It is also known that 1000 people complete the SUW per annum though up to nine times as many complete shorter sections of it, short walks being promoted and being a consequence of proximity to areas of population. Within the vicinity, it is also known that Traquair House is a significant tourist attraction in the Borders.

The popularity of the area to tourism, cycling, walking and horse riding is the subject of significant comment by Community Councils and many respondents, all fearing that the presence of the wind farm would cause significant harm to tourism in the area. It is known from previous studies that whilst over 91% of tourists were affected

Planning & Building Standards Committee 45 Item No 6 (a) by wind farms in the Borders, tourism as a sector only constituted 4.2% of the Borders GVA. The same studies conclude that only a very small percentage of visitors would not return to an area due to the presence of wind farm although the ES accepts that hill walkers were highly susceptible to the type of landscape change caused by wind farms.

PAN45 Annex 2 concludes that the negative impacts of wind farms on tourism at a national level is small but that local authorities needed to take into account local characteristics to ensure impacts are minimised. When detrimental impact on tourism was used as a reason to oppose the Dunion Hill wind farm near Jedburgh, the Reporter only concentrated on impacts from vehicular tourist routes and tourist accommodation. At Broadmeadows, the bigger impacts are expected to be on those groups more susceptible to landscape change such as the hill walkers or horse riders using the SUW and connecting routes – or the cyclists attracted to the area as a result of the success of mountain biking at Glentress and Innerleithen. The area has a significant concentration of such activity compared to other parts of the Borders.

For these reasons, it is argued that the amount of tourist activity potentially affected at Broadmeadows is likely to be more significant than at the Dunion site for example, although the actual impacts are difficult to quantify or form any conclusion regarding their unacceptability. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary from Visit Scotland or from individual contributors, the potentially detrimental impact on the local tourist economy cannot be used to substantiate a reason to reject the scheme. The Reporter came to similar conclusions in determining the Minch Moor application, considering that the relationship between wind farms and tourism was complex and finding no firm evidence to conclude there would be a significantly adverse effects.

Similarly there has been concern expressed over the impacts of the development on continued rights of access through the site and on walker/rider safety with respect to ice-throw and the startling effects of the blades. PAN 45 recognises the issue of ice throw but suggests that modern design can eliminate the concern. Welsh Assembly guidance is quoted by objectors regarding distance from public footpaths for wind turbines but there is no equivalent guidance for Scotland. Although the revised design moved turbines further away from the Minch Moor Road improving the relationship in that location, some turbines remain within 2-300m of the Southern Upland Way. However, further micro-siting of the nearest turbines to the SUW could improve the relationship in terms of proximity and this could be secured by planning condition which is standard in any case.

There are also concerns expressed regarding the continued rights of access through the site for cyclists, walkers and riders. Although there may be some disruption during the construction phases, the proposals do not impede continued rights of access and this concern can be controlled by planning condition. There may be a requirement to seek developer contributions by legal agreement to improve the recreational path provision as a result of the wind farm development.

Given the above information from the applicant, the advice in the PAN and the fact that the wind turbines were moved further away from one of the main walking routes, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that there would be a public safety reason to oppose the development, albeit in an area where there is more sizeable recreational activity than in other hilly areas of the region.

Air traffic

Planning & Building Standards Committee 46 Item No 6 (a)

Wind turbines can affect civil and military aircraft by interfering with electronic communications or posing a danger to low-flying routes. The ES considers the issue of low-flying and interference with military radar and testing ranges. No objections were received to these issues from the various consultees including the Ministry of Defence and NATS. The subsequent amendments to the scheme have not resulted in the need for any reconsideration in the revised ES 2010.

The ES does update the position on the issue of vibration noise affecting the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station which has seen the MOD allocate a specific budget of noise allowable before they would object to wind farm schemes. Given that the current application has been in the “pipeline” since 2004 and has recently reduced in size, the MOD have confirmed that they have no objection to the scheme and that it has already been allowed for within the “budget”.

Nevertheless, they have made new requests for omni-directional red lighting on the turbines to a specific luminance. The lighting will only serve to enhance the impact and dominant scale of the development on the landscape, even though it is appreciated that the lighting will only be visible as dusk and darkness descends. Whilst it is known that the brightness of the lighting sought is reduced from previous requests by the MOD, it is not suggested that this will be invisible to the naked eye as it will still need to be seen by low-flying aircraft. The use of infra-red light is also being researched but has yet to be embraced and sought by the MOD. The application must, therefore, be assessed on the basis of what is currently requested which will only serve to exacerbate the intrusion of the development within the landscape and emphasise the height of the structures.

Shadow Flicker

This would normally be caused by a combination of geographical position, time of day/year and proximity of properties whereby the sun may pass behind the rotor blades and cast a flickering shadow over them. PAN 45 believes that in most cases, this issue will not arise due to the isolation of development from residential property. It recommends 10 rotor diameters as a useful threshold, beyond which there should not be a problem. For this development, this equates to 840m which still does not reach the nearest house of Heath Cottage and the houses within the Broadmeadows Farm group to the south of the southernmost turbines.

As these properties are beyond the suggested 840m and also lie to the south of the turbine envelope, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant problem.

Air Quality

The construction period may result in dust emissions as a result of borrow pit excavations, construction works, road works, material storage and vehicular movements. All these matters can be controlled by conditions and mitigation included in the Construction Method Statement, Pollution Prevention Plan and Traffic Management Plan. With such conditions, SEPA would be satisfied with the proposals and additional assessment could be carried out by the Council’s Environmental Health Service.

Telecommunications

PAN 45 identifies the particular issue of television reception being potentially affected by wind farm developments. The consultees on the application do not identify any particular issues although NTL suggest some isolated houses closest to the turbines

Planning & Building Standards Committee 47 Item No 6 (a) may experience problems. The issue is likely to be less pronounced since the advent of digital rather than analogue reception. A Legal Agreement is requested to ensure that the developer would meet the cost of any rectifying of such problems if they arise. The applicant has accepted this position and the issue is, therefore, not a determining one.

Civil telecommunications have also been assessed but there have been no objections lodged by these providers. One fixed link is identified but provided there is notification to the owners of the link, no problems are envisaged.

Decommissioning/After-Use

Development Plan policies require the site to be suitably restored after the operation of the wind farm has ceased. Pan 45 recognises that wind farms can be easily restored provided suitable safeguards are built into the conditions or legal agreements. In the case of this proposal, a 25 year operational life is sought after which time, the site will be restored to the satisfaction of the Council over a 12 month period. The applicant may leave the tracks and buildings in position although reinstatement would also be considered. Cabling will be left although foundations will be modified and seeded over. There should also be consideration of the concerns expressed over the depth of cuttings achieved for the access routes up the hillside and their operation as inadvertent drainage channels once the development has ceased operation.

Decommissioning and after-use can, therefore, be satisfactorily addressed by conditions which could specify the after-use details required, the programme for submission and subsequent implementation.

Needs and Benefits

The “Needs and Benefits” section of the ES Amendment 2010 updates the various commitments at European, UK and Scottish levels to increasing the amount of electricity produced from renewable sources by 2020. The applicant claims the reduced development will still provide a valuable contribution to those objectives, creating up to 0.64% of the Scottish target and 0.30% of the UK target based on a maximum operating capacity of 35%, a figure which is challenged in a number of studies. This is based upon figures which have now been revised by the Scottish Government and are, consequently, smaller percentages of the targets – having been raised to 80% and now more recently to 100%. The document also recognises the complexity of estimating such figures with any accuracy and the operating capacity of wind turbines has been generally questioned by many objectors. It must also be recognised, however, that many of the supporters of the scheme view this contribution to renewable quotas as a significant advantage in its favour.

The “Needs and Benefits” section also considers the scheme to be worth £20 million of which £7 million would be of benefit to the local economy. There could also be consideration of additional benefits such as car parking for the village hall, interpretation of walking routes, improvement of other paths and a shelter on the SUW.

The issue of financial community benefits (Community Fund) arising as a result of wind farm development plays no part in the determination of a planning application or has no weight attached to it for the purposes of application assessment. Nevertheless, Members should be aware that the applicants have been discussing

Planning & Building Standards Committee 48 Item No 6 (a) particular projects with Community organisations regarding how best to distribute a fund of £500,000 over the operational period of the wind farm.

The Reporter, in determining the larger Minch Moor development, recognised that “National policy does not give unconditional support for on-shore wind farm development”, quoting the National Planning Framework which recognises environmental quality as one of Scotland’s economic assets. He concluded that the benefits and contribution of that scheme to national policy did not outweigh the undesirable landscape and visual amenity effects.

Although Members should be aware of the claimed benefits of the Broadmeadows scheme through the information submitted, it is not considered that there are overwhelming reasons or benefits that should outweigh the significant landscape, visual impact and cultural heritage reasons for opposing it.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed windfarm will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the area, including the hills between the Tweed and Yarrow Valleys, the valley landscapes themselves, the landscape designations and the wider countryside which is of high scenic value. The wind farm would be located in an “Area of Significant Protection” on the fringe of landscape types of an inappropriate scale and character to accommodate the proposals successfully. The development would also have a significant detrimental visual impact on the area as a result of impacts on sensitive road, residential, recreational and landscape receptors, exacerbated by the impacts of aviation lighting.

The windfarm would also cause significant and unacceptable visual cumulative impacts when considered with schemes approved or proposed, including coincident and particularly sequential impacts from roads and paths in the area, especially the Southern Upland Way. The scheme would also impact adversely on the setting of a Scheduled Monument.

It is considered that other issues regarding hydrology, ecology, noise, traffic and ancillary issues have been accounted for both by the site revision, and by the mitigation measures proposed in the ES and additional issues covered by planning condition or legal agreement.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is contrary to Policies I19, I20, and N9 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018, Policies D4 and BE3 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Adopted 2011 and the advice contained within the Wind Energy SPG, in that: x The proposal will be located within and on the fringe of, and will have a significantly detrimental influence on, sensitive landscape types as defined in the Borders Landscape Assessment 1995 and Wind Energy SPG which are of an inappropriate scale and character to accommodate the proposals successfully, due to the smaller scale nature of the landscapes, the height of the turbines compared to the height of the hills, their prominent elevated positions and the relatively narrow width of the ranges of hills between the valleys providing insufficient landform screening from sensitive receptors.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 49 Item No 6 (a)

x The proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the area, including the hills and summits between the Tweed and Yarrow Valleys, the valley landscapes themselves, the landscape designations and the surrounding countryside which is of high scenic value and contains nationally listed and locally proposed designed landscapes, gardens and a special landscape area.

x The turbines will have a significant detrimental visual impact on the area as a result of skyline and blade overtipping impacts on high sensitivity road, residential, recreational and landscape receptors, exacerbated by the impacts of required aviation lighting.

x The proposal will cause significant and unacceptable visual cumulative impacts when considered with schemes approved or proposed, including coincident and sequential impacts from roads and paths in the area, especially the Southern Upland Way.

2. The proposed development is contrary to Policy N14 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 –2018 and Policy BE2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Adopted 2011 in that it would result in significant adverse impacts on the setting of a Scheduled Monument.

Approved by

Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Craig Miller Principal Planning Officer

Planning & Building Standards Committee 50 Item No 6 (a)

Planning & Building Standards Committee 51