Report to the Scottish Ministers ELECTRICITY ACT 1989

Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

Report to the Scottish Ministers abcdefghijklmnopqrstu

ELECTRICITY ACT 1989

Report by Dan Jackman, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers

• Case reference: Druim Ba Wind Farm • Site Address: Druim Ba Forest, Blairmore Estate, near Drumnadrochit, by Inverness • Application by Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited for consent under Section 36 of the Act, dated 16 March 2011 • The development proposed: Wind Farm comprising 23 turbines with a ground to blade tip height of 149.5 metres • Planning authority lodging objection: The Highland Council • Dates of hearing and inquiry sessions: 26 June 2012 – 4 July 2012

Date of this report and recommendation: 21 November 2012

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX 557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals 4 The Courtyard Callendar Business Park Callendar Road Falkirk FK1 1XR

File Ref: Druim Ba Wind Farm

The Scottish Ministers Edinburgh

Ministers

In accordance with my minute of appointment dated 28 November 2011, I held a public inquiry in connection with an application in terms of Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act by Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited to operate a wind farm at Druim Ba, near Drumnadrochit, Highland. I held a pre-examination meeting for the inquiry on 15 March 2012. At the meeting parties agreed to follow the Code of Practise for Handling Inquiries under Section 62 and Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989. A mix of procedures was followed. The applicants submitted additional environmental information (in relation to noise) on 28 May 2012 and, at the same time, indicated that they would be advertising the information in local newspapers.

The inquiry and hearing sessions took place between 26 June 2012 and 4 July 2012. They were held at the Kiltarlity Village Hall, Kiltarlity. Closing submissions were exchanged after the inquiry had finished. Submissions on a claim for expenses by Druim Ba Say No against the council were also exchanged in writing. The post inquiry exchanges on all matters concluded on 22 August 2012. An accompanied site inspection, including adjoining residential properties took place on 5 July 2012. I carried out unaccompanied site inspections of the area before, during and after the inquiry.

A summary of the report is included. The report itself is divided into 8 chapters. The first chapter deals with general background, including the statutory and policy background. Chapters 2-6 summarise the main points of the parties who attended the inquiry and hearing sessions. Chapter 7 summarises the representations and consultation responses received. Chapter 8 contains my reasoned conclusions and recommendation. My recommended conditions are set out in appendix 1. The conditions discussed between the applicant and council are contained in appendix 2. The appearances at the inquiry are in appendix 3. The note of the pre-examination meeting is contained in appendix 4. A list of the documents before the inquiry is included in appendix 5. The claim for award of expenses is considered in a separate report.

X - 1 CONTENTS

Page Abbreviations 1

Summary 2 – 5

1. Background 6 - 14

2. The Case for Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited 15 - 31

3. The Case for The Highland Council 32 – 39

4. The Case for the Combined Community Council Group 40 – 44

5. The Case for the Local Residents Group 45 – 48

6. The Case for Druim Ba Say No 49 – 55

7. Consultation Responses 56 – 60

8. Reasoned Conclusions and Recommendation 61 – 86

Appendices

Appendix 1 Reporter’s recommended conditions 87 – 97

Appendix 2 Schedule of conditions tabled by the applicant with

Comments from The Highland Council 98 – 110

Appendix 3 Appearances at the inquiry 111

Appendix 4 Note of the pre-examination meeting 112 – 119

Appendix 5 List of inquiry documents 120

Abbreviations dB(A) decibel (A-weighted)

ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Turbines, Dept of Trade and Industry, September 1996

Gwh Giga watt hours km kilometre kw kilowatt m metre

MW Mega watt m/s metres per second

Noise Terminology used in the Report

Noise is detected in the ear by changes in sound pressure. The range between the quietest audible sound and the loudest tolerable sound is one million to one in terms of the change in sound pressure. Consequently, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale is used to describe noise.

The human ear will perceive loudness of a noise differently depending on the pitch or frequency of the noise. As microphones do not distinguish noise in the same way as the human ear, a weighting is applied to noise levels to approximate to human response. The correction factor is known as the A weighting and is denoted by the letter A applied to noise indices.

There are various different noise terms and they are expressed in different ways to distinguish them. Each of the parties used slightly different forms of expression, although they related to the background noise descriptor recommended in ETSU-R- 97, unless specifically indicated otherwise. Therefore, in this report, unless otherwise indicated, dB(A) refers to the A weighted noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period (i.e. the background noise levels).

Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals Summary of Report of Inquiry abcdefghijklmnopqrstu

Wind farm comprising 23 turbines with a ground to blade tip height of 149.5 metres Druim Ba Forest, Blairmore Estate, Near Drumnadrochit, by Inverness

• Case reference Druim Ba Wind Farm • Case type Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 • Reporter Dan Jackman • Appellant Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited • Planning authority The Highland Council • Other parties The combined community council group, the local residents group and Druim Ba Say No • Date of application 16 March 2011 • Date case received by DPEA 27 October 2011 • Method of consideration and date Further written submissions, hearing sessions and inquiry session held between 26 June 2012 – 4 July 2012. Accompanied site inspection 5 July 2012 • Date of report 21 November 2012 • Reporter’s recommendation Refuse Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission

The Site: 1. The site is located east of the A833, approximately 4 km north of Drumnadrochit and approximately 16 km south west of Inverness. It forms the south western head of Glen Convinth, which drains northwards to the River Beauly. The site itself is mostly a coniferous forest plantation. It falls quite steeply to Glen Convinth to the west, with the reminder an undulating plateau over 250m AOD.

Description of the Development 2. The proposal is for 23 turbines with a maximum hub height of 108 m and a maximum blade tip height of 149.5m with associated infrastructure including tracks and electricity substation. The total installed generating capacity would be 69 MW. A new access would be created onto the A837 with two existing forest accesses being improved.

The Applicant’s Case: 3. It is considered that the site is a good location for a wind farm. There are no protective designations. The site is visually contained with the main views available only from the north. There are no large settlements nearby. By ‘key- holing’ the turbines and tracks the existing forest can be retained. This has a number of advantages, including complying with the Scottish Government’s woodland removal policy. However, for technical reasons, retaining the forest dictates the height of the turbines.

4. It is considered that the site is situated in a large scale landscape where there is capacity for the number and height of turbines proposed. The landscape and visual impacts are relatively localised, proportionate and not unusual for a proposal of this nature. Scottish Natural Heritage did not object to the proposal. Views from nearby properties would be changed but not to the extent that the proposal becomes unacceptable. The impacts are comparable with other wind farms granted consent.

5. The new noise information has been prepared in accordance with ETSU- R-97 and has demonstrated that the proposal can be operated within the limits set out in ETSU-R-97. Subject to conditions, there would be no significant noise impact. Concerns over tourism are misplaced. There is no evidence that wind farms have any significant impact on tourism. All other impacts have been addressed in the design or can be appropriately addressed by conditions.

6. The council was the only consultee to object. There is strong policy support for the development of wind farms and 69 MW would make an important contribution to Scottish Government targets. The environmental statement demonstrates that the proposal complies with the Section 36 tests and the relevant policies of the development plan. Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission should be granted.

The Council’s Case: 7. Although there is strong support for renewable energy developments, each individual proposal still has to be environmentally acceptable. It is considered that the proposal is too high and too close to nearby properties and communities. The proposals for the existing forest lacks detail and are unrealistic. Bearing in mind existing, consented and proposed wind farms, there would be unacceptable cumulative impacts. The council does not consider that there is capacity for a large scale wind farm and the area should be free from wind farms in order to create a visual respite.

8. Due to defective noise information the wind farm cannot realistically operate within the previously agreed noise limits of 35 dB(A) during the day and 38dB(A) during the night. There is no support in ETSU-R-97 for having no noise limits during part of the daytime. The proposal is not environmentally acceptable

and would be contrary to Policy 67 and Policy 28 of the Highland wide Local development Plan. Consent should be refused.

Other Parties’ Cases: 9. Combined community council group: The turbines are too tall, too many and too close to houses and communities. The proposal would have significant adverse landscape and visual effects because of its excessive dominance. Its impacts have been exaggerated, not mitigated, by virtue of misguided design choices. A significant number of people including nearby residents and visitors would appreciate these effects. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage’s guidelines. The proposal would damage tourism and recreation interests and with it, the local economy. It would also deter others from creating the sustainable successful local business and social enterprises of the future. For these reasons, Scottish Ministers should refuse consent.

10. Local residents group: Both the environmental statement and local visual amenity assessment understate the impact on the amenity of a large number of residential properties up to 3 km from the wind farm. Neither study visited the actual properties. The assessments refer to ‘in the round’ but confine the analysis to visual matters only. The local residents are extremely concerned about the impact from noise and that not all the experts have verified the data. The noise limit should be 35dB(A) for the whole 24 hour period.

11. Druim Ba Say No: The landscape and visual impacts would be unacceptable, not only across Glen Convinth but also in respect of a number of nearby residential properties. They would be much greater than suggested in the applicant’s assessments. In addition, the proposal would impose excessive noise levels on a substantial number of residences. The proposal cannot meet ETSU-R- 97 limits and is likely to cause complaints. The proposal would not have an acceptable environmental impact and would therefore be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and the provisions of the development plan. The limited benefits would not outweigh the considerable disadvantages to the host community. Consent should be refused.

Reporter’s Reasoning: 12. The key determining issues are: i) the need for the wind farm and national energy policy and guidance; ii) its environmental and other impacts (including landscape and visual impact, impact upon the residential amenities of nearby houses and impact on tourism) bearing in mind the development plan, other policy guidance and the duties set out in Schedule 9.

13. I consider that Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited has had regard to the desirability of preserving and conserving the various environmental matters listed in Schedule 9, including fisheries and the stocks of fish in waters. This is evidenced by the environmental statement and the proposed conditions. I also consider, for the same reasons, that within the parameters of the chosen design, the applicant has done what they reasonably could to mitigate any of the relevant

environmental matters. However, I do not consider that the chosen design minimises its overall impacts.

14. I find that there is a need for the development and that it would make a significant contribution to the Scottish Government energy policy. I also find that there is no objection in principle to an appropriately designed wind farm in this location.

15 However, I do not consider that the particular design of the proposal has acceptable environmental affects overall. I consider that the number and height of the turbines would appear out of scale with the surrounding landscape and it would have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts. Furthermore, in combination, the overall landscape and visual impacts, the visual impact from nearby properties and the likely noise from the proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenities of several nearby properties. I therefore consider that the proposal is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, elements of Policy 67 and Policy 28 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan and, certain aspects of Scottish Natural Heritage’s wind farm design guidance. I find the council’s first reason for objection to be well founded.

16 I do not find there to be any unacceptable cumulative impacts or any significant impacts on the number or spend of tourists. All the other relevant matters have been addressed in the design or can be addressed by appropriate conditions.

17 I have considered whether the benefits of the proposal, including the contribution it would make to the supply of renewable energy outweighs the unacceptable environmental impacts I have identified. I have taken into account the fact that the proposal would be temporary for 25 years and would not be permanent. I also considered the letters in support of the proposal. However, in my judgement, the benefits do not outweigh the harmful impacts of the proposed design.

18. I therefore recommend that Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission be refused.

1. BACKGROUND ______

The site and its surroundings

1.1 The site is located east of the A833 approximately 4 km north of Drumnadrochit and approximately 16 km south west of Inverness.

1.2 In general topographical terms, the site forms the south western head of Glen Convinth, which drains northwards to the River Beauly and then into the Beauly Firth. Approximately 4 km to the south east is the Great Glen and Loch Ness. Approximately 3 km to the south of the site is Glen Urquhart, which joins Loch Ness at Urquhart Bay. A series of hills surround the site to the south east and south west including, Carn na Leitire (434m AOD), Meall n h-Eilrig (465m AOD), Cnoc Snataig (418m AOD), Meall Gorm (415m AOD) and Meall nan Caorach (426m AOD).

1.3 The main settlements are Drumnadrochit, 4 km to the south, Kiltarlity (approx 5 km), Beauly (approx 10 km) and Muir of Ord (approx 13.5 km) to the north. There are smaller communities at Abriachan (approx 3 km to the east) and Ardendrain (approx 1 km to the north). In addition, there are scattered houses along the A833 and minor roads adjacent to the site with the main concentration of properties being in Glen Convinth.

1.4 The site itself is mostly coniferous woodland. The site falls quite steeply to Glen Convinth to the west, with the remainder forming an undulating plateau. The majority of the site is above 250 m AOD with the highest point being 370 m. Within the site, there are a few small lochans and minor watercourses.

1.5 Immediately bordering the site to the south west is the Abriachan Forest Trust, which manages its own forest for leisure and outdoor learning. Running parallel to Loch Ness and to the south west of the site is the Great Glen Way long distance footpath.

The application and consideration by The Highland Council

1.6 The applicant, Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited had pre-application discussions with The Highland Council in November 2009. A scoping opinion was provided by Scottish Ministers in May 2010 and an application, environmental statement and associated documentation was submitted on 16 March 2011. There followed a wide ranging consultation. The comments of those organisations and individuals who did not attend the inquiry are summarised in chapter 7.

1.7 On 20 September 2011, The Highland Council considered their comments on the application and decided to object for the following reasons:

• The development conflicts with Policies E2 and G2 of the approved Highland Structure Plan and Policy 68 of the draft Highland wide Local Development Plan as its size and massing would have a significantly detrimental visual impact on properties/communities immediately adjacent to the site (north, east and south)

• The development conflicts with the Loch Ness (1) sub area identified within the Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy, April 2011. This policy seeks to prevent large scale wind farm cluster from growing to a point where it impinges upon views in the Great Glen; avoiding mirroring of wind farms from one side to other and to provide a respite gap/a protection area extending northwards from the Great Glen to beyond Cannich and Beauly to create a visual break from large scale wind farm development

1.8 On 24 April 2012, The Highland Council updated their reasons for objections following subsequent changes to the statutory development plan and council policy. The updated reasons were as follows:

• The development conflicts with Policy 28 Sustainable Design and Policy 67 Renewable Energy Developments of the Highland wide Local Development Plan adopted on 5 April 2012 as its size and massing would have a significantly detrimental visual impact on properties/communities adjacent to the site (north, east and south).

• Taking into account cumulative impact of other wind farm developments particularly to the south of Loch Ness/Great Glen and to the north Fairburn/Garve/Easter Ross, this area at Druim Ba is seen as having no capacity to absorb large scale wind farm development as proposed, in light of the need to provide visual respite/a protection area extending northwards from the Great Glen to beyond Cannich

1.9 The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 4.2 of Volume 3 of the environmental statement. The main components of the application include:

• 23 turbines with internal transformers, each with nominal capacity of 3 MW, with a maximum hub height of 108 m and a maximum blade tip height of 149.5 m. The total installed capacity would be up to 69 MW

• Associated crane pads for each turbine

• 1 permanent anemometer mast (100 m)

• 13.9 km of access tracks (8.6 km existing/5.3 km new)

• New access onto the A833, with 2 existing accesses improved as exit points for one way traffic working

• Control and telecom cabling ducts (primarily adjacent to access tracks)

• Electricity substation and control building

• A temporary construction compound

• A borrow pit

• Temporary on-site concrete batching plant 1.10 The operational lifespan of the wind turbines is 25 years after which time the development would be decommissioned, with above ground equipment being removed and site restoration being undertaken.

1.11 The connection to the national grid is expected to be at Knocknagael substation, located approximately 5 km south east of Inverness. This would be subject of a separate application.

Statutory provision

Electricity Act 1989

1.12 Section 36 provides that a generating station with a capacity in excess of 50 MW shall not be constructed, extended or operated except in accordance with a consent granted by the Scottish Ministers.

1.13 Schedule 8(2) to the Act requires the Scottish Ministers to serve notice of any Section 36 application on the relevant planning authority. If the planning authority objects to the application, Ministers are obliged to hold a public inquiry and to consider the objection and the report of the inquiry before deciding whether to give consent.

1.14 Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 9 requires the Scottish Ministers, in considering any relevant proposals for which their consent is required under section 36, to have regard to: • The desirability of the matters mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Schedule; and

• The extent to which the person by whom the proposals were formulated has complied with his duty 1.15 The matters mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(a) are: the desirability of preserving natural beauty, conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historical or archaeological interest. The duty under paragraph 3(1) (b) requires the person who formulated the proposals to do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect that the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.

1.16 Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 9 stipulates a further requirement to seek to avoid, so far as possible, causing injury to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any waters.

The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as amended)

1.17 Regulation 3 states that the Scottish Ministers shall not grant a Section 36 consent that relates to environmental impact assessment development unless the requirements of regulation 4 have been satisfied. Regulation 4(1) requires an

applicant to submit an environmental statement. Regulation 4(2) provides that the Ministers shall not grant consent unless an environmental statement has been provided, that they have taken into consideration the environmental information and stated in their decision that they have done so, and that the appropriate procedures for publicity have been followed.

1.18 Regulation 14A sets out the requirements for Scottish Ministers when additional information is made available. Additional information, means substantive information relating to the environmental statement which: • is provided by the applicant or a consultative body to the Scottish Ministers:

o after the date of receipt by the Scottish Ministers of a document referred to by the applicant as an environmental statement; and

o before determination by the Scottish Ministers of the application for a Section 36 consent or a Section 37 consent in respect of the development; and

• is not information falling within paragraphs (b) or (c) of the definition of “environmental statement” Policy background

Energy policy

1.19 In recent years, European, United Kingdom and Scottish Government policies have focussed increasingly on concerns about climate change. Each tier of government has developed targets, policies and actions to achieve these targets.

1.20 The targets set for the United Kingdom by the European Commission include a 16% reduction in United Kingdom greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and for 15% of all energy consumed in the United Kingdom to come from renewable resources by 2020.

1.21 The United Kingdom Government retains responsibility for the overall direction of energy policy, although some elements are devolved to the Scottish Government. The United Kingdom Government has published a series of policy documents setting out how the European targets can be achieved. Onshore wind generation, located in Scotland, is identified as an important component to achieve these various goals.

1.22 In turn, the Scottish Government has also published a number of policy documents and its own targets. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 sets out the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A key Scottish Government target is that 100% of gross electricity consumption should be generated from renewable sources by 2020. This target equates to approximately 16 GW. The Scottish Government expects that onshore wind generation would be a significant component of the electricity generated to meet this target.

1.23 The key United Kingdom and Scottish Government energy policy documents are included as core documents CD 50 – CD 54.

Scottish Planning Policy

1.24 Scottish Government planning policy is that wind farms should be supported in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. Likely matters to consider include: • landscape and visual impact,

• effects on the natural heritage and historic environment,

• contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets,

• effect on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests,

• benefits and disbenefits for communities,

• aviation and telecommunications,

• noise and shadow flicker, and

• cumulative impact. 1.25 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 the landscape and visual impact is minimised. Scottish Planning Policy is included as CD 20.

1.26 The Scottish Government has online planning advice for onshore wind turbines that is kept regularly updated. This has advice on more detailed matters. This includes that Scottish Natural Heritage’s guidance on design should be followed. It also states that The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, which should be followed by applicants and consultees, and used by planning authorities to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments. ETSU-R-97 is included as CD 55.

Development plan

1.27 The development plan in relation to the proposed site comprises the Highland wide Local Development Plan, adopted in April 2012 and the Inverness Local Plan adopted in 2006. The two policies of the Highland wide Local Development Plan referred to in The Highland Council’s objection are as follows:

Policy 28 Sustainable Design

The Council will support developments which promote and enhance the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the people of Highland.

Proposed developments will be assessed on the extent to which they:

• are compatible with public service provision (water and sewerage, drainage, roads, schools, electricity);

• are accessible by public transport, cycling and walking as well as car;

• maximise energy efficiency in terms of location, layout and design, including the utilisation of renewable sources of energy and heat;

• are affected by physical constraints described in Physical Constraints on Development: Supplementary Guidance

• make use of brownfield sites, existing buildings and recycled materials;

• demonstrate that they have sought to minimise the generation of waste during the construction and operational phases. (This can be submitted through a Site Waste Management Plan);

• impact on individual and community residential amenity;

• impact on non-renewable resources such as mineral deposits of potential commercial value, prime quality agricultural land, or approved routes for road and rail links; • impact on the following resources, including pollution and discharges, particularly within designated areas: habitats freshwater systems species marine systems landscape cultural heritage scenery air quality; • demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with local character and historic and natural environment and in making use of appropriate materials;

• promote varied, lively and well-used environments which will enhance community safety and security and reduce any fear of crime;

• accommodate the needs of all sectors of the community, including people with disabilities or other special needs and disadvantaged groups; and

• contribute to the economic and social development of the community.

Developments which are judged to be significantly detrimental in terms of the above criteria will not accord with this Local Development Plan. All development proposals must demonstrate compatibility with the Sustainable Design Guide: Supplementary Guidance, which requires that all developments should: • conserve and enhance the character of the Highland area

• use resources efficiently

• minimise the environmental impact of development

• enhance the viability of Highland communities.

Compatibility should be demonstrated through the submission of a Sustainable Design Statement where required to do so by the Guidance.

All developments must comply with the greenhouse gas emissions requirements of the Sustainable Design Guide.

In the relatively rare situation of assessing development proposals where the potential impacts are uncertain, but where there are scientific grounds for believing that severe damage could occur either to the environment or the wellbeing of communities, the Council will apply the precautionary principle.

Where environmental and/or socio-economic impacts of a proposed development are likely to be significant by virtue of nature, size or location, The Council will require the preparation by developers of appropriate impact assessments. Developments that will have significant adverse effects will only be supported if no reasonable alternatives exist, if there is demonstrable over-riding strategic benefit or if satisfactory overall mitigating measures are incorporated.

Policy 67 Renewable Energy Developments

Renewable energy development proposals should be well related to the source of the primary renewable resources that are needed for their operation. The Council will also consider: • the contribution of the proposed development towards meeting renewable energy generation targets; and

• any positive or negative effects it is likely to have on the local and national economy; and will assess proposals against other policies of the development plan, the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines and have regard to any other material considerations, including proposals able to demonstrate significant benefits including by making effective use of existing and proposed infrastructure or facilities.

Subject to balancing with these considerations and taking into account any mitigation measures to be included, the Council will support proposals where it is satisfied that they are located, sited and designed such that they will not be significantly

detrimental overall, either individually or cumulatively with other developments (see Glossary), having regard in particular to any significant effects on the following: • natural, built and cultural heritage features;

• species and habitats;

• visual impact and impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area (the design and location of the proposal should reflect the scale and character of the landscape and seek to minimise landscape and visual impact, subject to any other considerations);

• amenity at sensitive locations, including residential properties, work places and recognised visitor sites (in or outwith a settlement boundary);

• the safety and amenity of any regularly occupied buildings and the grounds that they occupy- having regard to visual intrusion or the likely effect of noise generation and, in the case of wind energy proposals, ice throw in winter conditions, shadow flicker or shadow throw;

• ground water, surface water (including water supply), aquatic ecosystems and fisheries;

• the safe use of airport, defence or emergency service operations, including flight activity, navigation and surveillance systems and associated infrastructure, or on aircraft flight paths or MoD low-flying areas;

• other communications installations or the quality of radio or TV reception;

• the amenity of users of any Core Path or other established public access for walking, cycling or horse riding;

• tourism and recreation interests;

• land and water based traffic and transport interests.

Proposals for the extension of existing renewable energy facilities will be assessed against the same criteria and material considerations as apply to proposals for new facilities.

In all cases, if consent is granted, the Council will approve appropriate conditions(along with a legal agreement/obligation under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, where necessary), relating to the removal of the development and associated equipment and to the restoration of the site, whenever the consent expires, other than in circumstances where fresh consent has been secured to extend the life of the project, or the project ceases to operate for a specific period.

The Onshore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance will replace parts of the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy. It will identify: areas to be afforded protection

from windfarms; other areas with constraints; and broad areas of search for windfarms. It will set out criteria for the consideration of proposals . It will ensure that developers are aware of the key constraints to such development and encourage them to take those constraints into account at the outset of the preparation of proposals. It will seek to steer proposals, especially those for larger windfarms, away from the most constrained areas and ideally towards the least constrained areas and areas of particular opportunity. It will also set out criteria which will apply to the consideration of proposals irrespective of size and where they are located, enabling proposals to be considered on their merits. It will seek submission as part of the planning application of key information required for the assessment of proposals and provide certainty for all concerned about how applications will be considered by the Council.

Supplementary planning guidance

1.28 The Highland Council also has two supplementary planning guidance notes relevant to wind farm proposals. The Highland Council approved the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines in May 2006. It provides extensive background information regarding renewable energy in the Highlands and also more detailed policies and guidance. It is included as CD 17.

1.29 On 14 March 2012, The Highland Council approved an interim supplementary guidance note for onshore wind energy. It provides a spatial framework for locating wind farms and detailed development guidelines. It is included as CD 14.

1.30 In September 2011, The Highland Council approved an interim supplementary guidance relating to trees, woodlands and development. This includes a sub section on wind farms. The aim of the guidance is to minimise the removal of woodland and encourage developers to devise schemes that can co-exist with woodland (see production DB 8.4F)

Scottish Natural Heritage guidance

1.31 Scottish Natural Heritage has published a number of guidance notes relating to the landscape and visual implications of onshore wind farms. A key document is, ‘Siting and designing wind farms in the landscape (2009)’ and it is included as CD 44.

1.32 Siting and designing wind farms in the landscape includes detailed advice regarding landscape and visual assessment of wind farms, wind farm siting and design and wind turbine design and layout.

Forestry Commission Scotland

1.33 On behalf of the Scottish Government, the Forestry Commission Scotland has published ‘The Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal’ (see production DB 8.4E). The aim is to reduce woodland removal and only permit it in special circumstances. Where removal is allowed, compensatory planting may be required.

2. THE CASE FOR DRUIM BA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY LIMITED ______

Background

2.1 Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the European Forest Resources Group. European Forest Resources Group has been set up to produce renewable energy, principally wind power and hydro-electric, within its own forests in Europe. The site lies within the Blairmore Estate, which is now owned by another European Forest Resources Group company.

Procedural matters

2.2 When the application was submitted, the relevant procedures, including the required publicity arrangements of the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations (as amended) were carried out. However, in view of the comments made in connection with the noise assessment contained in the environmental statement, a second noise assessment was carried out. As this second noise assessment was voluntarily carried out, the relevant procedures are set out in Regulation 14A of the above regulations. Accordingly, the applicant arranged for the relevant advertisements and the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals informed all the original consultees. No comments were received outwith the parties who participated in the inquiry.

2.3 Additional documents were prepared for the inquiry, for example the local visual amenity assessment (DB 6.1). However, these were prepared in response to the position of the various objector parties. They do not revise the original environmental statement. In any event, if these additional productions were to be considered additional information, the terms of the advert would cover the statutory publicity requirements.

The Highland Council’s objection

2.4 The Highland Council was the only statutory consultee to object to the proposal, thus causing an inquiry to be held. However, it is considered that the council’s objections and the process it followed in formulating its objections were unreasonable.

2.5 The committee report (see CD 1), contained numerous examples where reliance was placed on policies or documents that were contrary to Scottish Government policy. For example, the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines, this has been found to be unreasonable in its approach to spatial guidance and the setting of local targets. Some of the work in developing the new supplementary guidance has also been criticised by Scottish Natural Heritage.

2.6 It is clear from the transcript of the committee meeting that some members relied upon this information, making the decision to object flawed.

2.7 In addition, the committee report made no reference to the appropriate legal tests set out in the Electricity Act and did not lead any evidence from a qualified landscape architect.

2.8 The council’s approach to noise was also unreasonable. It ignored government guidance set out in ETSU-R-97 and changed its position on the noise condition at the last minute.

2.9 Finally, the council’s closing submissions contained errors and included material that was outwith the terms of their own original objection, such as noise and forestry.

2.9 Accordingly, no weight can be attached to the council’s evidence. The entire approach, including the decision making process that caused an objection and triggered the need for an inquiry, was flawed and contrary to Scottish Government policy.

National energy policy and planning policy

2.10 The proposal is an application under Section 36 of The Electricity Act. Separately, the applicant also seeks a direction that deemed planning permission be granted in accordance with Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2.11 The Electricity Act sets out relevant tests for the applicant and Scottish Ministers. One test is to have regard to the desirability of preserving or conserving the natural beauty of the area etc. It should be noted that this does not mean there is a requirement to preserve the natural beauty of an area. The applicant also has to do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effects. There are therefore balances and reconciliations to be considered in making a decision.

2.12 The submitted environmental statement and the other evidence placed before the inquiry, and summarised below, demonstrate that the proposal is environmentally acceptable. The relevant legal tests are therefore complied with and consent should be granted. A direction that planning permission should be deemed to be granted would follow from this and this has been clarified by the courts.

2.13 The targets and policies at European Union, United Kingdom and Scottish Government level, all provide a clear basis for the need for the development and the importance of onshore wind energy. It is clear that onshore wind energy has an important role in increasing the output from renewable sources and hence reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

2.14 This strong support is repeated in Scottish Planning Policy, which expresses the expectation that environmentally acceptable wind farms will be consented. It should be noted that since Scottish Planning Policy was published the targets have been increased.

2.15 The new target, set out in 2020 Route Map (see CD 52) seeks to provide 100% of demand for electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This challenging

target will require a significant contribution to be made from additional capacity from onshore wind projects. There are other related targets beyond 2020, all reliant on increasing capacity in renewable energy generation.

2.16 The need for the development and the important contribution it would make to these targets and policies is a matter that requires significant weight to be attached. This is consistent with how this need has been addressed in other decisions for wind farms.

2.17 The Highland Council is wrong to suggest that there is a case to be discerning about onshore wind developments. This is an attempt to underplay the justification for renewable projects.

2.18 The development plan is also supportive of renewable energy subject to a range of criteria. It is considered that the evidence demonstrates that these criteria can be met and therefore the proposal complies with the development plan.

2.19 To summarise the policy position, the proposal is consistent with and strongly supported by Scottish Government policy. Considerable weight should be attached to the contribution that a 69 MW wind farm would make to the total installed renewable energy capacity. There would have to be considerable adverse factors to outweigh the support for the proposal set out in national energy policy and planning policy.

Landscape and visual impact

Design process

2.20 The reasons for the site’s selection are set out in chapter 3 of the environmental statement. The development of the design of the wind farm and the mitigation of its impact by design is set out in chapter 4. Information is also contained in the design and access statement.

2.21 It is considered that the site is a good location for a wind farm. It has a good wind resource. The site is not subject to any of the designations where wind farms should generally be avoided. Its location means that it is contained from the south, west and east and views from Glen Urquhart and Loch Ness are screened.

2.22 There are no larger settlements nearby, which are generally located in the lowlands around the coast and along the bottom of the larger valleys. The site is also located within the rocky moorland plateau with woodland landscape character type. It is considered that the large scale and simple nature of this landscape has the capacity to accommodate a wind farm of the height and extent of the proposal.

2.23 A key design choice was deciding to retain the forest. This is considered below in the forestry sub section. However, retaining the forest through ‘key holing’ has a number of visual benefits: • clear felling can leave a scarred and barren landscape

• removal of the tree cover can result in erosion and gullying

• it would screen the ground infrastructure of a wind farm such as, turbine bases, substation, roads, borrow pits etc

• it reduces the perception of height

• it creates a simple sculptural image without base clutter

2.24 Retaining the forest dictates the height of the turbine so as to be clear of the trees and be free from air turbulence. The range of technically acceptable turbine tip heights is therefore 139 m – 149.5 m.

2.25 As a general rule, fewer, taller turbines are preferable in design terms to more numerous, shorter turbines.

2.26 An alternative scheme using a turbine tip height of 125 m (and therefore having to fell the forest) was also tested. This is shown in Figs 4.15 - 4.21 of volume 3 of the environmental statement. Reducing the height makes very little difference to the zone of theoretical visibility and the difference in height is difficult to perceive from most viewpoints. The chosen height also maximises the yield for electricity generation.

2.27 There were other design considerations. It was decided to set back 1 km from any near by houses and 500 m from the A833. The highest points on the site were avoided for locating any individual turbines. The design team tested the various design iterations and this included further consultation. Overall, it is considered that the design has been carefully considered and complies with Scottish Natural Heritage guidance.

Forestry

2.28 It is Scottish Government policy to retain woodlands. This is in the context of seeking to increase the coverage of woodland areas in Scotland. The council also seeks to retain woodlands. ‘Key holing’ the turbines and tracks within an existing coniferous forest minimises tree loss and is consistent with Scottish Government and council policy, aside from the visual benefits of ‘key holing’ set out above

2.29 As set out above, if ‘key holing’ is utilised, this dictates the height of the turbines. The height of the turbines proposed is therefore a function of Scottish Government and council policy.

2.30 The trees felled to create the ‘key holes’ will be replaced by broad leafed native species planted elsewhere on the Blairmore Estate. The details of the felling and replanting would be set out in a forest management plan. This is one of the agreed planning conditions.

2.31 There are no grounds for assuming that ‘key holing’ would not work. It is an established method. Provided that best forestry practice is followed and any felling is to wind firm edges, wind blow should not be a problem. The example of

wind blow problems on the site was caused by not following best practice and over thinning.

2.32 The replanting not only ensures that there is no net losses of woodland cover but has wildlife, landscape and visual benefits. It is also intended, because of the felling and replanting proposals to improve access to the scheduled ancient monument on the site.

Landscape and visual impact

2.33 Although closely related matters, the submitted environmental statement considered landscape and visual effects separately.

2.34 Chapter 7 of the environmental statement considered the effects on the landscape. It considered all landscape designations (including gardens and designed landscapes) within 35 km of the site (see fig 7.2 of volume 3). It also considered the effect on the regional landscape character, using the landscape character assessments commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage (see fig 7.3 of volume 3).

2.35 The environmental statement concluded that there would be no significant effect on any of the designated landscapes. It also concluded that there would be significant effects on only two landscape character types. These significant effects would only be local and would not extend to the whole landscape character type. There would be no significant cumulative landscape effects.

2.36 Chapter 8 of the environmental statement considered the visual effects. 25 representative viewpoints were agreed with Scottish Natural Heritage and the council. Fig 8.2 of volume 3 shows the location and assessment for each viewpoint.

2.37 The assessment concluded that only 6 viewpoints would experience significant effects. Only viewpoints 2 and 19 would experience significant cumulative effects. Only the Great Glen Way would experience significant sequential cumulative effects.

2.38 Production DB 6.2 reviews the landscape and visual impact assessment contained in the environmental statement. Fig 6 of DB 6.2 maps the extent of the significant landscape effects. Table 5.1 analyses the landscape effects in more detail.

2.39 In response to the council’s second ground of objection, the sequential cumulative effects were also reviewed and the wind farm status updated.

2.40 In combination, the environmental statement and production DB 6.2 provide a comprehensive assessment that follows good practice and confirmed by two experienced and professionally qualified landscape architects.

2.41 The landscape and visual impact, including the cumulative impact, are limited and contained. They are proportionate and not unusual for a proposal of this nature.

2.42 There was actually a large measure of agreement between all the professionally qualified landscape witnesses. The differences related to the impacts experienced further away from the site.

2.43 It is considered that the submitted information from the applicant accurately and reliably records the significant effects. Even if it is considered these effects extend further, this would not amount to any harmful impacts that justified refusing consent.

2.44 The landscape witness for the combined community council group (Caroline Stanton) had no objection to the principle of a wind farm. The landscape benefits of replanting with native broadleaf species were also recognised. The combined community council group’s main criticism was that the turbines were too big. However, if smaller turbines were used, there would have to be a greater number (assuming the same energy output) and the forest would have to be felled. Such an alternative design would therefore have different but not necessarily fewer or less significant effects.

2.45 The council’s sequentially cumulative objection regarding a visual respite seemed to rely more upon a spatial pattern on a map rather than how views are actually experienced within the study area.

2.46 Landscape character and the associated visual effects are not static but are continuously evolving. In considering impacts, the changing nature of our landscape, including changes in response to climate change, should be taken into account.

Scottish Natural Heritage

2.47 Scottish Natural Heritage is the advisor to the Scottish Government on landscape and visual matters. Scottish Natural Heritage did not object to the application or ask for any further information to supplement the environmental statement. Scottish Natural Heritage did state:

• There are no impacts of national significance likely

• The proposal would not significantly affect the special landscape qualities of the Loch Ness area

• The siting and layout of the Druim Ba turbines do relate to the land form and surrounding landscape pattern

• They agreed there would not be significant effects on the Loch Ness Special Landscape Area or other Special Landscape Areas

• The landscape around Druim Ba is “vast”

• The proposed wind farm would appear to lie within a woodland block and the design and groupings of the turbines would appear well ordered

• There would be limited cumulative impacts 2.48 Scottish Natural Heritage also recognised that smaller turbines would reduce the contribution to meeting Scottish Government targets for renewable energy. It should be noted that they did not comment on the conflict with Scottish Government and council policy if the forest was felled to permit lower height turbines.

Local visual amenity assessment

2.49 The submitted environmental statement considered the visual impact of the wind farm upon building receptors. This is set out in appendix 8.2 of volume 2 and figures 8.3a – 8.3c of volume 3. It concluded that substantial adverse impacts would be experienced by receptors at the houses looking directly at the project from areas to the north. There would be moderate-substantial adverse impacts by receptors at other nearby properties. There would be other selected locations within 10 km where properties would experience moderate adverse impacts.

2.50 In response to The Highland Council’s first reason for objection, a second local visual amenity assessment was carried out for the inquiry (see productions DB 6.1 and DB 6.2). This study looked at all residential properties within 3 km of the proposal. As a result, 57 properties were assessed in detail. It was concluded that 27 residential properties would experience either major or moderate significant adverse visual effects.

2.51 It is accepted that views will be changed as a result of the proposal. The effect of significance is neither unexpected nor unique to this wind farm. Assessments for some properties close to Whitelee, Whitelee extension, Calder Water and Bailie wind farm were included for comparison in productions DB 6.1 and 6.2. Further information was included in productions DB 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 6.22, 6.23 and 6.24.

2.52 Some of the other parties criticised the local visual amenity assessment carried out in the environmental statement and production DB 6.1. Where possible, these have been answered during the inquiry. It is not practical to carry out such an assessment from inside private houses. None of the criticisms would have altered the conclusions drawn from either assessment.

2.53 In particular, based on previous decisions, the presence of significant adverse effects on views is not of itself sufficient to justify refusal of consent. The test is that the impact would have to be so dominant, overbearing, overwhelming and oppressive that a property has become an unattractive place to live. This test was applied in the local visual amenity assessment and in the round, no property was considered to have such impacts. This finding is consistent with other decisions.

2.54 It is accepted that every case has to be considered on its merits. However, it is clear from an analysis of other decisions that it would be inconsistent with any previous decisions to find that properties at 1 km or more from turbines with no screening should in themselves merit refusal. It would also be inconsistent to find that properties with screening at a distance of 850 m from turbines should merit refusal.

2.55 In paragraph 190 of Scottish Planning Policy, it refers to a separation distance of 2 km from towns, cities and villages. In this case, the nearest villages are significantly more distant than 2 km. Towns and cities are many kilometres away.

2.56 It should be noted that 428 representations supported the proposal and only 330 were against. Some supporters found the proposed turbines to be elegant and dynamic additions to the landscape.

2.57 Some of the comments submitted to the inquiry from nearby residents are based on misunderstandings, relate to exaggerated fears or matters not relevant to the decision. It should be noted that the photographs and wire line transparencies, produced in local residents group’s ‘Document 2 (Volume 2) – Visualisations, photographs and transparencies’ do not overlay because they were taken from different locations.

Noise and shadow flicker

2.58 The starting point for the assessment of noise from wind farms should be ‘The assessment and rating of noise from wind farms – Department of Trade and Industry 1996’, commonly known as ETSU-R-97. This sets out a methodology for measuring and monitoring the noise and the limits that should be applied. Over the years, this report has been supplemented by various reviews and associated studies. A recognised approach has developed.

2.59 ETSU-R-97 should also be treated as Scottish Government policy and advice. This is confirmed by the Scottish Government’s latest web based guidance, which states, “[ETSU-R-97] describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, which should be followed by applicants and consultees, and used by planning authorities to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments, until such time as an update is available.”

2.60 As explained above, Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited submitted additional environmental information in relation to noise for the inquiry. No reliance is placed on chapter 11 of the environmental statement.

2.61 The relevant noise report is provided in production DB 7.1. A background noise survey for 6 properties, following recognised practice was carried out between 1-25 May 2012. The data was analysed and a background noise curve produced (see Appendix E of DB 7.1).

2.62 Again, using the recognised methodologies, the operational noise level for the wind speeds with the biggest impact were calculated for two candidate turbines. The predicted noise levels for all the properties around the site are shown in appendix C for the Vestas V90 and appendix D for the Enercon E82.

2.63 It should be noted that the methodologies used to predict operational noise levels rely on a number of worst case assumptions. There is evidence that on occasions this over predicts the actual noise levels.

2.64 ETSU-R-97 also sets appropriate noise limits. These are expressed as absolute lower limits or 5dB(A) above typical background noise level, whichever is the greater. It recognises that for properties with a financial interest, a less restrictive limit of 45dB(A) should apply. There are two properties that have a financial interest and the tables in Appendix C and D show this limit can be achieved.

2.65 ETSU-R-97 makes it clear that the appropriate night time limit is 43dB(A). This limit has been confirmed in numerous decisions including those before the inquiry (see DB 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.8, 3.10, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.16, 3.17, 3.19, 3.20, 3.22, 3.23, 3.25 – 3.27, 3.31, 3.32, 3.35, DBSN/I/28 and DBSN/I/36).

2.66 In the few cases where 43dB(A) has not been used; noise was not an issue because there were no nearby properties.

2.67 The tables in appendix C and D show that 43dB(A) can be met in most cases. Where there is a very marginal breach of this limit, this would be controlled through appropriate curtailment measures.

2.68 ETSU-R-97 also sets a quiet day time limit within the range of 35 – 40 dB(A). The choice of the actual lower limit to be used should be based on judgement having regard to three factors: • number of dwellings in the neighbourhood of the wind farm;

• the effect of noise limits on the number of Kwh generated; and

• the duration and level of exposure.

2.69 ETSU-R-97 defines quiet daytime (or quiet waking hours) as 18:00 – 23:00 on all days plus 13:00 – 18:00 hours on Saturdays and 07:00 – 18:00 hours on Sundays. Night hours are defined as 23:00 – 07:00 hours on all days.

2.70 The tables in appendix C and D highlight in red those occasions when the quiet daytime upper limit of 40dB(A) is predicted to be breached. Two of these are properties with a financial involvement in the project. In addition, there is one plot that has had planning permission for approximately 5 years, and for which there is no indication of development. Depending on the turbine used, very few properties would breach 40dB(A) and in those limited cases, curtailment to achieve 40dB(A) is possible.

2.71 Taking account of the wind speed and noise data presented in the report - Assessment of Predicted Noise Levels (production DB 7.1), the calculated difference in electricity generated between no curtailed operation and a lower limit of 40dB(A) for the quiet daytime period would be 1.2 GWh per annum. This is enough electricity generation from a renewable resource to supply more than 265 homes. The corresponding loss of generation capacity from curtailed operation to a lower limit of 35dB(A) is 6.4GWh per annum, enough generation from a renewable resource to supply more than 1,485 homes.

2.72 The on-site measured wind direction is from the south-west for approximately 50% of the time, therefore there are up to 10 properties within 2 km north-east of the nearest turbine which would be directly downwind in these conditions and therefore which would receive the highest (downwind) noise emission levels of less than 40dB(A) (with curtailment). Correspondingly, there are three properties southeast of the turbines that would be downwind for approximately 10% of the time. Properties north-west of the site (Ardendrain) are downwind for approximately 6% of the time, and properties west of the site (White House, Ardblair and Fanblair) are downwind for approximately 5% of the time. When properties are not directly downwind of the turbines, noise levels may be expected to be between 2dB and 10dB less than those predicted for downwind conditions. For the 50% of the time when the wind is from any direction other than the south-west, fewer than 10 properties would receive the highest noise emission levels as a result of being downwind, and all of these for less than 10% of the time.

2.73 Overall, the proposed wind farm has the potential to generate almost 70MW of electricity. There are relatively few properties nearby. Having considered all the relevant factors, it is considered that 40dB(A) limit allowed for in ETSU-R-97 and giving a reasonable protection is appropriate for quiet daytime periods.

2.74 Subject to the conditions put forward by Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited (see appendix 2 of this report), an acceptable degree of amenity would be safeguarded at all properties during quiet daytime and night time limits. Consequently, a significant noise impact will not occur at any of the properties. There is therefore no basis for a refusal of consent for the Druim Ba Wind Farm due to the effects of operational noise.

Alternative conditions

2.75 The Highland Council did not object to the proposal because of noise. However, they have suggested an alternative condition that in broad summary sets an all day lower limit of 35dB(A) (not just for the defined quiet day time periods) and a night time lower limit of 38dB(A).

2.76 This suggested condition is contrary to Scottish Government policy in a number of respects. Firstly, it does not differentiate between daytime and quiet daytime periods. ETSU-R-97 uses that term and defines the relevant times. There would be no logic in applying the same restrictive limit to both the quiet period and the much noisier daytime period when people by definition are not as quiet. Furthermore, other decisions where the council was a party (e.g. Baillie, Moy and Causemire wind farms) have not set out all day limits.

2.77 Secondly, the council wants a night time limit of 38 dB(A) rather than 43dB(A). This is argued to be necessary because more recent World Health Organisation guidelines have amended their standard used by ETSU-R-97 to derive the 43dB(A). This is mistaken. The latest World Health Organisation 1999 guidelines (production DB 7.7) has a sleep disturbance level of 38dB(A) but allows 15dB(A) for attenuation through an open window and a 2dB(A) correction. This gives the identical limit of 43dB(A).

2.78 The council also had no regard to considering the factors set out in ETSU- R-97 for considering the range of lower limits for the quiet daytime. The application of a standard 35dB(A) set out in its supplementary guidance is therefore contrary to Scottish Government policy.

2.79 The other parties proposing noise conditions also set limits that are more restrictive or proposed methodologies unsupported by ETSU-R-97. No justification was provided as to why Scottish Government policy and advice should be set aside. There is no objection in principle to providing raw data to the council, as opposed to calculated data. However, commercially sensitive information, such as wind speed data should be protected.

Druim Ba Say No Campaign

2.80 It is the opinion of the noise witness for Druim Ba Say No (Mr Bowdler) that ETSU-R-97 is inappropriate in a number of respects. Nonetheless, ETSU-R-97 remains Scottish Government policy and should therefore be followed.

2.81 The witness also challenged the background noise data. This is a regular criticism used at many inquiries. He declined to inspect the raw data offered, yet complained of its non-availability. No alternative measurements were proposed and the council’s noise witness accepted the data.

2.82 The appropriateness of BS 4142 ‘method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’ (CD 56) has been debated many times. However, ETSU-R-97 is the preferred method for assessing noise from wind farms.

Other matters

2.83 The findings of several research studies sponsored by the Government into low frequency noise, vibration and infrasound have been reviewed. It is concluded that these will not result in significant effects from the proposed development.

2.84 The phenomenon of aerodynamic modulation of wind farm noise has been identified in isolated circumstances in ways not anticipated by ETSU-R-97. Research has concluded that it cannot be fully predicted and its incidence is very low. There is therefore no justification for a condition attempting to control incidents of aerodynamic modulation.

Shadow flicker

2.85 Shadow flicker is considered in chapter 18 of the environmental statement. Blairmore House and the undeveloped plot were considered. It is accepted that Craggan Lodge, Cragganvallie should also have been assessed and this was carried out in a written submission.

2.86 The shadow flicker calculations assume a number of worst case scenarios, namely:

• A 2m X 1.5m window facing directly onto a turbine

• Turbines rotate for 365 days a year

• Turbine blades would be rotated in such a way that their full face would be between the sun and each property

• The sky would be clear and the sun would provide optimum conditions to cast shadow every day of the year

• A human receptor would be present in the affected rooms

• No screening is present

2.87 A maximum of 30 hours of shadow flicker in a calendar year is considered an appropriate acceptability threshold.

2.88 Three properties have been assed: Craggan Lodge – 21.6 theoretical hours per year; Blairmore House – 33.1 theoretical hours per year; and the house plot – 67.7 theoretical hours per year.

2.89 It is considered that the actual times of shadow flicker would be significantly less than the theoretical house. Craggan Lodge and Blairmore House would not therefore experience unacceptable levels of shadow flicker. The new plot, which has not yet been built, would also be screened by the forest. The suggested condition requires that screening be maintained to prevent shadow flicker. In any event, if it were to occur, further mitigation measures could be introduced. Subject to the suggested conditions, it is considered that there would be no adverse shadow flicker exposure.

Tourism and economic benefits

2.90 The impact of the proposal on tourism was not a reason for objection from The Highland Council. In addition, there was no objection from Visit Scotland. The proposal has been carefully designed to avoid visibility from Loch Ness, a recognised tourist destination.

2.91 It is also accepted that tourism is important regionally and locally and that some local people and businesses have concerns, although not all.

2.92 Such concerns are misplaced. The Scottish Government supports the development of new wind farms in full knowledge of the importance of tourism to the Scottish economy.

2.93 A major research project sponsored by the Scottish Government (Economic Research Findings – The Economic Impacts of Wind farms on Scottish Tourism – often referred to as the Moffat Report CD 48), concluded that the development of wind farms did not have any significant adverse effects on tourism. Wind farm development has continued since 2008 and there is no evidence that as a result, tourists are deterred from visiting Scotland or areas of Scotland.

2.94 The issue of impact on tourism is regularly debated at inquiries. In previous decisions, Reporters and Scottish Ministers have not found there to be any compelling evidence of impact on tourism.

2.95 The proposal would also have tourism and recreational benefits. Employees of the wind farm may need local accommodation. Access for recreation to the site would be improved. The proposed community fund could be used for projects to enhance the adjoining Abriachan Forest Trust.

Economic benefits

2.96 The proposal represents a very considerable investment for the local and wider Scottish economy in order to construct, operate, maintain and de-commission the wind farm. Over the lifetime of the wind farm, this represents approximately £200 million and 975 full time equivalent job years.

Wildlife and ecology

2.97 Chapter 9A of the environmental statement considered impacts on habitats. Chapter 9B considered impacts on all fauna, other than birds. Chapter 10 considered impacts on birds. The environmental statement, including the appendices, sets out the methodologies and sources of information used. The environmental statement was subject to consultation, including with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (see chapter 7).

2.98 The majority of the site contains commercial coniferous woodland. The main areas that will be disturbed during the construction and operation of the wind farm are confined to the areas of coniferous woodland. These areas are considered low value habitat and offers little attraction for wildlife. This is confirmed by the relatively small number of important species found on the site from the field surveys.

2.99 In addition, a habitat management plan has been developed to maintain and enhance those higher value habitats located on the Blairmore Estate but not within the wind farm site. The replanting of broadleaved trees because of the forest management plan would also enhance natural habitats. Because of the proposal, the overall wildlife and biodiversity on Blairmore Estate would be significantly increased.

2.100 The site does not contain any nature conservation designations. However, North Inverness Lochs Special Protection Area and the Balnagrantach Special Site of Scientific Interest are nearby. Special consideration has been given to the Slavonian grebes. No significant adverse impacts are concluded as being likely, under any phase of the development. This conclusion is confirmed by the appropriate assessment carried out by Scottish Ministers. However, in addition, measures to enhance the habitat for Slavonian grebes on land within the control of the applicant are also proposed.

2.101 Therefore, subject to the conditions and legal agreement proposed, the proposal is likely to enhance wildlife and ecology and there are no objections from consultees on this matter.

Cultural heritage

2.102 Chapter 12 of the environmental chapter considered the likely effects on archaeology and built heritage interests of the construction and operation of the project. The assessment has been undertaken by CFA Archaeology Ltd, taking into account comments and information provided by Historic Scotland and the council’s archaeology service.

2.103 The assessment was designed to identify and evaluate any archaeological sites present within the site. This was carried out through the examination of desk based sources and detailed field reconnaissance. The assessment also considered any key cultural heritage assets within 15 km of the project that could have their settings affected.

2.104 The results of this work suggest that the archaeological potential of the site is low to negligible, due to the current land use as commercial forestry, which has, in known cases, resulted in the removal of former features of prehistoric field systems.

2.105 Eighteen sites of cultural heritage interest were identified within the Blairmore Estate. One site is a scheduled monument of high sensitivity, 12 are archaeological or historic environmental features of low sensitivity, five are historic environment features of negligible sensitivity and one is a natural feature of no archaeological importance.

2.106 The wind farm layout has been designed to avoid all significant archaeological remains, although in places proposed access tracks would cross former field boundaries of 19th century date resulting in minor direct effects of negligible significance.

2.107 Three groups of receptors in the wider landscape are predicted to receive indirect adverse impacts on their settings, judged to be of moderate significance. These conclusions are largely supported by Historic Scotland, who agrees that any impacts are not at such a level of significance to warrant an objection.

Roads and traffic

2.108 The construction of wind farms can cause problems for both the fabric of local roads and for the traffic that runs on them. A study of local traffic conditions looked in detail at the routes to be used for delivering materials and equipment to the project site.

2.109 Wind turbines are large structures that are made off site and imported to the site on lorries. Some of the components are very large; for example, the rotor blades may be up to 50 m long and are moved on specially made low loaders with rear wheel steering to negotiate winding roads. Other components, such as the

nacelle and gearbox, are very heavy and can cause damage to the structure of roads if care is not taken. Other components and materials also need importing, typically sand, cement and aggregate for concrete production for the turbine foundations; electrical substation equipment, and general civil engineering construction materials and plant. The number of lorry and other vehicle movements can cause difficulties for local people if not handled carefully.

2.110 The area around the site is fortunate in enjoying the use of roads that are largely well within their capacity in terms of traffic. This means that traffic problems are relatively unusual compared with other, more crowded, parts of the country. In general, the roads are in good condition, and structures such as bridges and culverts are sound.

2.112 The construction traffic will result in a temporary increase of traffic flows on the A862 and A833. During construction of the project, the traffic is predicted to be greatest on the A833.

2.113 The proposed route for turbine components is from the port of entry at Invergordon, via main roads direct to the new site access just north of the existing entrance to Blairmore.

2.114 Road and traffic issues were taken into account throughout the design process, with project civil and highway engineers present at all the design meetings. Particular care was taken over the decision whether to import ready mixed concrete to the site in concrete mixer lorries, or to mix the concrete on site using stone won on site and water from the artesian well. The latter option was chosen, largely because it would reduce the number of lorry movements required compared with concrete mixer delivery.

2.115 As a result of the design decisions that were taken in the course of the environmental assessment, it is not considered that there would be any significant adverse effects on roads and traffic resulting from the project. Analysis of the route shows that: • The impact of construction traffic on the surrounding road network would be short lived and not significant;

• The surrounding road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the temporary construction traffic;

• The route from the port of entry at Invergordon is suitable for turbine delivery subject to a small number of minor improvements;

• There are no load bearing capacity issues with the proposed abnormal load route;

• Swept path assessment shows that the route is suitable;

• No accommodation works would be required to the Lovat Bridge. The abnormal loads would be able to pass over Lovat Bridge, which has adequate load bearing capacity and is structurally sound; and

• There are no significant environmental impacts arising from roads or traffic 2.116 Subject to conditions, there was no objection from either Transport Scotland, as the trunk road authority or The Highland Council.

Telecommunications and radar

2.117 Wind turbines have the potential to interfere with telecommunications links by reflecting and refracting signals of various types, including fixed links operated by utilities, mobile phone transmission, radio and television broadcasts and emergency services radio control.

2.118 Turbines can also affect aviation interests, both through interference with air traffic control radar and through physical obstruction of aircraft movements. This can be especially the case for military low flying and aircraft on approach to or departure from nearby airfields.

2.119 The assessment of wind farm impacts on telecommunications is a well established process of consultation with operators, mainly co-ordinated through the telecommunication regulator Ofcom. In the case of the proposal, no likely effects have been identified, other than the possible deterioration of TV signal at a maximum of one property where an alternative service is available.

2.120 The assessment of impacts on aviation interests is a similar process of consultation backed up by computerised modelling. All the consultees, including the Ministry of Defence, have stated that they have no concerns over the project. Druim Ba is 30 km from Inverness Airport and completely shielded from the airport radar, other than 9.5 m of the blade tips of one of the turbines. This will have no effect on radar operation.

Conditions and legal agreement

2.121 Various discussions have taken place with The Highland Council regarding suitable conditions if consent is granted. There is a large area of agreement aside conditions relating to noise. The agreed version tabled at the hearing session is enclosed as appendix 2.

2.122 In addition, a legal agreement is proposed covering: • Provision of a community fund

• Local share ownership scheme

• Off site habitat management plan

• Revoking the planning permissions granted on the site for house plots 2.123 The £5,000 per MW community fund as set out in the council’s policy would amount to £345,000 per annum. This would bring significant benefits to the local community.

Conclusion

2.124 The Highland Council was the only statutory consultee to object. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the council has been unreasonable in objecting.

2.125 The proposal fully complies with the statutory tests set out in the Electricity Acts. It is accepted that there would be impacts, but the critical factor is whether the applicant has and will act reasonably in mitigating the effects. All relevant issues (including landscape and visual impact and noise) have been evaluated by or on behalf of Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited. The evidence shows that the proposal is acceptable in environmental terms.

2.126 The proposal would comply with the development plan and would make a very significant contribution towards government targets for renewable energy production. There are many other benefits aside from electricity production.

2.127 In all the circumstances, all necessary consents should be granted in accordance with the terms of the Electricity Acts.

3. THE CASE FOR THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL ______

Background

3.1 The Highland Council considered its comments on the Section 36 application at the meeting of the Inverness, Nairn and Badenoch and Strathspey Planning Applications Committee on 20 September 2011, where it was decided to object for the following reasons:

• The development conflicts with policies E2 and G2 of the approved Highland Structure Plan and policy 68 of the draft Highland wide Local Development Plan, as its size and massing would have a significantly detrimental visual impact on properties/communities immediately adjacent to the site (north, east and south)

• The development conflicts with the Loch Ness (1) sub area identified within the Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy, April 2011. This policy seeks to prevent large scale wind farm clusters from growing to a point where it impinges upon views in the Great Glen; avoiding mirroring of wind farms from one side to the other and to provide a respite gap/a protection area extending northwards from the Great Glen to beyond Cannich and Beauly to create a visual break from large scale wind farm development.

3.2 On 24 April 2012, the council’s reasons were updated by the South Planning Applications Committee in the light of changes to the policy position since September 2011. The updated reasons were:

• The development conflicts with Policy 28 – Sustainable Design and Policy 67 – Renewable Energy Developments of the Highland wide Local Development Plan adopted on 5 April 2012 as its size and massing would have a significantly detrimental visual impact on properties/communities adjacent to the site (north, east, south)

3.3 In the closing submission prepared on behalf of Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited, it is argued that The Highland Council has acted unreasonably in objecting to the application. The council has acted consistently and openly throughout the process. The first reason for objection relates to visual impact. No professional witness for the applicant suggested this was unreasonable. It was only necessary for the council to put forward noise evidence because of the inadequacies contained in the environmental statement. There are no grounds for claiming the council has been unreasonable.

National energy and planning policy

3.4 It is accepted that the Scottish Government has a number of policies that aim to increase the amount of renewable energy generated. However, in all the policies there is no suggestion that it is necessary to lower the level of environmental protection to achieve these aims. For example, paragraph 187 of Scottish Planning Policy states that, “Planning Authorities should support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.”

3.5 The council has helped deliver some 1173.5 MW of renewable energy generating capacity. The council is clear that there are no caps on further development. It is clear in policy terms that there is a balance between energy generation and environmental impact. It would therefore be unbalanced if no recognition was given to the contribution from schemes that have been consented in The Highland Council area.

Development plan

3.6 The relevant development plan policies have been agreed. It is agreed that the key policies are Policy 28 and Policy 67 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan, adopted in April 2012.

3.7 Policy 28 states that development that will have significant adverse effects will only be supported if, i) no reasonable alternatives exist, ii) if there is demonstrable over-riding strategic benefit or iii) satisfactorily mitigating measures are incorporated. There is no evidence put forward in relation to i) and ii). In relation to iii), the council considers that the mitigation proposed for noise and visual impact is inadequate.

3.8 Policy 67 is specific to renewable energy developments, including wind farms. It sets out a range of criteria that have to be satisfied when balancing all the factors (including mitigation) to ensure that the proposal will not be significantly detrimental overall.

3.9 The council’s concerns relate to the criteria referring to landscape and visual impact, residential amenity and safety and amenity (i.e. noise). The council considers that the visual impact of the proposal is significant and adverse to a degree that is unacceptable. The proposal would be out of scale and proportion to its surroundings, which would be adverse to the setting and amenity of nearby dwellings. Unless the council’s suggested noise condition could be complied with, it is considered that the noise generated would be unacceptable. These are not outweighed by any other factors. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the development plan.

Supplementary planning guidance

3.10 In making the objection, the council placed no reliance on Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guideline (2006) (CD17), which has been partially superseded.

3.11 Interim supplementary guidance has also been prepared (see CD 11). When the application was first considered, it was hoped that the supplementary guidance would provide more detailed spatial guidance, particularly in relation to cumulative impact. For a variety of reasons, this has not proved possible. It is accepted that the proposal falls into an area of search.

3.12 The interim guidance is based on Policy 67 and gives further guidance. The policy test however, remains with Policy 67 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan. In that context, it is appropriate to indicate that in a remote rural area like the Highlands; generally, the background noise levels will be low.

Landscape and visual impact

3.13 The council broadly accepts the landscape and visual impact assessment contained in the environmental statement. However, it considers that these assessments understate the degree of significance and that some impacts are adverse.

3.14 It is not considered that the assessments adopt a worst case. The visualisations provided by the applicant understate the vertical scale of the proposal. The council considers that only the visualisations prepared in accordance with its own visualisation standards give an accurate impression of the scale of the proposal (see production THC6 and THC7).

3.15 In addition, it is considered that the treatment of the existing forest in the assessment is unrealistic. They imply the existing forest will remain more or less intact. This is not the case. In reality, over the operational lifetime of the wind farm, there will be a complex mosaic of felled areas, recently planted areas and soon to be felled areas. In order to avoid wind blow, and to fell to wind firm edges, the extent of clear felling is unlikely to be as limited as that shown in fig 1 of DB 6.2.

3.16 Prior to making the decision to object, the committee visited viewpoints 19, 5, 6 and 7. They also visited a point near Moniack Mhor Creative Writing Centre. They assessed the proposals using visualisations prepared in accordance with the council’s standards. The committee were also aware of the criticisms made by Scottish Natural Heritage. The committee agreed unanimously with the view of officers that the impact would extend beyond 3 km and bearing in mind the large volume of potential receptors, it would be unacceptable.

Cumulative impact

3.17 The second reason for objection related to the cumulative sequential impact. It is important to understand the background to this objection. The council considers that there are benefits of having clusters of wind farms, as this avoids harmful cumulative impacts.

3.18 In particular, sequential cumulative impact (where successive wind farms are seen along a transport corridor) can have an important impact on the perception of the overall landscape and visual impact from wind farms. The advantage of having clusters of wind farms is that it can provide a visual respite, particularly when receptors are travelling.

3.19 The aim is that spatial guidance would be prepared so that developers could take this into account. Unfortunately, and for various reasons, this is not available. Until this spatial guidance is available, the matter of sequential cumulative impact has to be considered on a case by case basis.

3.20 The council’s concern relates to the Great Glen Way, the A9 and other tourist routes. The figures in DB 6.1 purporting to show sequential cumulative impact omit the Moy and Daviot wind farms. The assessment cannot therefore be relied upon.

Visual impact and residential amenity

3.21 The council cannot agree with the applicant’s local visual amenity assessment contained in production DB 6.2. The properties themselves were not visited. The council is also aware of the various errors raised by other parties to the inquiry.

3.22 In particular, the assessment refers to “in the round” but nowhere has the applicant carried out a combined assessment of the visual impact and noise impact upon residential amenity. In assessing the change to residential amenity of the proposal, it is the cumulative impacts that would be experienced by nearby residents that should be assessed.

3.23 In addition, the nearest property is some 1017 m away, in many cases all 23 turbines can be seen, the turbines will be one of the tallest used and the maximum angle of view is 69.2 degrees. Given this data, it is difficult to see in what circumstances the applicant would ever conclude the impacts were adverse.

3.24 It is accepted that there is no right to a view. For an impact upon residential amenity to justify a refusal, it would be necessary to show that the proposal unacceptably affected living conditions. However, the various comparisons put forward by the applicant are not helpful.

3.25 For any comparisons to be helpful, the full range of factors would have to be considered. This would include the size of turbine, the extent of visibility, whether the occupier objected or were stakeholders, screening, orientation and noise impact. The area would also have to be visited in order to assess the landscape context.

3.26 The information provided in the comparisons was selective and did not give the full picture. If the aim was to provide a benchmark, decisions to approve and refuse should have been considered. By only including decisions that granted consent, a meaningful benchmark cannot possibly be determined.

Noise

3.27 The council’s objection did not refer to noise. At the time the council considered the Section 36 application, it accepted the conclusions of the environmental statement regarding noise. It considered that provided the proposal complied with the council’s suggested noise condition, there would be no noise basis for refusal. At the time of the pre-examination meeting, the applicant was in agreement with the council’s noise limits.

3.28 Noise from the proposed wind farm is important in its own right but as mentioned above, also important as an element of the overall impact on residential amenity.

3.29 The council commissioned their noise witness to first review the environmental statement in the light of the various papers submitted by Mr Bowdler (Druim Ba Say No’s noise expert). He found that Mr Bowdler’s concerns to be correct. In summary, no reliance can be placed on the noise chapter of the environmental statement because the wind data was recorded in ‘synchronised’ mode whereas the background noise data was recorded in ‘repeat’ mode. This means that the wind measurement sample periods do not correlate with the noise measurement sample periods.

3.30 In terms of the revised assessment provided by the applicants in production DB 7.1, subject to minor caveats, the background noise levels are accepted. They are what would be expected in a quiet rural area.

3.31 It would have been helpful to see the raw wind speed data but there is no reason to suspect that the calculations are wrong. The resultant graphs in DB 7.2 look reasonable and are considered to be what would be expected.

3.32 The council also accepts that the predicted noise outputs for the two candidate turbines are reasonable and closely mirror the predictions of their own expert witness.

3.33 The applicant claims that the methodology tends to over predict compared to actual noise levels experienced. The methodology uses worst case assumptions but this is deliberate in order to reflect the uncertainties involved.

3.34 ETSU-R-97 is an important consideration when assessing the noise from wind farms. However, it is not the only source of advice. Careful site selection and design is obviously the best form of mitigation. The applicant’s noise witness accepted that the proposal had not been redesigned when the true noise situation became clear. The proposal has therefore been designed on defective information.

3.35 It is also the applicant’s case that ETSU-R-97 allows noise to be restricted only during the defined quiet daytime hours. For the rest of the day time there is no restriction. This is simply wrong. ETSU-R-97 is clear, the background noise should be measured during the quiet daytime periods but the finally decided limit applies for the whole daytime period.

3.36 Even if ETSU-R-97 limits are complied with, there still remains the judgement over the overall impact on residential amenity.

Daytime limits

3.37 In deciding upon the appropriate day time limit, ETSU-R-97 suggests three factors to be taken into account. In considering the number of dwellings, it should be the number of dwellings affected. Appendix B of Mr Sharps’s precognition shows approximately 30 properties where the noise level would exceed 35 dB(A).

3.38 In the environmental statement the justification for the upper limit of 40 dB(A) was that only two properties exceeded 35dB(A). It is now clear that this is not the case.

3.39 In relation to the effect of any restriction on the power generated, the applicants claim that a limit of 35 dB(A) would reduce the power output by 6.4 GWH. However, the basis for this calculation is not clear. For example, it is not clear whether the calculation uses the applicant’s mistaken application of no noise restriction during some of the daytime period. The applicant’s noise witness had not calculated the figure himself, he could only repeat information given by the manufacturer.

3.40 The background noise levels near the site are typically below 30 dB(A). At kick in speed (i.e. 4 m/s) all are below 30 dB(A) and most significantly so. The background levels do increase to above 35 dB(A) but only when the wind speed gets to 8 or 9 m/s. The applicant has provided no information as to the extent of the time the wind will blow at particular speeds, including the vital 6-7 m/s range when the biggest noise impact is likely.

3.41 It should also be noted, that the position of the applicant until the new noise information became available, was that the conditions proposed by the council were acceptable. The new noise data has no bearing on what the acceptable limit should be.

3.42 Overall, it is considered that cogent reasons have been given for using the lower 35 dB(A) limit permitted by ETSU-R-97.

Night time limits

3.43 ETSU-R-97 would allow, where the quiet day time background noise levels are similar to the night time background noise levels to have a single limit of 35 dB(A). However, the council would accept 38 dB(A).

3.44 The night time limit set out in ETSU-R-97 was based on 1980 World Health Organisation guidelines which suggested a limit of 35 dB(A) within bedrooms to avoid sleep disturbance. However, these guidelines were subsequently altered in 1996 (i.e. after ETSU-R-97 was published in 1996) with a limit of 30 dB(A). In ETSU-R-97, it was assumed that there would be a 10 dB loss from outside to inside and a 2 dB conversion from the World Health Organisation’s use of LAeq to LA90. Hence the night time limit of 43 dB(A) (i.e. 35 + (10-2) =43). As the guidelines for sleep disturbance have reduced, following the same logic, the night time limits should be 30 + (10 – 2) = 38. The council are proposing this limit in their condition.

3.45 That the ETSU-R-97 night time limits should change is clear from previous decisions and the Hayes McKenzie report (see DB 7.6 – paragraphs 5.44 and 7.13). A night time limit of 38 dB(A) would be breached at a number of nearby properties.

3.46 Again, it should be noted that up until the new noise readings, the applicant accepted 38 dB(A). In conclusion, the council’s night time limit of 38 dB(A) is reasonable.

Curtailment

3.47 The council accepts that it would be possible to curtail the operation of the wind farm to ensure the applicant’s suggested limits of 40 dB(A) (during the quiet daytime) and 43 dB(A) (at night time), could be complied with. However, these limits would have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of nearby properties both day and night time. Particularly, when considered in the context of unacceptable visual impacts.

3.48 The council does not consider that it is viable to curtail the operation of the wind farm to the council’s noise limits, even though the applicant had originally accepted them. Turbines could be turned off. However, no evidence has been presented as to how often that would be the case and for how long or how many turbines would be involved.

3.49 In the council’s view, the reality of the situation is that the wind farm can only operate satisfactorily at the upper noise limits and then, only subject to curtailment measures. It could not operate at the acceptable noise limits suggested by the council because its design has been based on defective information.

Conditions

3.50 At the conditions hearing, the applicant tabled a set of conditions that are agreed with by the council in the event of consent being granted, except for condition 23 relating to noise (see appendix 2).

3.51 The main areas of disagreement regarding noise are set out above. They relate to the limits and whether the day time limits should apply to all of the daytime or just the quiet daytime. However, there is another area relating to the detailed wording that causes the council concern. In the event of a complaint, the council would want to see the raw data, including wind speed data and not just calculated data.

3.52 Other parties to the inquiry suggested that the background noise survey should be repeated to address the criticisms made and that specific limits be applied to particular properties. The council does not consider that this is strictly necessary but would not have an objection if Scottish Ministers considered that approach appropriate.

3.53 The council has some sympathy with the position of local residents and their concerns over how limits are monitored and calculated. However, it is considered that the condition suggested by the council is reasonable and is based on accepted professional practice. The council does not consider that it is appropriate to include a condition relating to aerodynamic modulation.

Conclusions

3.54 Overall, it is considered that there are too many turbines that are too high and too close to nearby residential properties and communities. Due to defective noise information, the wind farm cannot realistically operate within acceptable noise limits.

3.55 In addition, there would be unacceptable sequentially cumulative impacts. For these reasons, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the development plan.

3.56 These adverse impacts, in the council’s opinion, are not outweighed by any other considerations and consent should be refused.

4. THE CASE FOR THE COMBINED COMMUNITY COUNCIL GROUP ______

Background

4.1 The combined community council group was formed to consolidate local opinions into one voice for the purposes of the inquiry. The group consists of Glenurquhart Community Council, Inverness West Community Council, Kiltarlity Community Council, Kilmorack Community Council, the Abriachan Forest Trust (including its forestry consultant), Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society and Caroline Stanton. Caroline Stanton is a local resident who is also a chartered member of the Landscape Institute with a particular interest and experience in wind farm design matters.

4.2 In addition to giving evidence at the inquiry session, the combined community council group also attended the hearing session regarding tourism and economic benefits and made a written submission regarding shadow flicker. The parties also made representations to the Energy Consents and Deployment Unit when the application was originally submitted.

4.3 The applicant has mentioned the letters received by the Energy Consents and Deployment Unit, which supports the proposal. The combined community council group would point out that whilst there were some genuine letters of support, many were standard letters. Whilst signatories no doubt added their name willingly, they were part of a ‘PR’ campaign. The majority of letters of support were also not local. On the other hand, the majority of letters of objection were from the local IV3 and IV4 postcode areas.

4.4 The combined community council group felt hampered in presenting coherent objections to the inquiry because it was difficult to get access to hard copies of the document, requests for information were ignored or refused by the applicant and considerable amount of new material was submitted prior to the inquiry. The relationship between the original environmental statement and the new material is unclear.

4.5 As a volunteer group, the extent of the group’s evidence had to be limited. However, the combined community council group supports the objections made by The Highland Council regarding policy matters, Druim Ba Say No regarding noise and local residents group regarding residential amenity.

Landscape and visual impact

4.6 Although the landscape and visual impact assessment follows recognised guidelines, it is not considered adequate in a number of respects.

4.7 Firstly, the assessment is too simplistic for what is actually a very complex landscape. It has failed to assess in detail the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the area and how these are experienced in order to draw out what is really important in relation to the development proposed.

4.8 Therefore, table 1 of production CCC 4 identifies in a more thorough way the key landscape and visual characteristics of the locality and the effects of the development upon those characteristics. These have been formulated from a combination of a more thorough analysis of the Inverness District Landscape Character Assessment (CD45), consultation with local people and the professional assessment of an experienced landscape architect with extensive local knowledge.

4.9 Having established the effects on these key landscape and visual characteristics, the submitted assessments by the applicant can be revisited. The differences are shown in table 2 of production CCC 4.

4.10 In summary, in relation to the defined landscape character types, it is considered that the proposal would result in significant adverse landscape effects on the rocky moorland plateau landscape character type and the enclosed farmland landscape character type. The environmental statement considered that there would only be significant local effects.

4.11 The visual effects are also compared in table 2 of production CCC 4. Two additional viewpoints (VP7 and 10) are considered to have significant adverse effects compared to the environmental statement.

4.12 An important difference in the assessment in production CCC 4 compared to the environmental statement is differences of opinion over the scale of the landscape. The combined community council group cannot accept that the landscape is large scale.

4.13 The environmental statement is also unclear in terms of some of the judgements applied to sensitivity and magnitude of change. Some of the thresholds are ambiguous. These differences are also highlighted in table 2.

4.14 The submitted information is also unclear as to how the existing coniferous forest will be treated. The site is an upland coniferous forest, with poor soils, high winds and a crop largely nearing maturity. To manage wind blow, it is accepted that any felling to accommodate the turbines and tracks would have to be to wind firm edges (e.g. rides, road lines and species or age class boundaries). In reality, the extent of felling would be far larger than shown by the applicant’s submitted information.

4.15 Comparison with Whitelees or a wind farm in France is not helpful because they will have different soil types, different forest age structures and different forest management techniques.

4.16 Aside from the extent of felling, there is insufficient information on the areas of replanting and future management of the remaining forest. It is therefore not possible to judge the significance of potential landscape and visual effects linked to forest clearance and future management. This was also raised by Scottish Natural Heritage in their comments on the application.

4.17 The significant adverse landscape and visual effects would be seen by many people. People living and working in nearby houses and settlements, visitors to the area, users of the Great Glen Way and visitors to the Abriachan Forest Trust.

Design

4.18 The adverse significant effects are because of the scale of the proposal in terms of the height and number of the turbines. The key design choices of the applicant have not been informed by ensuring the design responds to the specific characteristics and qualities of the landscape and visual resource but solely by hard economic and technical considerations to retain the existing forest.

4.19 Apart from reducing the number of turbines from the maximum possible and considering only one alternative height, other design options have not been explored. The combined community council group in production CCC 6 figs 13 show the differing landscape and visual effects of three different heights of turbine from three of the agreed viewpoints.

4.20 Retaining the forest would not be supported by the landscape character assessment and the mitigation claimed is over stated. Retention actually increases the perception of height and the turbines would contrast with the dark conifer backdrop. There are therefore limited if any benefits in retaining the forest.

4.21 Paragraphs 127 and 187 of Scottish Planning Policy emphasises that development in general and wind farms in particular should be designed to minimise landscape and visual impact. Scottish Natural Heritage has issued design guidance in ‘Siting and Design of Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (CD44). Table 3 of production CCC 4 sets out how the proposal is not considered to meet the terms of this guidance. It is considered that these criticisms are consistent with the comments that Scottish Natural Heritage made regarding the application.

Residential amenity

4.22 The combined community council group has carried out its own assessment of the impact of local visual amenity and this is contained in production CCC/1. The criticisms of the applicant’s study in the environmental statement are contained in appendix 2 of CCC/1. At the inquiry, there were further written exchanges over the various differences and omissions. It is accepted that the study in DB 6.1 and DB 6.2 has made a better job of identifying properties within 3 km of the site, but the combined community council group cannot agree with the overall conclusions.

4.23 The applicant’s own assessments show that there would be significant impacts on properties over 2 km away. It is the combined community council group’s view that there will actually be many more impacts than identified by the applicant and significant impacts would occur at even further distances .

4.24 Whether or not individual houses would become unattractive places to live (the so called Lavender test), the visual impact on the wider community is

unacceptable. In any event, it is considered that Cnoc Breac (and hence Rivonlich Lodge) and the White House would become unattractive places to live in.

4.25 The comparators provided by the applicant are all unhelpful. In particular, no comparison can be made with Whitelees, which has a completely different landscape context.

4.26 The proposal would also have a major impact on the amenity experienced by visitors to the Abriachan Forest Trust. The Trust’s forest would be completely dominated by the turbines and the view from Carn na Leitir would be detrimentally affected. Users of the Great Glen Way would also experience a detriment impact on their enjoyment of this important long distance footpath.

Noise and shadow flicker

4.27 The combined community council group did not provide evidence on noise. Noise is however, of primary concern to our residents. The combined community council group cannot accept the idea of the applicant that there should be differing daytime levels – quiet daytime and other. It is inappropriate for the many people spending time outside, such as farmers, visitors and children playing, to have to tolerate elevated noise levels during the day. The combined community council group would support the uniform 35dB(A) limit suggested by other parties.

4.28 The combined community council group has established that Craggan Lodge is within the area of potential shadow flicker and this was not addressed in the submitted environmental statement.

4.29 Trees cannot be considered an effective form of mitigation. Any screening cannot be relied upon during the life of the wind farm due to the high risk of wind throw and snow load.

4.30 The combined community council group submits that in considering the impacts from the development the combined impacts (e.g. visual impact, noise and shadow flicker) on residential amenity have to be considered. In particular, those living closest to the wind farm will suffer the biggest visual impact and the most elevated noise levels.

Tourism and economic impacts

4.31 The combined community council group considers that the applicant has failed to understand the real nature of tourism in the locality and the critical role that it plays within the local economy. It is disappointing that they failed to follow the advice of Visit Scotland about preparing a tourism impact assessment.

4.32 The applicant appears to consider that provided the wind farm could not be seen from Loch Ness, there will be no impacts. A much broader assessment is required. Visitors do not confine themselves solely to the shores of Loch Ness. For example, the A833 is an important link road to other areas and provides a circular tour.

4.33 The local area is a tourist destination in its own right. It provides accommodation, particularly self-catering accommodation and has centres of real excellence such as the Aigas Field Centre, Abriachan Forest Trust and the Moniach Mhor writers centre.

4.34 Tourism locally supports a close network of self-supporting small businesses. These businesses are always fragile and any diminishing of the areas key asset – its scenery, could reduce the enjoyment of visitors. The numbers of repeat visitors would decline and others would go elsewhere. In particular, part of the attraction of the out door recreation, enjoyed by visitors and the population of the general Inverness area, is the sense of tranquillity and the lack of man made structures.

4.35 The applicant’s studies are inadequate and based on small samples. The actual local operators are in no doubt as to the likely economic impact and should have been consulted. Many have made submissions to the inquiry or direct to the Energy Consents and Deployment Unit.

4.36 In the view of the combined community council group, the so called Moffat Report (CD48) is a limited piece of work and too much reliance is placed upon it by wind farm developers to suggest that there would be no impact on tourism.

4.37 Fundamentally, the study is attempting to measure something that cannot be properly measured. The data used were weak with small samples and the methodologies were over complex. The likelihood of return and contingent valuation methodologies are hypothetical concepts that can never be verified. In addition, since the study has been carried out in 2007, many more wind farms have been consented and built. This may have changed the perceptions of the public since then.

4.38 The anticipated economic benefits should be treated with caution. It is likely that much of the investment will not go direct into either the local or the wider Scottish economy.

Conclusion

4.39 The turbines are too tall, too many and too close to houses and communities. The proposal would have significant adverse landscape and visual effects because of its excessive dominance. Its impacts have been exaggerated, not mitigated, by virtue of misguided design choices. A significant number of people, including nearby residents and visitors would appreciate these effects. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage’s guidelines.

4.40 If the wind farm were to be constructed, it would damage tourism and recreation interests and with it, the local economy over an extensive section of the Inverness hinterland. It would also deter others from creating the sustainable successful local business and social enterprises of the future. For these reasons, Scottish Ministers should refuse consent.

5. THE CASE FOR THE LOCAL RESIDENTS GROUP ______

Background

5.1 The local residents group consists of the residents from 51 nearby properties. Written precognitions were submitted by the occupiers of 16 properties in close proximity to the proposed wind farm. Four of these residents read out their precognitions to the inquiry. Eight of the 16 properties were visited as part of the accompanied site visit.

5.2 Although the evidence from the local residents group was confined to residential amenity, this was done to avoid repetition with the other parties objecting to the proposal. The local residents group supports the submissions made regarding the wider landscape and visual impact from The Highland Council and the combined community council group.

Visual impact and residential amenity

5.3 The local residents group carried out their own assessment of all building receptors within 3 km of the proposal. This is included within Appendix 2 of local residents’ document 1. This concludes that 49/51 properties within 2 km of the proposal would experience adverse significant effects. It also concludes that 34/60 properties between 2 and 3 km of the proposal would experience significant adverse effects.

5.4 Appendix 3 of local residents document 1 lists the errors, omissions and inconsistencies with the developers study included within the submitted environmental statement. The applicant’s landscape witness commented on these criticisms in production DB 6.25. It is not considered that these comments address the points raised. This is set out in the local residents group’s production LR 7.

5.5 Appendix 4 of the local residents group’s document 1 provides a comparison between the study in the environmental statement and the local residents group’s own study. Aside from the errors and omissions referred to above, it is considered that the assessment carried out by the applicant systematically understates receptor sensitivity and receptor magnitude.

5.6 Local residents group’s document 2 volume 1 and volume 2 are a more detailed assessment of 16 representative residences that are closest to the proposed wind farm and therefore likely to experience the biggest impacts.

5.7 This detailed assessment includes the following information:

• Property name and reference number

• Property description

• Comments from the applicant’s assessment

• Amenity value

• Impact of proposal on visual amenity

• Distance from the nearest turbine, arc of view, number visible and a small wireframe visualisation

• Photographs of the property and view

• Effect of noise

• Effect of construction and traffic

• Effect on light

5.8 Volume 2 includes for each of the 16 properties, at A3 size, a transparency, photographs and wireframe visualisations. It was accepted in cross- examination that the transparencies can only be used in the field and cannot be over lain, as the photographs and wire line diagrams were not all taken from the same viewpoints. All the viewpoints were identified on the accompanied site visit.

5.9 The criticisms of the local visual amenity assessment (see productions DB 6.1 and DB 6.2) are contained in table P1 of the precognition of Lucinda Spicer, who was the only local resident cross-examined at the inquiry. In summary, it is maintained that the impacts continue to be understated. In particular, it should be noted that the properties were not visited inside to assess how rooms are actually used and there was no combined assessment of noise or construction impacts.

5.10 It was accepted by the applicant’s expert witness that DB 6.2 could be tested by reference to the 16 properties assessed in detail by the local residents group. It is considered that this will show that the applicant has understated the impacts. If this is so for these 16 properties, it will also be so for all the other properties within 3 km of the proposal.

5.11 All the local residents of the 16 properties in their precognitions agreed with the assessment. From the perspective of these local residents, common themes can be identified. Many have made a choice to live and work in a quiet and scenic area. Many have invested considerable sums of money and time to develop their properties. Many work from home or outside. Some have health concerns. All fear the dramatic change to their residential amenity that would result if the proposal were built.

5.12 It is not suggested that all 16 properties assessed in document 2 would become unattractive to live in the ‘Lavender’ sense but many will. Even if only a few were considered to become unattractive to live in, that would still justify refusal.

5.13 The comparisons with other proposals and decisions put forward by the applicant were not helpful. In particular, the only dimension given was frequently the distance from a house to a turbine. The height of the turbine was ignored. A turbine of 100 m height at 650 m from a house is equivalent to a Druim Ba 150 m high

turbine being 975 m away. An unacceptable turbine of 110 m height and 850 m away is equivalent to a Druim Ba turbine at 1.2 km away.

5.14 At the least, these decisions show that a distance of 1.2 km is within a potential zone where dwellings may become unattractive. Five of the 16 representative properties would be within this zone. A side from the distance from houses, a number of local residents work outside in fields even closer to the proposal.

Noise

5.15 The local residents group did not provide evidence to the noise session. However, noise is a concern of local residents and they generally endorse the submissions of The Highland Council.

5.16 However, many of the precognitions submitted by the local residents refer to how quiet the local area is and how much they value this tranquillity.

5.17 The local residents would also reinforce the concerns expressed by Druim Ba Say No regarding the possibility that background noise levels may have been recorded as higher than they actually are. In particular, the local residents group can confirm the issue regarding the boiler at Dhullan. The local residents group are also concerned about the rainfall matters and that readings taken for Cnocbreac and the White House were not from the most sheltered locations.

5.18 These points are relevant in relation to the assessment of residential amenity. Although DB 6.2, in the conclusions for each property refers to “in the round”, this phrase only relates to the visual impact. It does not therefore assess the impact on amenity of intrusive noise from the wind farm. It also means that there remains an element of uncertainty in terms of the noise calculations, thus justifying a cautious approach to setting noise limits.

Conditions

5.19 The local residents group did participate in the conditions hearing session and submitted written evidence for it. In summary, the local residents group’s position is that if consent is granted then the noise limit should be 35 dB(A) (or background plus 5 dB(A) whichever is the higher) for all periods. In addition, in all the relevant calculations, wind speeds should be measured and not standardised to a 10 m height.

5.20 ETSU-R-97 states that wind speeds should be measured not standardised. The site wind shear is said to have been calculated but the actual wind shear component has never been disclosed, nor has the data been made available to crosscheck the calculation. This, combined with the other concerns expressed over the data justifies a precautionary approach and hence the lower limit of 35 dB(A) for all periods.

5.21 Due to the topography, there is real scope for high wind speeds up above the hills where the turbines are and low wind speeds within the glen. Productions LR

1 – LR 4 explain in more detail the practical implications of using a standardised wind speed. This approach can cause difficulties, as it is possible for local residents to suffer from a noise nuisance, whilst still technically complying with planning conditions because the mathematics of the standardised methodology can obscure real impacts.

5.22 Productions LR 5 and LR 6 advocated a planning condition to control any problems due to amplitude modulation. However, the local residents group now accepts the opinion of the three noise experts that a specific condition would not be appropriate. However, it was accepted that amplitude modulation can be an issue with wind farms and this favours setting the 35 dB(A) limit advocated by the local residents group.

Conclusion

5.23 Overall, there is overpowering evidence of adverse impact to residential amenity including visual, noise and construction impacts. These impacts were part of the reason why The Highland Council objected to the proposal. Therefore, consent should be refused.

6. THE CASE FOR DRUIM BA SAY NO ______

Background

6.1 Druim Ba Say No is a grouping of mostly local people, many of whom live close to the proposed wind farm. The group was formed to object to the application.

National energy policy and planning policy

6.2 Following from the William Grant and Sons court case (see production DBSN/I/46) it is now accepted that Schedule 9 and Section 36 of the Electricity Act is a self-contained decision. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 (as amended) is not engaged.

6.3 It is considered that the duties set out under Section 36 of the Electricity Act are relatively easy to meet. Although the courts have held that a decision under Section 36 is a self-contained code, this does not mean that meeting the duties makes issuing consent automatic.

6.4 In addition, notwithstanding that Section 25 is not engaged, for all practical purposes the development plan remains an important material consideration and this is demonstrated by all the decisions that have been placed before the inquiry.

6.5 It is also accepted that national energy policy is generally supportive of renewable energy developments. However, notwithstanding this support, proposals must be environmentally acceptable.

6.6 The Scottish Government’s 2020 Route map for renewable energy (see CD52) has significantly increased the targets for renewable energy production. It is noted that this has been done without a finalised strategic environmental appraisal and appears to be politically driven. The route map does not provide policy guidance for individual proposals and has not altered the requirement of Scottish Planning Policy that schemes should satisfactorily address environmental impacts.

6.7 In this case, the development plan consists of the Highland wide Local Development Plan adopted as recently as April 2012. Policy 67 relates directly to renewable energy developments. In accordance with Scottish Government guidance, the policy is supportive if the proposal is not significantly detrimental overall.

6.8 Policy 67 lists a number of matters that will be considered. For the reasons set out in more detail below, it is considered that the proposal would be significantly detrimental in terms of: • Natural heritage features (i.e. the landscape);

• Visual impact (mainly) and (to a lesser degree) impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area;

• Amenity at sensitive locations including residential properties;

• Amenity of regularly occupied buildings and the grounds that they occupy having regard to visual intrusion and noise generation; and

• Amenity of users of core paths (including the Great Glen Way)

6.9 Policy 28 is also considered relevant. In summary, again for the reasons expanded upon below, it is considered that the proposal would have significant detrimental impacts, would not demonstrate sensitive siting and design and has not minimised the environmental impact.

6.10 The policies of the development plan are complimented by supplementary planning guidance notes. The status of Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines 2006 (CD 17) is unclear. However, there is no reason to suppose anything has changed since the council’s committee report in September 2011 (CD1). In that report, it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to these guidelines.

6.11 It is accepted that the proposal now falls into an area of search as defined in the interim supplementary guidance (CD 13). However, proposals must still comply with Policy 67 of the local development plan. The interim supplementary guidance also adds detail to some of the criteria in Policy 67. In relation to noise, it states that wind turbines should not exceed 35dB(A) at noise sensitive locations.

6.12 It is considered that the economic benefits are likely to be limited. The proposed community benefits are not material to the decision as to whether consent should be granted. The benefits related to renewable energy production are already factored into the policy response and therefore should not be counted twice.

6.13 Overall, in policy terms, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of the development plan and these are not outweighed by its limited benefits.

Landscape and visual impact

6.14 Druim Ba Say No’s landscape witness was Mr Mark Steele. Mr Steele’s topic paper 1 (Production DBSN/I/1) sets out how it is considered that the landscape and visual impact assessment in the submitted environmental statement did not follow the guidance issued by the Landscape Institute and Scottish Natural Heritage.

6.15 In summary, this mainly related to not determining the sensitivity and magnitude of effects appropriately and considering only combined cumulative impacts not additional impacts.

6.16 In topic paper 2, (Production DBSN/I/1) Mr Steele prepared his own landscape and visual assessment. The assessment in the environmental statement and Mr Steele’s are compared in a table at pages 13 and 14. Mr Steele considers that additional significant visual effects would occur at viewpoints VP7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 16.

6.17 Five nearby residential receptors are compared at pages 17 and 18 of the same topic paper. Although similar significant effects are identified in these cases, if the environmental statement had used the same methodology as Mr Steele, the total number of receptors experiencing significant effects would have increased from 33 to 87 out of the 185 assessed.

6.18 Topic paper 2 also compares cumulative impacts on page 19. Mr Steele considered that there would be two additional viewpoints (VP 13 and 21), where cumulative effects would be significant. Sequential cumulative impacts have not been completely assessed by Mr Steele. However, again due to differences in approach, it is reasonable to assume that Mr Steele would have identified more significant effects than identified in the submitted environmental statement.

6.19 Overall, the environmental statement understates the number of significant effects and the extent of the significant effects. The submitted environmental information cannot be relied upon.

Design and forestry

6.20 The applicant’s documentation setting out the design process shows that they selected design criteria that were inherently conflicting and could never be reconciled. These included: • Continuing sustainable commercial forest operations

• Maximising the visual containment of the site’s topographical profile

• Maximise the site’s wind resource

• Protect nearby residents from noise, disturbance and shadow flicker.

6.21 Keeping the forest means tall turbines, the tallest possible without navigational lights. The environmental statement considered that tall turbines would be acceptable because the landscape was assumed to be large scale. It is not a large scale landscape and this is confirmed by the comments of Scottish Natural Heritage on the application.

6.22 The design team assumed that the site was in a zone 1 and 2 landscape. However, Scottish Natural Heritage has now confirmed it is actually in a zone 2 landscape. The definition for zone 2 is that there are some natural heritage sensitivities that require a careful choice of location and design to be appropriately addressed. A 1 km distance from existing residential properties was another stated design parameter but this has not been achieved because of a mapping error. The change in noise information is set out below.

6.23 To justify the design choices and the use of ‘key holing’, the environmental statement compares the proposal with a 23 turbine scheme with a maximum height of 125 metres. In the alternative scheme, the forest is clear felled. It is considered this is a false comparison. The existing forest would not be retained

as it appears now. Instead, it would be subject to successive small areas of felling and subsequent replanting. Whilst clear felling results in an initial dramatic change, replanting can take place and over time, would not look as portrayed in the environmental statement.

6.24 It is considered that there is a lack of information as to what areas of the existing forest would be felled and when. There is also a lack of information regarding the implications of the necessary measures to manage wind blow.

Local visual amenity assessment

6.25 The applicant submitted to the inquiry a local visual amenity assessment (see production DB 6.2). Mr Steele also carried out a comparison for 5 properties relatively close to the wind farm. These are shown at pages 18 and 19 of annex A of Mr Steele’s precognition. For those particular properties, the assessments were similar.

6.26 However, there are reservations. The houses themselves were not visited. A house has to be visited to understand how it is actually used rather than having to make assumptions about the nature of rooms involved and how an occupier uses them. In addition, although the assessment found significant effects at 27 out of 57 properties, it is not clear how all were considered acceptable ‘in the round.’

6.27 It is not accepted that there are only minor differences between the assessment of nearby houses in the environmental statement and production DB 6.2. Had the environmental statement used a similar methodology, far more than 33 properties would have been identified as having experienced significant effects.

6.28 The various comparators put forward by the applicant are not helpful. Each case has to be considered on its merits and in the light of the particular local circumstances and design. In particular, it is not just the distance from dwellings that is important. The height of the proposed turbines also needs to be considered.

6.29 Although there are differences in the assessments provided by Mark Steele and Caroline Stanton, it is considered that they are closer in their opinions than that between Mr Steele and the various assessments submitted by the applicant. Druim Ba Say No broadly supports the criticisms and comments made by the combined community council group and the local residents group about the submitted environmental statement and the local visual amenity assessment.

Noise

6.30 The applicant’s new noise assessment is contained in production DB 7.1. This assessment completely vindicates the comments made on behalf of Druim Ba Say No about the inadequacy of the environmental statement made since the beginning of the application process.

6.31 The new assessment shows how loud the wind farm would be. For example, in the environmental statement it predicted the noise at 4 Cragganvalle

(approximately 1.5 km from the wind farm) would be 30 dB(A). It is now predicted to be 38dB(A), almost twice as loud.

6.32 ETSU-R-97 is the Scottish Government’s preferred method for assessing and rating noise from wind farms. However, compliance with ETSU-R-97 is not the only matter to be considered. A judgement still has to be made as to the significance of the noise and the impact this has on residential amenity.

6.33 Druim Ba Say No continues to have concerns about the background noise information used in the new study. Although the properties that should have sound monitoring were agreed, the location of the monitoring equipment was not. It is not considered that the most appropriate locations for the monitoring equipment were chosen.

6.34 In addition, the wind shield details were not agreed, only proxy information for when it rained was used, rather than site information and only calculated data has been presented. No raw data has been presented on wind speed and direction. It has not therefore been possible to check if the calculations are correct or the information used representative of wind speed and direction.

6.35 Overall, there remains a risk that the background noise levels are actually lower than assumed in the new study.

6.36 For setting noise limits, ETSU-R-97 provides for the noise from a wind farm to be up to 5 dB(A) above background noise levels. However, it also permits a lower limit of between 35 – 40 dB(A) depending on three factors.

6.37 The new assessment shows that up to 40 properties would experience noise levels over 35 dB(A). This is a significant number. No meaningful data has been provided in terms of loss of power output or duration of wind speeds or the direction of the wind.

6.38 Even accepting the background noise information, it is clearly a very quiet rural area. Tables 1-3 of production DBSN/I/43 show that for the three quietest properties the background noise does not exceed 35dB(A) until the wind speed of 9 m/s is reached.

6.39 The applicant’s position, that outwith the quiet daytime periods, noise should be unrestricted is completely rejected. Such an approach is not supported by ETSU-R-97.

6.40 43 dB(A) is normally the night time limit allowed for by ETSU-R-97. There is a body of opinion amongst some acousticians that this should be reduced to 38 dB(A). However, ETSU-R-97 also allows 35 dB(A) to be used for both night and day time periods where the day time and night time back ground noise levels are similar. Tables 1-3 of DBSN/I/43 demonstrate that this is the case at Druim Ba. Therefore the appropriate limit should be 35 dB(A) for all periods.

6.41 It is clear from the new noise survey that the proposed wind farm could not meet this limit. Indeed, the proposed wind farm could not meet the upper limit of 40 dB(A) without curtailment.

6.42 Curtailment down to an appropriate level of 35dB(A) is unlikely to be practical without actually turning individual turbines off. It is clear that in the circumstances of the proposed design, mitigation by curtailment is not appropriate.

6.43 Even if it was accepted that 40dB(A) was an appropriate level (which Druim Ba Say No do not) then the necessity for curtailment, changing the pitch of the turbines and/or reducing the power output from turbines would be likely to lead to changes to the character of the noise as wind speed and direction changes. This of itself is likely to be annoying to residents.

6.44 As the area is so quiet, there is a very high likelihood of complaints. Especially if the upper limit is chosen. Addressing complaints would not be a simple or straightforward matter. Extensive surveys would be required, which are dependent on gathering sufficient data for representative wind speeds and direction. Noise levels would have to be monitored not only with the wind farm not operating but also when it was operating without any curtailment and under a curtailment regime. All this would result in protracted disputes and considerable annoyance to all parties involved.

6.45 Overall, because of the particular design and location of the wind farm, mitigation by the use of conditions limiting noise to acceptable levels is not practical. The proposal should be refused on noise grounds alone.

Conditions

6.46 Druim Ba Say No submitted written comments on conditions for the hearing session. However, at the hearing session these were withdrawn apart from the comments made in relation to the noise condition.

6.47 In the event that consent is granted, Druim Ba Say No would want the noise levels to be based on 35db(A) but set out in a table for each wind speed for each noise sensitive property. This would require a new background noise survey, carried out in agreement with all parties to be undertaken to populate the table.

6.48 In addition, in order for monitoring to be as straightforward as possible, any condition should specify in detail what information would be made available in the event of a complaint. Such information should include data of how the curtailment regime was applied to individual turbines. In addition, the anticipated curtailment regime should be submitted for approval prior to the wind farm operating.

Conclusions

6.49 The landscape and visual impacts would be unacceptable, not only across Glen Convinth but also in respect of a number of nearby residential properties. In addition, the proposal would impose excessive noise levels on a substantial number

of residences. The proposal cannot meet ETSU-R-97 limits and is likely to cause complaints.

6.50 The proposal would not have an acceptable environmental impact and would therefore be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and the provisions of the development plan. The limited benefits would not outweigh the considerable disadvantages to the host community. Consent should be refused.

7. CONSULTATION RESPONSES ______

7.1 The Mountaineering Council of Scotland had no comments to make. British Telecom, The Crown Estate, Ofcom and the Joint Radio Company had no objection.

7.2 The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards comments that the proposal could have impacts on watercourses, water quality and on migratory and other fish species, particularly during construction. The proposed development should be conducted in full consultation with the Beauly District Salmon Fishery Board and the Ness and Beauly Fisheries Trust.

7.2 Civil Aviation Authority had no objection and confirmed that if the turbines were below 150 m in height there would be no need for aviation warning lighting from a civil perspective. Any turbines or cranes etc over 91.4 m in height would need to be marked on aeronautical charts to enable pilots to plan their routes safely. This can be achieved by notifying the Defence Geographic Centre, which maintains the UK database of aeronautical obstructions.

7.3 Forestry Commission Scotland comments that the site was previously under various Woodland Grant Schemes. Felling has been carried out under these schemes but not restocking. There is no objection provided that a condition requires a forestry plan to be submitted and agreed before work commences. This should include: • The restocking of areas previously felled

• A restructuring plan taking into account the new turbine areas, the areas for other associated buildings, compounds and the new tracks. The plan must consider restructuring and management of the remainder of the woodland area and follow the best practice guidance on forest plans

• The areas of compensatory planting demonstrating the public benefits being lost and the benefits to come from the compensatory areas proposed

7.4 Halcrow Group Limited technically assessed the information in the environmental statement regarding peat stability. It was concluded that the information provided was a sufficiently robust assessment of peat landslide risk. Out of 12 locations, only one was identified as significant for peat landslide occurrence, therefore Halcrow suggested site specific conditions are attached to any consent.

7.5 Highlands and Islands Airport Limited had no objection after it was confirmed that the site would not be visible to the Inverness radar installation.

7.6 Historic Scotland is content that any impacts on statutory historic environment interests are not at such a level of significance to warrant an objection to the proposal.

7.7 NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company (NERL) had no objection to the proposal.

7.8 Ness and Beauly Fisheries Trust and Beauly District Fisheries Board provided a joint response. They do not object to the proposal provided safeguards are in place to ensure against the deterioration of water quality in local watercourses of the Moniack and the Beauly River systems. Regular sampling of the aquatic environment needs to be made a condition of any consent before, during and after construction with regular liaison to consider the implications arising from the collected data.

7.9 Ministry of Defence had no objection to the proposal. However, in the interests of air safety, the Ministry of Defence requests that the turbines be fitted with aviation lighting. The corner most turbines and several turbines in the middle of the proposal should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200 – 500 ms duration at the highest practical point. If consent were granted the Ministry of Defence would like to be informed when construction starts and ends, height of construction equipment and the latitude and longitude of every turbine.

7.10 Marine Scotland Science – Freshwater Laboratory had concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposal on salmon and trout in the River Beauly, particularly during construction. Best practice needs to be followed to avoid any impacts. A robust monitoring regime is necessary before, during and after construction, including suitable control sampling points likely to be unaffected. Where sampling indicates likely problems quick action must be taken.

7.11 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds does not object to the proposal providing that a Slavonian Grebe Conservation Plan is agreed by interested parties and made subject to a legally binding Section 75 agreement.

7.12 Scottish Environment Protection Agency had no objection subject to conditions that include addressing ground water interests and pollution prevention.

7.13 Scottish Natural Heritage comments that it only objects to proposals where there are natural heritage impacts of national significance that cannot be avoided. No such impacts arise in this case.

7.14 In relation to designated sites, there would be no adverse impacts on the integrity of either the North Inverness Lochs Special Protection Area or the Balnagrantach Site of Special Scientific Interest. Conditions are recommended in order to mitigate impacts on European and nationally protected species. This would be in the form of a species protection plan and would cover Otters, Wild Cats, Red Squirrels, Pine Martins and reptiles. The suggestion that there should be an ecological clerk of works is supported. There should also be a condition relating to decommissioning.

7.15 In relation to landscape and visual impacts, Scottish Natural Heritage would agree that there would be no significant effects upon Loch Ness or any other designated landscape. However, the size of the turbines does not reflect the scale

and character of the immediate landscape features and the proposal would have significant impacts on the landscapes to the north. Lower turbines would reduce the landscape and visual impact of the proposal but would have other design implications. It is not clear how the woodland will be managed over the lifetime of the wind farm. If consent is granted, further information should be required by condition. There are limited combined and sequential cumulative impacts. Overall Scottish Natural Heritage does not consider that the proposal, as submitted, maintains a good standard of wind farm design.

7.16 Trunk Roads Network Management Division had no objection to the proposal following assessment of the expected impact on parts of the Trunk Road Network.

7.17 Visit Scotland had no objection to the proposal. However, they highlighted the importance of tourism to the Scottish economy, and of Scotland’s landscape in attracting visitors to Scotland. Visit Scotland requested any detrimental impact on tourism be considered fully, particularly when making decisions over turbine height and numbers.

Other comments received

Letters of objections

7.18 Abriachan Forest Trust, Glen Urquhart Community Council, Inverness West Community Council, Kilmorack Community Council, Kiltarlity Community Council, Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society and Caroline Stanton all made written objections to the proposal before the inquiry. These parties all formed part of the combined community council group whose key points are summarised in chapter 4.

7.19 342 Letters or e-mails were received objecting to the proposal, (some objectors wrote more than one letter) making the following key points:

• The scale of the wind farm and height of the turbines will have an unacceptable visual impact

• The proposal will be detrimental to the landscape and scenery of the area

• The proposal will be detrimental to the visual amenities of nearby properties

• The proposal will have an adverse impact on tourism in the area including visitors to Loch Ness, the Abriachan Forest Trust, users of the Great Glen Way and hill walkers

• The proposal, in addition to others built, consented and proposed wind farms will have a detrimental cumulative impact

• The proposal is too close to houses and settlements

• The economic benefits of the proposal are exaggerated

• The proposal will result in the devaluation of nearby property

• The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on wildlife, including the protected Slavonian grebe

• The benefits of ‘key holing’ within the forest are exaggerated and many more trees than indicated will have to be felled

• There will be noise disturbance during construction and operation of the wind farm in an area valued for its tranquillity

• The roads will not be able to safely accommodate the construction traffic

• The proposal is contrary to various planning policies of The Highland Council

• The proposal will cause shadow flicker to nearby properties

• Wind farms are an inefficient source of energy only developed because of the subsidies

• During construction there is unacceptable risk of river pollution and air pollution from dust

• Insufficient assessment into the impact upon heritage sites

• Impact on telecommunications

• Impact on aircraft radar

Letters of support

7.20 Inverness Chamber of Commerce supported the proposal as it would contribute to targets, have good road access, create local jobs and the use of ‘key holing’ would minimise the impact on the forest. Beauly Community Council also voted in favour of the project.

7.21 437 letters or e-mails in support of the proposal were received making the following key points:

• The proposal represents a good use of the natural wind resources and will help achieve Scottish Government targets

• It is a clean source of energy which will reduce carbon dioxide and assist in reducing the effects of climate change

• It is a good location, with good transport links and an existing road infrastructure within the forest

• The investment would create jobs and improve the local economy

• It is unlikely to have a significant impact on tourism

• Turbines can also be considered an elegant addition to the landscape

• ‘Key holing’ the turbines will limit the impact on the forest

• Other environmental impacts have been carefully considered and appropriately addressed

8. REASONED CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ______

Preliminary matters

8.1 In their closing submission, the applicant argued that no weight could be attached to The Highland Council’s objection. In the applicant’s view, the council’s decision making process, which caused an objection and triggered the inquiry, was flawed and contrary to government policy.

8.2 I can understand that the applicant would be disappointed that the council objected and thus caused an inquiry to be held. However, I find no basis for concluding that no weight can be attached to the council’s evidence. The council was not the only party to have criticisms of the proposal. The council is a consultee, not the decision maker. The applicant’s planning witness accepted during cross examination, that whilst he had criticisms of the committee report, overall it was fair. The council placed no particular reliance on the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines. The comments of individual councillors, debating a controversial large scale development proposal cannot be fairly judged in the same way as a reasoned decision.

8.3 In addition, I note that Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited decided not to make an application for an award of costs. The only claim for an award of costs came from Druim Ba Say No, who argued, in essence, that the council’s objection was insufficiently robust.

8.4 Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited has applied for consent under Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act and, separately, seek deemed planning permission under Section 57(2) of the 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. A deemed planning permission would normally follow on from the grant of a Section 36 consent. Two decisions therefore require to be made in respect of this application for the construction and operation of a wind farm at Druim Ba.

8.5 The provisions of Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act apply to the assessment of the wind farm, in so far as they relate to Scotland. The provisions set out a number of environmental features to which regard must be had, and they provide for mitigation. I have not been referred to any guidance that sets out how these provisions should be approached. While they do not require the general environmental features listed to be retained intact, the effects of the proposal upon them need to be considered. The Electricity Act does not limit the assessment to these factors alone. I do not therefore consider that the general duties under the Electricity Act are the sole tests of acceptability and that consent and deemed planning permission automatically follows if the general duties are complied with.

8.6 Following from the decision by the courts in WM Grant and Sons (DSBN/I/46) there was no dispute that Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act does not apply to either the Section 36 consent or the decision to grant deemed planning permission. However, that does not mean that the

development plan is irrelevant. This is because it contains policies and guidance, including policies relating to many of the environmental features listed in Schedule 9.

8.7 As required by regulation 4(2)(b) of the 2000 Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations (as amended), I have considered the environmental statement, the additional environmental information (i.e. the noise information – production DB 7.1) and all the other relevant environmental information provided in evidence to me.

8.8 There were comments that other information, such as the local visual amenity assessment (production DB 6.1) was also additional environmental information. I agree with the applicant that there is a distinction between substantive additional environmental information and environmental information contained in evidence to expand upon a party’s case.

8.9 Prior to the inquiry, I invited parties to make legal submissions if they had any concerns. No further submissions were received. In any event, I note that the terms of the advert would apply to any substantive environmental information. I am therefore satisfied sufficient information has been provided to enable the application to be determined and the relevant regulations have been followed.

Determining issues

8.10 The key determining issues in relation to the Section 36 application are: i) the need for the wind farm and national energy policy and guidance; ii) its environmental and other impacts (including landscape and visual impact, impact upon the residential amenities of nearby houses and impact on tourism) bearing in mind the development plan, other policy guidance and the duties set out in Schedule 9.

8.11 If Scottish Ministers decide to grant Section 36 consent, the same determining issues would apply to the decision to grant deemed planning permission, except with reference to Schedule 9, which would not apply.

National energy policy, planning policy and other policy guidance

8.12 There is no dispute that Scottish Government energy policy is strongly supportive of renewable energy proposals, including for onshore wind. This strong support is for a number of reasons including: • International, United Kingdom and Scottish Government targets

• Reducing the reliance of other forms of energy

• Reducing atmospheric pollution from fossil fuels

• Reducing the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions

8.13 A number of individual letters of objection to the proposal questioned the wisdom of encouraging onshore wind energy. However, it is not appropriate for this inquiry to review Scottish Government energy policy.

8.14 It was also agreed, that notwithstanding the increasing targets for renewable energy production, individual proposals still had to be environmentally acceptable overall.

8.15 The Highland Council suggested that because there already was a considerable amount of renewable energy generating capacity consented or operational within both the Highland Council area and Scotland, it was permissible to be more discerning. I find no basis for this position. It is clear that achieving the targets is not considered a cap and the number of schemes in the council area is not of itself relevant.

8.16 The proposal has a maximum capacity of 69 MW and this would make a significant and valuable contribution to achieve the Scottish Government’s energy policy objectives.

8.17 I also find that certain environmental impacts are an inevitable consequence of the Scottish Government’s energy policy. For example, any wind farm would have some landscape and visual impacts and increase local noise levels to a certain extent. However, the expectation is that through good design, unacceptable impacts would be avoided or minimised.

Scottish Planning Policy

8.18 There is no suggestion that Scottish Planning Policy is inconsistent with Scottish Government energy policy. I note that paragraph 187 states that, “planning authorities should support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.” Factors to be considered are listed and these include landscape and visual impacts, effect on tourism and noise. It is also stated that the design and location of any wind farm development should reflect the scale and character of the landscape.

8.19 The Scottish Government’s web based advice, Onshore Wind Turbines (last updated 24 October 2012) states that in relation to noise, ETSU-R-97 describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise limits. I find that ETSU-R-97 is the key document in assessing the noise implications of a wind farm.

Development plan

8.20 The development plan is the Highland wide Local Development Plan, adopted in April 2012. It was agreed that Policy 67 and Policy 28 were directly relevant to the proposal.

8.21 Policy 67 relates specifically to renewable energy developments. It lists a series of matters that should be considered. Proposals will be supported where they

are not significantly detrimental overall. I therefore find Policy 67 contains relevant considerations and is consistent with Scottish Government national energy and planning policy.

8.22 Policy 28 is a general policy that would apply to any development, including a wind farm proposal. As far as Policy 28 is relevant to a wind farm, the objective is to ensure an appropriately designed wind farm that can contribute to the principles of sustainable development. Not all the detailed criteria are relevant to a wind farm but some such as impact on residential amenity, impact of pollution and impact on the natural environment are.

Supplementary planning guidance

8.23 Both the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines and the interim supplementary guidance – onshore wind energy are referenced in Policy 67.

8.24 A number of the letters of objection referred to the spatial guidance of the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines as a means of justifying refusal of consent. However, the council accepts that this spatial guidance is out of date, does not comply with Scottish Government guidance and did not rely upon it in formulating its objection. The other criteria, as far as they are relevant, repeat matters already listed in Scottish Planning Policy and the development plan.

8.25 It was agreed that the interim supplementary guidance shows the proposal in an area of broad search. However, an individual proposal still has to be environmentally acceptable. The interim supplementary guidance states that 35 dB(A) is the standard that the council will apply at noise sensitive locations. However, I consider this to be general advice and that the content and status of the interim guidance means that it does not override the guidance in ETSU-R-97.

Scottish Natural Heritage guidance

8.26 Scottish Natural Heritage has published a map of zones of natural heritage sensitivity. In their consultation response, Scottish Natural Heritage state that the site falls within zone 2 – medium sensitivity. This zone is defined as areas with some sensitivities to wind farms. However, by careful choice of location within these areas there is often scope to accommodate development of an appropriate scale, siting and design.

8.27 Scottish Natural Heritage in their consultation response confirms that they consider that the proposal would not have any significant effects on any designated natural heritage site, including Loch Ness.

8.28 Scottish Natural Heritage also produces design guidance. Although guidance, rather than hard design rules, there is, nonetheless the expectation that such guidance is considered in developing proposals. Scottish Natural Heritage only objects to proposals where there are natural heritage impacts of national significance. The fact that Scottish Natural Heritage did not object does not

necessarily imply they consider that the proposal would have acceptable environmental impacts.

Forestry policy

8.29 The Scottish Government’s policy in relation to woodland is a presumption against its removal. ‘Key-holing’ a wind farm within woodland, in association with compensatory replanting, may meet the objectives of this policy. However, it is not fair to assert that the height of the proposed turbines is because of Scottish Government policy. A wind farm must still be environmentally acceptable overall. The Scottish Government’s woodland policy would equally be complied with if the forest were continued to be managed as a commercial forest without a wind farm.

Conclusion

8.30 Overall, I have no doubt that wind farm development is supported in principle by legislation, policy and guidance on energy. There is undoubtedly a need for further wind farm development and the proposal would make a significant contribution to achieving the Scottish Government’s energy policies and associated targets. Furthermore, I find that there is no objection in principle to an appropriately designed wind farm in this location. An inevitable consequence of any wind farm development is some environmental impacts. The key issue is whether the design of the proposal ensures acceptable environmental impacts. I address the various environmental and other impacts of this particular design of wind farm in the following paragraphs.

Landscape and visual impact (including cumulative impact and impact on residential amenity)

Adequacy of the landscape and visual impact assessment

8.31 There were a number of criticisms of the landscape and visual impact assessment contained within the submitted environmental statement. In summary, these included failing to follow recognised methodologies, ambiguous judgements regarding sensitivity to effects, magnitude of effects, the thresholds for the significance of effects and the visualisation standards used. The essence of these criticisms was that the submitted environmental statement understated the landscape and visual impact of the proposal.

8.32 I consider that it is important to understand the nature of a landscape and visual impact assessment. It is not an objective technical study that certifies what the landscape and visual impacts will be and whether these will be acceptable. Instead, a landscape and visual impact assessment is a ‘tool’ to help decision makers understand the likely effects of a proposal. A distinction has to be drawn between the process of describing the effects and the overall conclusions regarding acceptability that are ultimately reached.

8.33 A recognised methodology for carrying out a landscape and visual impact assessment suitable for environmental impact assessments is set out in “Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment” (CD 40). This methodology allows a

degree of discretion in terms of the detailed approach to be followed. Following the established methodology does not remove the need for professional judgement. It is quite possible for different landscape professionals to arrive at different judgements when following the guidelines. A benefit of the methodology is that when this occurs, reasons for the difference of opinions can be identified. An assessment can still be helpful to the decision maker even if not all the conclusions are accepted.

8.34 The landscape and visual impact assessment is accompanied with other material including the zone of theoretical visibility map, wire line diagrams, transparencies and photomontages. All this material has to be appropriately interpreted and assessed in the field.

8.35 No photograph can ever completely replicate the actual visual impact as perceived by the human eye. The visual impact of an operational wind farm is in any event constantly changing depending on lighting and weather conditions. Wire line diagrams, transparencies and photographs can only be properly interpreted by using the correct viewing distance and on site. I do not consider that any of the submitted material, when appropriately interpreted, is misleading.

8.36 I am satisfied that the submitted landscape and visual impact assessment, in association with all the other material submitted and my accompanied and unaccompanied site visits are sufficient to reach conclusions regarding the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal.

Forestry matters

8.37 I accept that in general terms, ‘key-holing’ has a number of advantages aside from minimising the number of trees that would be felled. It avoids the visual scarring that can occur with clear felling and can screen tracks and other site infrastructure. It is obviously an approach that has been used elsewhere. The consultation response from the Forestry Commission did not suggest that it was a technically impossible approach in forestry terms for the site.

8.38 However, for this particular proposal, I cannot agree that ‘key-holing’ reduces the perceived height of the turbines. In my opinion, due to the way the site is perceived from within Glen Convinth the trees would provide both a scale indicator and a dark backdrop against which the turbines would be contrasted.

8.39 There was no dispute that in the context of an upland forestry plantation, with relatively mature trees, on relatively poor soils that wind blow would be an issue that has to be properly managed. There was also no dispute that this would mean felling back to wind firm edges.

8.40 Bearing this in mind, I would be surprised if the extent of clear felling was precisely as shown on the 1:22,000 scale plan in Fig 1 of production DB 6.2. This plan shows neat geometric patterns that are unlikely to precisely relate to wind firm edges. Nonetheless, I am not persuaded that the extent of felling would be significantly larger than indicated.

8.41 I accept that it would have been helpful if the application had shown more clearly the extent of clear felling, the likely phasing of future cropping and subsequent replanting. I agree that over the lifetime of the wind farm a ‘mosaic’ of mature trees, recently felled areas and replanted areas is a more realistic description than the images showing the plantation as a single block, more or less as it is now. However, in my opinion, the landscape and visual implication of these matters, over and above what would happen to the coniferous forest without the wind farm are marginal and temporary compared to the major impact of the turbines themselves.

8.42 I note the quote from the Scottish Forest Strategy: Implementation Plan (2012-2015) and progress Report (2011-12) set out in paragraph 10 of production DB 8.4A which states, “The Scottish Government’s policy on the control of woodland removal is becoming embedded in the work of local authorities and other statutory bodies with responsibilities in development control. Whenever possible, wind farms should be planned in ways that minimise woodland removal, for example by giving careful consideration to the design and layout of turbines and associated civil engineering works. This includes the concept of ‘key holing’, which means small scale felling around turbine sites. In practice, the scope for ‘key holing’ and the size of ‘key holes’ is very site specific and detailed considerations include wind flow, forest structure and landscape (as visual factors often determine the maximum height of turbines).” (my emphasis).

8.43 I therefore conclude that the key issue is the acceptability of the landscape and visual impact of the wind farm itself. Forestry matters, whilst important, are not fundamental. If consent were given then it would be appropriate to control such matters by way of a condition requiring the submission of a forestry management plan.

Landscape effects

8.44 It is not disputed that the proposal would have no significant effects on any designated landscapes. The only dispute relates to two landscape character types within the 15 km study area.

8.45 On behalf of Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited, it is argued that any significant landscape effects are localised and typical of a large scale wind farm. The extent of these effects and the reasoning for reaching this conclusion is set out in table 5.1 and fig 6 of production DB 6.2.

8.46 I accept that the landscape character type – rocky moorland plateau, overall could be described as a large scale landscape. I can see how certain elements within and adjacent to the site, in other spatial contexts, might be regarded as large scale. However, in my opinion, when viewed from within Glen Convinth, I do not believe the site can be said to be within a large scale landscape. Field patterns, trees and the occasional building would all provide scale indicators.

8.47 I could not agree with every comment made by Caroline Stanton in table 1 of production CCC/4. However, based on my accompanied and unaccompanied site inspections, I consider her analysis more closely reflects how the local landscape is actually perceived and experienced than set out on behalf of the applicants.

8.48 I therefore agree with Caroline Stanton’s conclusions that the proposal would result in significant landscape effects on the rocky moorland plateau and enclosed farmland character types. I note that Scottish Natural Heritage’s consultation response also considers that the site is not within a large scale landscape and that significant landscape effects would be experienced in two landscape character types and would not be locally limited.

8.49 Furthermore, due to the height and number of the turbines I consider these significant landscape effects to be harmful. I do not consider that the proposal represents a good landscape fit and agree with many of the objectors and Scottish Natural Heritage that the proposal would be out of scale with its surroundings.

8.50 I accept that replanting an equivalent area to that which would be clear felled with native broadleaf trees would represent a landscape benefit. However, this would take many years to mature and would not in my opinion, outweigh the adverse impact identified. The planting proposals for the wind farm site itself, as discussed above, are at this stage uncertain.

Visual effects

8.51 The visual impact of the proposal is separate but closely related to the landscape impact. I accept that in overall terms, the topography of the surrounding area means that the site is relatively contained. In general terms, the main views of the site are from the north.

8.52 The judgements of the three qualified landscape architects in relation to the significance of the visual effects from the 25 agreed representative viewpoints are summarised in the following table.

Table summarising significance of visual impacts from the viewpoints

Viewpoint Environmental Caroline Stanton Mark Steele Statement 1 Sig Sig Sig 2 Sig Sig Sig 3 Sig Sig Sig 4 5 Sig Sig Sig 6 Sig Sig Sig 7 Sig Sig 8 Sig 9 10 Sig Sig 11 12 Sig 13 Sig 14 15

16 Sig 17 18 19 Sig Sig Sig 20 Sig Sig Sig 21 Sig Sig Sig 22 23 24 25

8.53 All three agree that there would be significant visual effects at viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 19, 20 and 21. I cannot agree with Mark Steele (on behalf of Druim Ba Say No) that there would also be significant effects at viewpoints 8, 12, 13 and 16. In my opinion, at such distances, if the wind farm could be seen at all, it would be a small vertical and horizontal element upon the horizon.

8.54 Viewpoints are intended to be representative. Viewpoint 10 is intended to be representative of views travelling along the A 832 and not solely the view from the minor crossroads itself. In that context, I agree with Caroline Stanton, that the height and number of turbines would draw the eye and would become a significant visual feature as you travelled west. The visual effect from viewpoint 7, which is closer, would in my opinion, be significant for the same reasons.

8.55 I therefore find that there are significant visual effects at 10 of the 25 representative viewpoints. From up to 10 km from the site, where it can be seen, I consider the visual effects to be harmful. This is because the height and number of turbines introduce an excessively dominant visual feature. Its visual impact is emphasised because it would appear out of scale with its surroundings.

8.56 Many people would experience these harmful landscape and visual impacts. This includes those local residents living within this zone of visibility, anyone using the local road network and visitors to the area, including walkers along the Great Glen Way.

8.57 I accept that any wind farm would be a tall vertical man made structure and that some significant landscape and visual effects are an inevitable consequence of the Scottish Government’s energy policy. However, in my judgement, the design choices made regarding the height and number of turbines have exaggerated the landscape and visual impacts and have not minimised them.

8.58 I found the wire line diagrams provided by the combined community council group (see figs 13 production CCC/6) showing the different impact of different heights of turbine to be helpful. I accept that reducing the height of the turbines would have implications regarding the Scottish Government’s woodland removal policy. In addition, reducing the height of turbines would mean that more turbines would be needed to achieve the same power output.

8.59 However, there is no fixed power output for any proposal. ‘Key-holing’ would be possible with a lesser number of turbines of a similar height and I note that

‘key-holing’ is not the only acceptable option to comply with forestry policy. Ultimately, the Scottish Government’s woodland removal policy and minimising landscape and visual impacts are just two of a number of design constraints that an acceptable design of wind farm needs to accommodate.

Cumulative impacts

8.60 I do not consider that there are any significantly adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts. The distances between operational, consented and proposed wind farms (as shown in Fig 16 of production DB 6.2) and Druim Ba are such that where more than one wind farm is seen in connection with Druim Ba, it is a small visual element.

8.61 I am also not persuaded that there are any significant adverse sequential cumulative impacts. At no point is the A9 closer than 15 km to Druim Ba. At that distance, I cannot accept there would be any harmful cumulative effects.

8.62 It is an inevitable consequence of the Scottish Government’s energy policy that travellers about Scotland, whether by car, public transport, bike or foot, will from time to time see wind farms along their journey. Notwithstanding my concerns regarding the landscape and visual impact of Druim Ba on its own, I do not consider that potentially seeing it as one of a relatively few wind farms, generally at considerable distance, to be of itself harmful. I therefore accept the conclusions set out in table 6.1 of production DB 6.2.

8.63 I accept that having clusters of wind farms could be a superior spatial strategy in order to reduce landscape and visual impacts compared to a dispersed spatial strategy. I can understand why, as planning authority, The Highland Council may want to direct wind farms to particular areas in order to achieve a ‘cluster’ approach.

8.64 However, defining acceptable cluster areas, with all the other matters that have to be considered is unlikely to be a simple exercise. I am not surprised developing such guidance has proved to be difficult.

8.65 As it currently stands, there is no policy basis for assuming that the general Druim Ba area has no capacity for a large scale wind farm in order to provide an area of visual respite. I certainly do not consider that it is self evidently the case that such an area is required. I am therefore not persuaded that the council’s second reason for objection has sufficient merit to justify refusal of consent.

Residential amenity

8.66 The concerns expressed to me by local residents are understandable. I heard evidence that some residents had long ties with their land and property. Other residents had made significant investments when they moved to Glen Convinth as part of a life style change.

8.67 However, it is an inevitable consequence of the Scottish Government’s energy policy that in a relatively densely populated country, some residential properties will always be close to a wind farm.

8.68 A local resident does not have a right to a view and the impact on the value of a property is not in itself a relevant consideration. A balance has to be struck between the public interest of providing sustainable sources of energy and the impact of such essential infrastructure upon nearby residents. Therefore, the issue is not whether the proposal would have local impacts but whether these impacts are reasonable and acceptable.

8.69 The local residents group and other residents in their written submissions have referred to impacts during construction. I have no doubt that if the proposal were to be constructed many local residents would be inconvenienced in a number of respects compared to the current situation.

8.70 However, such inconveniences are of a relatively temporary nature and in any event, inevitable in the construction of any major infrastructure project. Provided appropriate conditions are attached, I believe that such impacts would be reasonable and acceptable. I do not consider that the properly managed construction of the wind farm is a basis for objecting to the proposal.

8.71 In relation to residential visual amenity, there were three main assessments. The assessment contained in the environmental statement, the local visual amenity assessment submitted on behalf of the applicant (production DB 6.1) and the assessment submitted by the local residents group (most conveniently summarised in production local resident’s doc 1 appendix 4).

8.72 The environmental statement concluded that 33/185 building receptors would experience significant visual effects. The local visual amenity assessment concluded that 27/57 properties considered to be potentially affected would experience significant visual effects. The local residents group’s study concluded that 73/111 of the properties with 3 km of the proposal would experience significant visual effects.

8.73 The study in the environmental statement was criticised by both the combined community council group and the local residents group. The applicant provided a written response to these criticisms. I find these criticisms largely relate to either a misunderstanding or differences of opinion. However, the study did consider building groups and not always individual properties. I consider that the applicant’s local visual amenity assessment, which did consider individual buildings, to be the applicant’s up to date assessment of the visual impact from nearby properties.

8.74 Both the applicant’s submissions were also criticised because the properties themselves had not been visited. Instead, assessments had been carried out from the nearest public place. I accept that there are practical problems in visiting inside the private residences of every house potentially affected by a wind farm. I do not consider it necessary in every case. However, understanding how a

property is actually used and the alternative views from it would seem desirable for the closest properties for a wind farm designer seeking to minimise impacts.

8.75 I was invited to assess the merits of the local residents group’s studies and the applicant’s local visual amenity assessment with reference to 16 representative properties that were closest to the wind farm (ref VP1- VP16 in the local residents group’s productions). On my accompanied site visit, I visited White House (VP1), Ardblair (VP2), Dhuallan House (VP4), Glen View Chalet Park (VP7), Cnoc Breac (VP 15), Craggan Lodge (VP11), South Teavarran (VP 10) and Heath Cottage (VP9). I viewed the site with transparencies, wire line diagrams and photographs provided by the parties from garden areas and within houses. I am also familiar with the general location of the other representative 16 properties from numerous unaccompanied site visits.

8.76 I find that the local residents group assessments over state the impacts, particular for properties further away from the site. Adopting the local residents group’s approach to assessing sensitivities and magnitudes would result in few wind farms ever being constructed. I therefore prefer the applicant’s local visual amenity assessment as a more measured assessment carried out by a landscape professional with considerable experience of wind farm development. I adopt that assessment’s finding in relation to the significance of visual effects but not its overall conclusions.

8.77 I note that Scottish Natural Heritage’s design guidelines state that careful attention should be paid to the impact on nearby residential properties. This is because local residents will experience a wind farm from different locations, at different times of day, for longer periods and in different seasons as they enjoy their property and carry on with their everyday lives.

8.78 In my opinion, the fact that it is considered that 27 properties would experience either major or moderate significant adverse visual effects reinforces my view that the overall landscape and visual impact of the proposal is unacceptable.

8.79 I appreciate that significant changes to a local resident’s outlook does not mean a wind farm proposal is necessarily unacceptable. Significant changes are likely to be inevitable for the closest properties. I agree that a ‘higher’ test is relevant. The frequently referred to phrase was, “…[that the] property concerned would come to be widely regarded as an unattractive and thus unsatisfactory (but not necessarily uninhabitable) place to live.” This phrase came from an appeal decision in England – Enifer Downs Farm (see production DB3.15). Some parties referred to it as the ‘Lavender test’ (the name of the Inspector making that decision).

8.80 However, if the Enifer Downs Farm case is read as a whole, it seems to me that the Inspector was posing the question as a means to assess whether overall the wind farm had an acceptable impact on the residential amenities of the most directly affected properties. In my judgement, this cannot just comprise the outlook from a garden or window. Depending on the circumstances, it could include the overall landscape and visual impacts and noise.

8.81 I assess noise below. I would note however that Cnoc Breac, White House, Rivoulich Lodge, Ardblair, Stroma No 2 Cragganvallie and Drumcroy (i.e. 6 of the 7 judged to experience major significant adverse effects) would all experience noise levels at or above 40 dB(A) at 8 m/s for the Enercon E82 3MW turbine. In table 3 of Mr Bowdler’s supplementary topic paper he calculates the average existing background noise for the quietest properties to be 33 dB(A) at 8 m/s.

8.82 Some of the properties adjudged to have moderate significant adverse visual effects would also experience elevated noise levels. For example, Craggan Lodge, Fanblair and Allt na Harry.

8.83 I conclude, that for several of the closest residential properties, the combination of the various impacts (including the overall landscape and visual impacts that would be experienced as these occupiers travelled about the local area, the visual effect experienced from some garden areas and main rooms and the elevated noise levels that would be experienced, particularly when outside at the lower wind speeds) would be significantly detrimental to their residential amenities. These impacts are as a result of the design choices made in relation to the height and number of turbines. I consider these choices have exaggerated the impacts. I therefore consider that these combined impacts on the closest residential properties are unreasonable and unacceptable. The proposal would therefore also conflict with Policy 67 and Policy 28 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan.

8.84 I did not find the comparisons with other wind farms helpful. For example, the landscape context within which Whitelees wind farm is situated is completely different from Druim Ba. Many of the turbines at Whitelees are lower at 110 m. I am not aware of any published guidance specifying a minimum acceptable separation distance between a wind farm and residential properties. Any attempt to try to divine one from previous decisions is unlikely to be successful. This is because distance is only one of a number of factors to be taken into account. Other relevant factors would include; height of turbine, topography, landscape context, screening, orientation, arc of view, actual use of gardens or rooms, availability of alternative views and background noise levels. Ultimately, a judgement has to be reached concerning the overall impact on residential amenities, considering all relevant factors on a case by case basis.

Conclusion

8.85 In relation to landscape and visual matters, I am satisfied that I have sufficient information upon which to base a recommendation to Scottish Ministers. I consider that the spatial extent of the significant landscape and visual effects is larger than suggested by the applicant. Due to the height and number of the turbines, I consider that the proposal will be unduly prominent and appear out of scale. I consider this visually harmful. I cannot agree with the council that there are any adverse cumulative impacts. I consider that in the round, taking into account the overall landscape and visual impact, the visual impact from individual properties and my findings below in relation to noise, that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of immediately adjacent properties. Overall, I conclude that the council’s first reason for objection is well founded.

Noise and shadow flicker

8.86 It was accepted by the three noise witnesses that the Scottish Government’s preferred approach to the assessment of noise from wind farms is set out in ETSU-R-97 (CD55). ETSU-R-97 also provides guidance on appropriate limits upon which to base planning conditions in order to ensure acceptable noise levels. Over the years, the methodology set out in ETSU-R-97 has been complimented by developing professional practice.

8.87 In summary, the approach compares the calculated turbine noise levels at the nearest sensitive locations at different wind speeds with the pre-existing background noise levels, also at different wind speeds (background noise levels tend to increase with wind speed) and assess the significance of the difference.

8.88 There are therefore two key data sets, the existing background noise levels at sensitive locations and the predicted noise levels from the turbine. There was no dispute over the predicted noise levels from the two proposed candidate turbines (see appendix C and D of production DB 7.1). Although I note the noise predicted is higher than that set out in the environmental statement. This information could not therefore have been available to the design team.

8.89 The applicant’s noise expert suggested that the methodology for predicting the turbine noise tended to over predict compared to the actual noise experienced. My understanding is that certain worst case assumptions are used. However, these are used in recognition of the inevitable uncertainties involved. That seems to me to be an essential element of the agreed methodology and I conclude it is safe to use the predictions in the new noise information provided by the applicant.

8.90 Mr Bowdler, representing Druim Ba Say No had considerable reservations about the background noise data. These included: • Lack of agreement over the detailed locations for siting the noise monitoring equipment

• Lack of agreement over the wind shield details

• Use of proxy rainfall data rather than onsite rainfall data

• Lack of any scrutiny over the raw data regarding wind speed and direction.

8.91 It is most unfortunate, particularly when the assessment in the environmental statement was found to be incorrect, that the experts could not agree these detailed technical matters. Whatever the reasons for this disagreement, I would observe that such disputes are not helpful in building public confidence or trust in predictions of effects from major wind farm proposals.

8.92 Nonetheless, even if these disputes had any significance for the final levels, it would mean that the background noise levels might be marginally quieter than shown. As ETSU-R-97 states that 35dB(A) would always represent an

acceptable balance between the need for wind farms and residential amenity, I doubt that the disagreements are material to my recommendation.

8.93 I note that the council’s noise expert accepted the background noise levels and considered them reasonable and what would be expected. Therefore, I find that on the balance of probabilities, the background noise information can be relied upon.

8.94 ETSU-R-97 considers that plus 5dB(A) above the background noise levels would normally provide an acceptable level of noise intrusion from a wind farm. However, because some rural areas can have very low background noise levels, ETSU-R-97 permits a fixed lower limit. For properties with a financial interest, this is set at 45dB(A). No party disagreed with this figure. It would apply to two properties and the data shows this specification can be met.

8.95 There was a dispute over the lower day time limit. ETSU-R-97 shows that this should be set within the range of 35dB(A) to 40dB(A). There was also a dispute as to whether there should be any limitation during the day, outwith the defined quiet daytime periods.

8.96 ETSU-R-97 provides no justification for having an unrestricted period during the day. When ETSU-R-97 is read as a whole, the intention is that the background noise levels should be taken during the defined quiet daytime period but the derived minimum limit should be applied throughout the day.

8.97 This matter is addressed on page 59 and states, “in principle this implies, and quite rightly, that one could justify the setting of higher limits during the working day when background noise levels will be higher due to increased human activity. The developers represented on the Noise Working Group thought that this approach would however be unworkable since the wind farm would have to be designed to meet the stricter conditions applicable during the quiet periods and the economics of wind farms would not allow one to consider switching off certain turbines at given times of the day at the most critical wind speeds. We therefore propose that the day time limits should be set in relation to the background noise measured during the quiet period of the day and that these should apply over all waking hours.” (My emphasis.)

8.98 In the closing submission on behalf of the applicant, I am referred to 22 decisions where noise conditions have been imposed. I note that all but a few have limits imposed for the whole day.

8.99 I therefore conclude that special justification would be required to adopt the approach advocated by the applicant. I am not aware of any data showing the background noise levels outwith the defined quiet periods. I therefore find that there is no justification for framing a planning condition that would allow a period of unrestricted noise limits.

8.100 On page 65 ETSU-R-97 states that the actual value chosen for the daytime limit, within the range of 35-40dB(A) should depend upon a number of factors:

• Number of dwellings in the neighbourhood of the wind farm

• The effect of noise limits on the number of k wh generated

• Duration and level of exposure

8.101 It is agreed that there are over 40 properties where predicted noise levels would exceed 35dB(A), the minimum level that ETSU-R-97 considers would always be acceptable. I consider this a significant number.

8.102 I accept that a lower noise limit would reduce power output compared to a higher limit. However, the only information is the statement in Mr Sheridan’s precognition that the curtailment necessary to achieve 40dB(A) would result in a 1.2 GWh loss of power per annum compared to no restriction, but that this would increase to 6.4 GWh per annum if the lower limit of 35dB(A) was chosen. A number of assumptions must have been made to derive these figures. However, they have not been made available and this evidence could not be tested. In any event, there is no fixed power output for a wind farm. The essential point is that the power output follows from a wind farm design that has an acceptable environmental impact.

8.103 The applicant did provide information regarding wind direction. I appreciate that some properties would only be down wind for a relatively small proportion of time. However, I am unaware of any information regarding the frequency and duration of different wind speeds, although this must have been available to the applicant. The applicant did not provide any predictions of the noise from the candidate turbines at the lower wind speeds. Thus making it difficult to understand the practical impact of a lower limit of 35 compared to 40 dB(A). However, Mr Bowdler did. By comparing the quiet daytime background noise levels in table 2 of the appendix to DBSN/I/43 with the predicted turbine noise levels in table 4, a limit of 35 dB(A) appears to show a more controlled increase than a 40dB(A) limit over the background noise levels at the lower wind speeds.

8.104 I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the use of the 40dB(A) lower limit, bearing in mind the very quiet background noise levels, particularly at the lower wind speeds. I therefore prefer the evidence of Mr Bowdler and Mr Sharps, that in this particular very quiet rural location the lower limit of 35 dB(A) would be the most appropriate.

8.105 At the pre-examination meeting, the applicant’s position was that they would accept the council’s suggested limits of 35 dB(A) during the day and 38 dB(A) at night. This was stated to me as an argument for not having to hold an inquiry session into noise matters. However, that was before the new noise information was available. In answer to my question, Mr Sheridan for the applicant, stated that it would be technically possible to curtail the operational wind farm down to 35 dB(A), however, he did not elaborate any further.

8.106 I am aware that modern turbines have increasingly sophisticated noise control measures. I appreciate that turbines can be controlled to pre-set parameters to keep within certain noise ranges. Nonetheless, there must be limits to such measures. It was the expert opinion of Mr Bowdler and Mr Sharps that curtailment

down to 35 dB(A) could only be achieved by turning off individual turbines under particular wind conditions.

8.107 Bearing in mind my previous comments on the landscape and visual impact, I consider it undesirable to construct a wind farm and then have turbines not to operate. In such situations, the most appropriate course of action is to re-design the wind farm so that it can operate without such extreme curtailment measures.

8.108 It was agreed by all three noise experts that curtailing the noise level to 40 dB(A) was technically possible. Although I note that it would reduce the designed power output. In addition, Mr Bowdler considered that the changes of power mode and other measures might result in a change to the character of the noise that would of itself cause annoyance. I also agree with Mr Bowdler that it is reasonable to assume that any wind farm operator would seek to maximise the power output within the specified noise limits. Curtailment would be the minimum necessary. It would be surprising if the controlling mechanisms were of such accuracy that avoiding occasional breaches could be guaranteed in all wind conditions.

8.109 It is widely recognised and acknowledged at page 66 of ETSU-R-97, that the level of disturbance or annoyance caused by a noise source is not only dependent upon the level and character of the noise but also on the receiver’s attitude towards the noise source in general. In this instance, bearing in mind the significant visual effects of the wind farm when viewed from nearby properties, the wider landscape and visual impacts, the objections from many nearby residents and the obvious lack of trust that exists, I consider that complaints are highly likely if 40 dB(A) was chosen.

8.110 Investigating complaints is not a straightforward matter for any wind farm. Not least because a representative range of wind conditions must be monitored. It would be compounded in this instance by the fact that it would be necessary to establish what curtailment regime was operating. I consider that there is a high risk of a long drawn out and acrimonious dispute developing that would be time consuming and expensive for all parties to resolve.

8.111 It was also agreed by the three noise experts that the noise generated was a function of the design choices made about the height and number of the turbines. Bearing in mind my findings regarding the overall landscape and visual impact and the visual impact from nearby properties, controlling noise by condition (even if the higher 40 dB(A) limit was chosen) would not address the fundamental environmental impacts. The impact on residential amenities from the noise generated by the wind farm is not an isolated technical matter but one intimately linked to the design of the proposal.

8.112 ETSU-R-97 recommends the fixed night time limit of 43 dB(A) during the defined night hours. The reason the night time limit is higher than the day time limit is that it is assumed that people will normally be inside houses and this would provide acceptable attenuation. The limit was chosen to avoid sleep disturbance.

8.113 I accept that there is a body of opinion amongst some noise experts that this night time limit should be reduced to 38 dB(A). However, that is not a view that I

found expressed in any Scottish Government publication. I cannot therefore accept the reduced night time limit suggested by the council.

8.114 When ETSU-R-97 is read as a whole, it is not fair to suggest that there is support for limiting noise levels to 35dB(A) for the whole 24 hour period. That is put forward as a possible option. However, in terms of striking a balance between wind farm development and the amenity of residential properties, that is only advocated where there is agreement and/or appropriate to simplify the assessment and monitoring. I do not find this to be the case in this instance.

8.115 I am aware that ETSU-R-97 has been criticised by many parties over the years. Judging by the decisions I have been referred and the occurrence of these criticisms, it can be safely assumed that Scottish Ministers are also aware of them. To date, it has not been found necessary by the Scottish Government to alter its current position. In any event, it would be inappropriate to attempt to review ETSU- R-97 in an individual decision.

8.116 The local residents group argued in their written submissions to the conditions hearing that standardised wind speed data at 10 m height should not be used. However, the three noise experts did not support this view. It would be surprising if there were any perfect method to deal with the issue of different wind speeds at turbine height compared to sheltered locations. A professional consensus appears to have developed and I see no reason to set aside accepted practice in this instance.

8.117 It was also agreed by the three noise experts that amplitude modulation and low frequency noise were not issues that could be controlled by condition or likely to have unacceptable impacts. Having heard this evidence, the local residents group withdrew their recommended condition on amplitude modulation.

Shadow flicker

8.118 The shadow flicker calculations provided on behalf of the applicant have not been challenged. I accept the conclusions that Blairmore House and Craggan Lodge would not experience unacceptable levels of shadow flicker.

8.119 I consider that it is reasonable to assume that anyone developing the new house plot would want to revisit the design in the knowledge that there is a proposed wind farm near by. In any event, the theoretical basis for the calculations makes a number of worst case assumptions that are unlikely to apply in practice. In particular, screening would be maintained and a condition has been suggested to secure that this is the case. I find that shadow flicker is unlikely to have a significant impact on residential amenities.

Conclusion

8.120 Overall, I conclude that the noise information contained in DB 7.1 can be accepted as sufficient upon which to base a decision. Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that 35 dB(A) would be an appropriate daytime limit. It is unlikely that the wind farm could operate and meet this limit without having to turn individual

turbines off. Indeed, curtailment would be needed even if 40dB(A) was chosen. The difficulty that the proposal has in meeting acceptable noise limits is a function of the design choices made regarding the height and number of turbines. It is therefore inter-related with my conclusions on landscape and visual impact.

Tourism and economic benefits

8.121 Impact on tourism is closely related to the overall landscape and visual impact. However, the case presented by the combined community council group argued that there would be an additional harm. Apart from the harmful visual impacts experienced by local residents, these same impacts would deter the number of tourists and hence spend. This would result in an economic harm from the proposal.

8.122 There was no dispute that tourism is important, nationally, regionally and locally. There is no dispute that impact upon tourism has to be considered. However, I find no compelling evidence to conclude that the construction of a well designed wind farm would have any significant impact on the number of tourists or spend from tourists.

8.123 I accept that it is possible to develop credible critiques of the various studies relied upon by the applicant, including, ‘The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism’ (usually known as the Moffat Report – CD 48). Nonetheless, the fact that elements of a study can be criticised does not necessarily mean that the conclusions are incorrect. It is an acknowledged difficult area to compare a real event with a hypothetical one.

8.124 Aside from the generalised concerns of some local businesses, the combined community council group were unable to provide any studies that proved their own hypothesis. Wind farms are not new in Scotland or elsewhere. If wind farms systematically deterred the numbers and spend from tourists then it is reasonable to assume evidence for this would be found by now.

8.125 In any event, even if it were proved that wind farms deterred some visitors, it would still be appropriate for Scottish Ministers to consider that the policy objective to increase generation capacity from renewable resources was more important. I note that under current arrangements, the Minister who will be considering my report is the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism. I also note that neither the council nor the planning witness for Druim Ba Say No considered that impact on tourism would be a justifiable reason for refusal of consent.

8.126 As set out above, I have concerns about the overall landscape and visual impact of the proposal. I accept that tourists, including walkers along the Great Glen Way, will experience this harmful impact. The number of people experiencing these harmful impacts increases the weight to be attached to this issue. However, this is a different matter to whether any significant economic harm would occur as a result of deterring visitors.

8.127 I also accept that constructing the proposal would have some small benefits for tourism. Access to the site for walkers and mountain bikers could be improved. Construction and other workers may need local accommodation.

8.128 The proposal represents a significant investment. I consider that any investment has economic benefits irrespective of how much is retained locally. I also consider that any additional jobs are a positive economic benefit. However, there is no suggestion that a different design of wind farm would not secure a similar scale of economic benefits or that this investment and job creation is unique to Druim Ba.

Other matters

8.129 A number of written representations received referred to concerns about impacts on wildlife habitats and individual species, particularly the Slavonian grebe. I note that an Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken by Scottish Ministers and that subject to conditions and a legal agreement, neither Scottish Natural Heritage nor the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has an objection.

8.130 A few written representations also refer to concerns over the impact of the proposal upon cultural heritage. However, Historic Scotland did not consider that any impacts are significant and welcomes the opportunity to improve public access to a scheduled ancient monument.

8.131 Many written representations expressed concerns about the ability of the local roads to cope with the construction traffic, particularly the very big loads required for large turbine parts. Concerns were also expressed regarding safety, particularly for school children.

8.132 However, the environmental statement has fully assessed the route. Subject to conditions requiring the submission of further details, neither the trunk road authority nor the local highway authority has any objections. I have no doubt that inconvenience would be caused to the flow of local traffic during construction. However, this would be for a relatively temporary period and can be minimised with appropriate traffic management control measures.

8.133 There were also concerns expressed regarding impacts upon air traffic control radar. However, all the various consultees have confirmed there would be no unacceptable impacts on either civil or military air traffic control radar.

8.134 I conclude that, subject to appropriate conditions, there is an acceptable impact on wildlife habitats, individual species, cultural heritage, traffic flow and safety and radar.

Design

8.135 The proposal is a large scale infrastructure project. The design of any large scale infrastructure project is a very complicated process involving the consideration of many different aspects and covering a wide range of professional disciplines. Trade offs between key elements of the design are inevitable.

8.136 I recognise that the proposal has many benefits. It would make a significant contribution to achieving Scottish Government energy targets. It is located in an area where there are no policy presumptions against a wind farm in principle. Due to the topography, the site is relatively contained, with the main views only available from the north. Careful consideration has been given to minimising many of the impacts commonly associated with wind farms, including wildlife habitats and construction impacts. New habitats would be created and improved. New areas of native tree planting would have landscape benefits. Access to the site would be improved. The investment is significant in economic terms and the creation of any new jobs is important.

8.137 However, an important design decision was retaining the commercial coniferous forest through ‘key-holing’. This decision results in very tall turbines up to 150 m. The height and number of turbines has three inter-related impacts, a) the overall landscape and visual impact, b) the visual impact from nearby properties and c) the noise predicted to be experienced at these nearby properties. In my judgement, the design choices concerning the height and number of turbines exaggerated these impacts and does not minimise them.

8.138 The design process did not appear to consider a lesser number of turbines than 23. It only considered two alternative heights. The design team could not have had access to accurate noise information. I note that Scottish Natural Heritage provided pre-application advice. Nonetheless, in their consultation response, they considered that overall, the proposal submitted did not maintain a good standard of wind farm design.

8.139 I do not consider that the Scottish Government’s woodland removal policy represents an absolute design constraint that dictates the final number or height of the turbines. The use of ‘key-holing’ could be undertaken with a lesser number of turbines. This would have reduced impacts compared with the proposed 23. Compensatory replanting or short rotation cropping may have allowed a different range of turbine heights to be considered. Obviously, any acceptable alternative design could only be determined following a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of any practical options.

8.140 In any event, if a comprehensive assessment established that it was not possible to comply with the Scottish Government’s woodland removal policy and have an acceptable environmental affect overall, that would indicate that Druim Ba is not an appropriate location for a large scale wind farm.

Conditions

8.141 At the pre-examination meeting I encouraged the applicant and council to discuss conditions, on a without prejudice basis, in the event that Scottish Ministers decided to grant consent. I also asked for any recommended conditions to be sent to the other parties for comment. A set of conditions, with comments where agreement was not possible, was circulated on 13 June 2012.

8.142 A final set of conditions, closely based on the above was provided to me by the applicant and council on the day of the hearing. This is shown in appendix 2.

The other parties discussed the conditions at the hearing, particularly the noise conditions, but did not provide any alternative wordings in writing. My recommended conditions, in the event that Scottish Ministers decide to grant consent are set out in appendix 1.

Noise conditions

8.143 The key area of difference between the parties regarding conditions related to noise. I have already concluded above that there is no basis for an unrestricted period during the day time, that the night time limit should be 43dB(A) and that wind speed standardised to 10 m height, as accepted by the noise experts, should be used.

8.144 However, I also concluded that the daytime limit should be 35dB(A) as this would minimise the degree of difference between the quiet background noise levels and the noise generated by the turbines, particularly at the lower wind speeds. However, I also concluded, based on the expert evidence of Mr Bowdler and Mr Sharps, that curtailment to 35dB(A) was not practical without turning individual turbines off in certain wind conditions.

8.145 The applicant’s assessment is that curtailing operations to 35 dB(A) would reduce the power output by 6.4 GWh per annum. This evidence could not be tested and may be more. Therefore, setting a day time limit of 35 dB(A) in a condition would protect the amenity of nearby residential properties but at the expense of a significant reduction in power output and a risk that some turbines may not be able to operate in some wind conditions.

8.146 On the other hand, there is no difference in expert opinion that curtailment to 40 dB(A) is possible. There is still a reduction in power output but of a much smaller order. It is the limit the applicant is advocating and therefore there can be considerable confidence that it is practical.

8.147 Either limit would be possible to use in a condition. However, on balance, I consider setting the limit at 40dB(A) would be most appropriate if consent were to be granted. In making this recommendation, I consider that maximising power output should outweigh amenity considerations. Although 40 dB(A) represents an increase over the current very quiet background noise levels at low wind speeds, it is nevertheless within the acceptable range recommended by ETSU-R-97.

8.148 There were other minor matters relating to the technical wording of the noise condition. In general, the condition proposed by the applicant and council were very similar. As these parties are most experienced in the wording and enforcement of conditions, I prefer their written suggestions.

8.149 However, I agree with Mr Bowdler that the base data used to derive the various necessary outputs should be made available along with the relevant turbine control data. In the event of a complaint, I consider that transparency in calculating complex technical derived noise levels outweighs any issues of commercial confidentiality.

8.150 I also agree with Mr Bowdler’s suggestion that a scheme for the curtailment of the turbines should be submitted and approved by the planning authority before commencement of development, so that at least the basic curtailment strategy is understood.

8.151 I am aware that in other decisions an equivalent condition has been expressed in the form of a table setting out the maximum permitted noise level for each wind speed for specified properties. I can see the advantages of this approach. However, in this case, I do not have sufficient evidence to populate such a table.

8.152 I also cannot agree to the suggestion that a further background noise survey be undertaken. I have already concluded that on the balance of probabilities the noise information in production DB 7.1 can be relied upon. It is unlikely that a new survey would result in any significant differences. It would cause further delay and based on previous experience, there would be no guarantee that the parties would be able to agree all the aspects of a new survey. I can also foresee practical difficulties in getting access to properties if objectors to the proposal were aware that Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent.

Other conditions

8.153 I have made a minor change to condition 1 to clarify that the environmental statement has been amended by the new noise information. This was agreed at the conditions hearing.

8.154 All parties accepted the need for a micro-siting condition. However, the council wanted to ensure any changes would not allow any turbines to be seen from Loch Ness. The combined community councils group did not want a turbine to be moved closer to any residential property. The applicant was agreeable to these suggestions.

8.155 I recognise that because the site is currently a forestry plantation, the opportunity to carry out extensive and accurate site surveys is less than in many other situations. I also note that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency requested that a 50 m buffer is retained from all watercourses and there were concerns over deep peat in some locations. I therefore agree that a micro-siting condition is appropriate. However, amending the agreed version with the suggested changes creates difficulties regarding the precision of the condition. I do not consider avoiding visibility from just Loch Ness is sufficiently precise. Any movement of turbines would mean that they were further away from some properties but closer to others.

8.156 Under the circumstances, I can see no alternative but to amend the condition to require the submission of a detailed micro-sitting scheme prior to the commencement of development. Such a scheme, perhaps based on more up to date survey information could set out the particular tolerances for particular areas and this should be agreed with the planning authority and other appropriate consultees.

8.157 I have also added an additional condition requiring details of the Ministry of Defence aviation safety lighting to be submitted and agreed to reflect the consultation comments from the Ministry of Defence.

8.158 I agree with the applicant that the condition relating to additional wildlife surveys should relate to the wind farm site only. However, the condition relating to the habitat management plan and the forestry management plan should relate to the wider Blairmore Estate as set out in the environmental statement.

8.159 I have also amended the condition regarding the submission of a forestry management plan to include replanting of the areas previously felled (as requested by the Forestry Commission) and added Craggan Lodge as another property potentially affected by shadow flicker.

Section 75 agreement

8.160 The heads of terms for a Section 75 agreement discussed at the hearing were: • £5000 per mega watt of installed capacity per annum to be paid into trust fund(s) for community benefits

• A share scheme to be established to provide an opportunity for local people to have a financial interest in the project

• A habitat management plan for the nearby Special Protection Area to be agreed with the planning authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage

• Revocation of the planning permissions previously granted for house plots at the Blairmore Estate

8.161 I note that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds considers that the habitat management plan for the Special Protection Area is necessary as an additional safeguard. As it is off site, any consent should be subject to a Section 75 agreement to secure these measures. Scottish Natural Heritage would also support the enhancement measures. I am therefore persuaded that this requirement meets the tests set out in the circular.

8.162 I consider that it is unlikely that the house plots granted planning permission at the Blairmore Estate would be built as they are in such close proximity. However, the revocation of the planning permissions would clarify matters. The use of a Section 75 agreement to carry out the necessary measures to revoke a planning permission is an appropriate mechanism, commonly used.

8.163 I therefore consider that if Scottish Ministers are minded to grant consent, that an intentions letter is issued to allow the relevant parties to agree these measures.

8.164 The community benefit fund and share ownership scheme are matters entirely for the applicant. Neither is necessary in planning terms. I am aware that these proposals have been included in the information submitted with the application. There is also correspondence in the evidence suggesting a certain proportion of the fund could be allocated to the Abriachan Forest Trust. The council also has a community benefit policy, which this offer has been designed to meet. However, the terms of the policy are voluntary.

Overall conclusions

8.165 I consider that Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited has had regard to the desirability of preserving and conserving the various environmental matters listed in Schedule 9, including fisheries and the stocks of fish in waters. This is evidenced by the environmental statement and the proposed conditions. I also consider, for the same reasons, that within the parameters of the chosen design, the applicant has done what they reasonably could to mitigate any of the relevant environmental matters. However, I do not consider that the chosen design minimises its overall impacts.

8.166 I find that there is a need for the development and that it would make a significant contribution to the Scottish Government’s energy policy. I also find that there is no objection in principle to an appropriately designed wind farm in this location.

8.167 However, I do not consider that the particular design of the proposal has acceptable environmental affects overall. I consider that the number and height of the turbines would appear out of scale with the surrounding landscape and it would have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts. Furthermore, in combination, the overall landscape and visual impacts, the visual impact from nearby properties and the likely noise from the proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenities of several nearby properties. I therefore consider that the proposal is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, elements of Policy 67 and Policy 28 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan and certain aspects of Scottish Natural Heritage’s wind farm design guidance. I find the council’s first reason for objection to be well founded.

8.168 I do not find there to be any unacceptable cumulative impacts or any significant impacts on the number or spend of tourists. All the other relevant matters have been addressed in the design or can be addressed by appropriate conditions.

8.169 I have considered whether the benefits of the proposal, including the contribution it would make to the supply of renewable energy outweighs the unacceptable environmental impacts I have identified. I have taken into account the fact that the proposal would be temporary for 25 years and would not be permanent. I also considered the letters in support of the proposal. However, in my judgement, the scale of the detrimental environmental impacts of the proposed design outweighs its benefits.

Recommendation

8.170 I recommend, based on the above conclusions that consent for the application under Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act and deemed planning permission be refused. However, if Scottish Ministers disagree with my conclusions, then consent and deemed planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions set out in appendix 1, including the heads of terms for a Section 75 agreement. This may require the issue of an intentions letter.

Dan Jackman Reporter

Appendix 1

Reporter’s Recommended Conditions

Section 36

1. This consent is for a period of 25 years from the date of the final commissioning of the development. Written confirmation of the date of final commissioning shall be provided to the Planning Authority and to the Scottish Ministers no later than one calendar month after that event.

Reason: In recognition of the expected lifespan of the wind turbines.

2. Commencement of development works shall begin no later than 5 years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To ensure that development begins within a reasonable time period.

3. In the event that any wind turbine installed and commissioned fails to produce electricity on a commercial basis to the public network for a continuous period of 12 months, then unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Scottish Ministers, after consultation with the Planning Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage, such wind turbine will be deemed to have ceased to be required. If deemed to have ceased to be required, the wind turbine and its ancillary equipment will be dismantled and removed from the site by the Applicant within the following 12 month period, and the ground reinstated to the specification and satisfaction of the Scottish Ministers after consultation with the Planning Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage.

Reason: To ensure that any redundant wind turbine is removed from Site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection.

4. The Applicant will not be permitted to assign the consent without the prior written authorisation of the Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Ministers may grant consent (with or without conditions) or refuse authorisation as they may, in their own discretion, see fit. The consent will not be capable of being assigned, alienated or transferred otherwise than in accordance with the foregoing procedure.

Reason: To safeguard the obligations of the consent if transferred to another company.

Deemed Planning Permission 1. The development hereby granted consent shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and all details contained in the Environmental Statement (as amended by the Supplementary Environmental Information) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority or unless otherwise required by the conditions of the consent.

Reason: To ensure the development is implemented as proposed.

2. The external colour of each turbine shall be a non-reflective semi-matt pale grey colour (RAL colour 7035). Each turbine shall operate with an internal transformer. No name, brand, sign or other logo shall be displayed on any part of the external surface of the wind turbines unless required by law.

Reason: To comply with agreed international standards.

3. No development shall start on site until a micro-siting scheme has been submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. This scheme should set out the tolerances for micro-siting of the turbines and tracks from the positions shown on Site Layout Plan Reference 1142.

Reason: To set out the tolerances for micro-siting, taking into account local ground conditions, areas of deep peat, the existing water environment, avoiding visibility from Loch Ness and moving turbines closer to noise sensitive properties.

4. Not later than 12 months before the end of the 25 year consent period, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority, such scheme to include the removal of all above-ground elements of the development, management and timing of any works, environmental management provisions and a traffic management plan to address any traffic impact issues that may arise during the decommissioning period. Only the approved scheme shall be implemented unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the decommissioning and removal of the development infrastructure in an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner and the restoration of the site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection.

5. No development shall start on site until evidence of a bond or other financial provision to cover all decommissioning and site restoration costs has been submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority. Such agreed bond, or other such provision, shall remain in place until the site is restored and will be indexed against the appropriate construction index.

Reason: To safeguard the proper restoration of the site.

6. No wind turbine, transformer unit or anemometer mast shall be erected or installed on site until its details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These details should include the model, design, power rating and sound power levels. All wind turbines, transformer units and anemometer masts will be erected or installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To allow consideration of the impact of the final design details in compliance with the submitted application and supporting Environmental Statement and the agreed levels of mitigation.

7. No wind turbine shall be erected or installed on site until a scheme for military aircraft aviation lighting for the wind farm has been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Ministry of Defence. The turbines shall be erected with the approved lighting installed and the lighting shall remain operational throughout the duration of the consent.

Reason: To minimise the visual impact of any necessary military aviation lighting.

8. No works on the construction of the substation / control building and compound shall commence until final details of the external appearance, dimensions, and surface materials of the building and any associated compound or parking area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The developments shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design consistent with development within the local area.

9. No development (including the enabling works) shall start on site until a written scheme for archaeological investigation and monitoring during the construction period on site clearance and excavation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. No site clearance or excavation works shall take place until that approval has been given and all such works shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved arrangements.

Reason: To ensure archaeological interests that may remain on the site are not disturbed or destroyed without being recorded.

10. No development shall start on site until a final Schedule of Mitigation for the site, drawn from the Environmental Statement in compliance with the conditions of the consent, is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and other Council Services. Construction and operation of the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved Schedule, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The Schedule shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To manage and protect sensitive habitats and other environmental features on site during the construction and operation of the development.

11. No development shall start on site until final survey work, and all necessary mitigation, has been undertaken in respect of the interests of otters, wildcat, red squirrel, pine marten and reptiles, is undertaken, all as agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, in respect of all construction and site restoration associated with the development.

Reason: In the interests of minimising impact of the development on protected species within the locality of the site.

12. No development shall start on site until a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Blairmore Estate, is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Construction and operation of the development shall proceed in accordance with the Estate wide HMP unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect and enhance local nature conservation features.

13. No development shall start on site until a Forestry Management Plan for the Blairmore Estate has been agreed with the Forestry Commission and is submitted to and approved in writing by The Planning Authority. The Plan shall be implemented as approved and shall include: a. Proposals for compensatory planting to replace existing planting areas felled to accommodate development infrastructure and previous areas felled but not restocked;

b. Detailed information on the creation of forest keyholes to accommodate the wind turbines, including the minimum area necessary for construction and the minimum area necessary for operational purposes;

c. Proposals to maintain the tree belt necessary to mitigate the risk of shadow flicker adversely affecting the existing residential property at Blairmore, Craggan Lodge and the proposed residential property at Cragganvallie.

Reason: To comply with Scottish Government Policy on replacement tree planting.

14. No development shall start on site until a suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works is in post. The Heads of Terms relating to the duties of the post and terms of appointment shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and shall include responsibility for: a. monitoring compliance with the approved Construction and Environmental Management Plan during the development construction period; and b. reporting potential and actual breaches of the requirements of the approved Construction and Environmental Management Plan to the Planning Authority; c. stopping construction operations in breaches of planning control or the requirements of the approved Construction and Environmental Management Plan and to implement mitigation measures.

Reason: To protect environmental features on site during the construction period.

15. No development shall start on site until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and other council services. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning Authority no later than two months prior to the Date of Commencement of Development to be specified in the Notice of Initiation of Development to be served on the Planning Authority. Construction of the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall be implemented as approved and should include the following matters;

a) An Environmental Policy including a statement of responsibility for all identified environmental features, safeguards and mitigation.

b) Details of the construction works, the construction methods and surface treatment for all hard surfaces and tracks.

c) Details of the temporary site compounds for the storage of materials and machinery, including areas designated for car parking.

d) Details of the timing of works and methods of working for cable trenches and foundation works.

e) Details of proposals to protect the existing private water supply on site during the construction works.

f) Details of the timing of works and construction of the substation / control buildings and anemometry masts.

g) Details of the bridges and culverts for all new water crossings.

h) Details of how turbine and track micro-siting will implemented and controlled during the construction process.

i) Pollution control arrangements, including the protection of watercourses and ground water and soils particularly but not exclusively through periods of high flow / high rainfall, bunding of oil / fuel storage areas and sewage disposal.

j) Details of borrow pit working methodology including any blasting or ripping operations, noise controls and restoration.

k) Peat stability mitigation requirements as set out from the required final design Peat Risk re-assessment.

l) Plans showing the details of peat / soil stripping at the site and the storage and proposed use and replacement of peat, topsoil and subsoil. All soil stripping, storage and replacement operations shall accord with the details as approved by the Planning Authority and the scheme shall be implemented in full. In particular, the scheme shall incorporate a method statement setting out the measures to protect and store peat.

m) Dust management measures.

n) Arrangements for cleaning of site entrances and exits, site tracks and the adjacent public road and the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil or construction materials to / from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the public road.

o) Post construction restoration / reinstatement of the temporary working areas and borrow pit.

p) A construction noise management plan, including identification of access routes, locations of materials' lay-down areas, details of equipment to be employed, operations to be carried out, any screens or high earth bunds to be provided around construction equipment, mitigation measures and a scheme of the monitoring of noise in the event of any complaint.

q) Details for site waste management.

r) Proposed mitigation measures to minimise indirect impacts on groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and other wetland areas.

s) Pollution prevention measures to prevent peat-slide or bog burst.

t) All other pollution prevention issues and related mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Statement submitted with the application.

u) The terms proposed to alert the construction contractors of the possibility of otters being present on site and the legal requirements applicable to such European Protected Species and the requirement that, in the event of discovery of an otter holt, all works within a 250m radius of the holt shall cease immediately and the contractor shall be bound to notify the Ecological Clerk of Works, who will contact Scottish Natural Heritage for advice. No works shall recommence with the said 250m radius until approved in writing by Scottish Natural Heritage. The approved terms shall be included in all construction contracts let in connection with the development.

v) The terms proposed to alert the construction contractors of the possibility of wildcat dens being present on site and the requirement that, in the event of discovery of a cat den within 200m of any works, all works within a 200m radius of the cat den shall cease immediately and the contractor shall be bound to notify the Ecological Clerk of Works, who will contact Scottish Natural Heritage for advice. No works shall recommence with the said 200m radius until approved in writing by Scottish Natural Heritage. The approved terms shall be included in all construction contracts let in connection with the development.

w) Proposals to ensure that at the end of each daily working period, all excavations are made safe to facilitate escape routes for animals.

Reason: To protect the environment, protected species, amenity and water assets and in the interests of road safety.

16. No development shall start on site until a water quality monitoring programme and pre-construction fish survey has been carried out in accordance with a scope agreed with the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Ness and Beauly Fisheries Trust.

Reason: In the interests of fishery protection

17. No development shall start on site until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include: a) proposals for construction vehicle routing;

b) the location and design of all accesses from the public road onto the site;

c) details of appropriate upgrading works at all site access connecting to the public road network. Such works may include suitable drainage measures, improved geometry and construction, measures to protect the public road (including its verges) and the provision and maintenance of appropriate visibility splays.

d) traffic management measures at junctions to and crossings of the public road and any public rights of way;

e) the scheduling and timing of vehicular movements to and from the site;

f) details of abnormal load escorts;

g) a contingency plan prepared by the abnormal load haulier;

h) proposals for avoidance at all times of abnormal load movements during peak periods on the public road network, including school travel times and avoiding local community events as raised in discussion through community liaison;

i) advance provision of a detailed delivery programme for abnormal load movements to the Planning Authority in consultation with Community Council’s and other relevant community representatives.

j) a procedure for regular monitoring of road conditions and the implementation of any remedial works required during the construction period;

k) a detailed protocol for the delivery of abnormal loads/vehicles including the requirement for convoy working and/or escorting vehicles;

l) proposals for temporary warning signs on the public road;

m) proposals for temporary removal of and replacement of public road infrastructure and street furniture;

n) proposed off site road works;

o) details of banksman and any other road safety measures;

p) measures to ensure that all public roads are kept free of mud and debris arising from the development;

q) a risk assessment for transportation during daylight hours and hours of darkness; and

r) details of proposals for public information to alert road users, local residents and members of the public of scheduled abnormal loads associated with delivery of turbine parts.

The approved Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect road safety.

18. No development shall start on site until an agreement, including provision of an appropriate financial bond, dealing with liability for remedial work required as a result of any damage to the local road network directly attributable to the Wind Farm construction and providing for pre and post construction surveys of the said local road network has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Road condition surveys need to be carried out jointly with the Council with all costs of the surveys being borne by the Company.

Reason: To address extraordinary wear and tear of the public road network attributable to the development.

19. Two months prior to the erection of the first turbine the applicant will provide the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Geographic Centre (AIS Information Centre) with a statement, copied to the Planning Authority and the Highlands and Islands Airport authority Ltd, containing the following information: • the date of commencement of the erection of the first turbine;

• the exact position of the turbine towers in latitude and longitude;

• a description of all structures over 91.4 metres high;

• the maximum extension height of any construction equipment;

• the height above ground level of the tallest structure; and

• details of any scheme for air navigation safety lighting agreed with the Planning Authority and other relevant parties.

Exact position of turbine towers shall be confirmed with the above organisations on final commissioning.

Reason: To raise awareness of the development on the site with aviation interests.

20. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, at least three months prior to delivery of turbine parts to the Site, a community liaison group will be established by the Company, in collaboration with the Planning Authority and local community councils, to discuss the arrangements on the phased delivery of all road mitigation measures required for the delivery of turbine parts to the Site. This should include the Company sharing details of any review on the timing of the delivery of turbine parts (blades, turbine tower section and hubs) using the agreed routes from Port of Entry to site.

Reason: To minimise the potential hazard to and conflict with road users, pedestrians and school pupils travelling to and from local schools.

21. Access to the site by heavy goods vehicles shall be restricted to 0800 hours to 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays and from 0800 hours to 1400 hours on Saturdays with no such access on Sundays. Any deliveries to be carried out outwith these times shall only be permitted with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of any doubt all HGV traffic shall enter and exit the site from the principal site access with the A833, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety, for the amenity of users of the public road and for the amenity of local residents.

22. Construction operations for which noise is audible at the boundary of the site shall only be carried out between 0800 hours and 1800 hours Monday to Friday, between 0800 hours and 1400 hours on Saturdays and at no time on a Sunday. Work requiring to be carried out outwith these times shall only commence with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect residential amenity

23. Prior to the installation of the turbines, the Company shall commission a survey measuring existing television reception quality, which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. In the event that the Development is found to cause interference to television reception in the vicinity, following a complaint made to the Planning Authority within one year of the final commissioning of the development, the Company, shall take whatever action is deemed necessary, to remedy such impairment and alleviate the problem, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents

24. Following the erection of any wind turbine, the wind farm operator shall log wind speed, wind direction and turbine control data continually and shall retain the data that has been obtained for a period of no less than 12 months. The data shall include the average wind speed in metres per second for every 10 minute period. The measuring periods shall be set to commence on the hour or in 10 minute increments thereafter. The data shall be provided to the Planning Authority, on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in electronic format, upon request. If the wind speed is measured at a height other than 10 metres, the data shall

be adjusted for wind shear, such that wind speeds are standardised to a 10 metre height. Details of the wind shear calculations including the raw data employed shall be provided. Wind data shall be recorded in integer values up to 12 metres/second standardised to a 10 metre height. The location(s) of anemometers shall be at a grid reference(s) to be approved by the Planning Authority.

At wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres/second, as measured or standardised to a height of 10 metres above ground level, the Wind Turbine Rating Level at any Noise Sensitive Premises shall not exceed:-

During nights (2300 to 0700 hours) – 43 dB LA90 10min, or the Night Hours LA90 10min Background Noise Level plus 5 dB (A), whichever is the greater.

During all other times (0700 to 2300 hours) - 40 dB LA90 10min or the Quiet Waking Hours LA90 10min Background Noise Level plus 5 dB (A), whichever is the greater.

Should these Rating Noise Limits be exceeded, then the wind farm operator shall take steps forthwith, to ensure that noise emissions from the wind farm are reduced to levels no greater than the aforementioned noise limits.

The noise limits shall only apply to Noise Sensitive Premises, including extant planning permissions, existing at the date of this permission.

At the request of the Planning Authority, following a valid complaint relating to noise emissions from the wind turbines, the wind farm operator shall measure, at its own expense, the level of noise emissions from the wind turbines. The measurement and calculation of rating noise levels shall be undertaken in accordance with “The Assessment & Rating of Noise from Wind Farms”, September 1996, ESTU report number ETSU-R-97 having specific regard the Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation (pages 99 to 109).

In comparing measured Wind Turbine Rating Levels with Background Noise Levels, regard shall be had to the prevailing Background Noise Levels as measured at specified properties and shown by the best fit curves in the Noise Report submitted to the public local inquiry under document reference DB 7.1 (Druim Ba Wind Farm, Assessment of Predicted Operational Noise Levels, Golder Associates, May 2012). In the event of a complaint from a property other than one of the specified properties in the Environmental Statement, the measured Wind Turbine Noise Levels at that other property shall be compared to the prevailing Background Noise Levels at the specified property which is most likely to have similar background noise levels.

“Wind Turbine Rating Level” means the rated noise level due to the combined effect of all the Wind Turbines, excluding existing background noise level but including any tonal penalty incurred under the methodology described in ETSU– R –97, pages 99 – 109.

“Background Noise Level” means the ambient noise levels already present within the environment (in the absence of noise generated by the Development) as measured and correlated with Wind Speeds. “Wind Speeds” means wind speeds measured or standardised at a height of 10 metres above ground level on the site at a specified Ordnance grid reference agreed with the Planning Authority“.

“Night hours” means 23:00 – 07:00 hours on all days.

“At all other times” means 07:00 – 23:00 hours on all days.

“Quiet Waking Hours” means 18:00 – 23:00 hours on all days, plus 07:00 – 18:00 on Sundays and 13:00 – 18:00 hours on Saturdays.

“Noise Sensitive Premises” means non-stakeholder premises, the occupants of which could be exposed to noise from the wind farm and includes dwellings, hospitals, residential homes and nursing homes.

Reason: - In the interests of the amenity of the local environment and to ensure the Planning Authority has access to information to assist with assessment of noise emissions.

25. Prior to the erection or installation of any turbine on site, the proposed turbine curtailment regime shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: So that the Planning Authority is aware of the proposed curtailment regime in order to minimise noise disturbance and has information to assist with the assessment of noise emissions.

26. On completion of the development, a post construction fish survey will be carried out in accordance with a scope and timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with the Ness and Beauly Fisheries Trust. The results of the pre-construction survey required and the post –construction survey required shall be submitted, with a proposed mitigation plan to address any recorded adverse impacts on the fishery population, for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The approved mitigation plan will be implemented as approved.

Reason: To help safeguard local fishery interests and ensure appropriate mitigation is provided as a consequence of the development.

Appendix 2

Schedule of conditions tabled by applicant with comments from The Highland Council

Conditions of Consent

Section 36

Reason: In recognition of the expected lifespan of the wind turbines.

2. Commencement of development works shall begin no later than 5 years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To ensure that development begins within a reasonable time period.

Reason: To ensure that any redundant wind turbine is removed from Site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection.

Reason: To safeguard the obligations of the consent if transferred to another company.

Deemed Planning Permission

1. The development herby granted consent shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and all details contained in the Environmental Statement (as added to the Supplementary Environmental Information) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority or unless otherwise required by the conditions of the consent.

Reason: To ensure the development is implemented as proposed.

Reason: To comply with agreed international standards.

3. Subject to the maintenance of a 50m buffer from existing water courses, turbines and tracks may be micro-sited within 50 metres of the positions shown on the Site Layout Plan Reference 1142, or, if agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA, within 100 metres of those positions. For the avoidance of doubt, no re-siting of turbines or tracks outwith these micro-site boundaries is permitted.

Reason: To take account of local ground conditions, to avoid areas of deeper peat and to protect the existing water environment.

Reason: To safeguard the proper restoration of the site.

Reason: To allow consideration of the impact of the final design details in compliance with the submitted application and supporting ES and the agreed levels of mitigation.

7. No works on the construction of the substation / control building and compound shall commence until final details of the external appearance, dimensions, and surface materials of the building and any associated compound or parking area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The developments shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design consistent with development within the local area.

8. No development (including the enabling works) shall start on site until a written scheme for archaeological investigation and monitoring during the Construction Period on Site clearance and excavation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. No site clearance or excavation works shall take place until that approval has been given and all such works shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved arrangements.

Reason: To ensure archaeological interests that may remain on the site are not disturbed or destroyed without being recorded.

9. No development shall start on site until a final Schedule of Mitigation for the site, drawn from the Environmental Statement in compliance with the conditions of the consent, is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH and SEPA and other Council Services. Construction and operation of the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved Schedule, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The Schedule shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To manage and protect sensitive habitats and other environmental features on site during the construction and operation of the development.

10. No development shall start on site until final survey work, and all necessary mitigation, has been undertaken in respect of the interests of otters, wildcat, red squirrel, pine marten and reptiles, is undertaken, all as agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH, in respect of all construction and site restoration associated with the development.

Reason: In the interests of minimising impact of the development on protected species within the locality of the site. Applicant's Comments: The condition should apply to the development site and not to the wider Blairmore Estate.

100

11. No development shall start on site until a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the site, is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH. Construction and operation of the development shall proceed in accordance with the on site HMP unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect and enhance local nature conservation features.

12. No development shall start on site until a Forestry Management Plan has been agreed with the Forestry Commission and is submitted to and approved in writing by The Planning Authority. The Plan shall be implemented as approved and shall include:

a. Proposals for compensatory planting to replace existing planting areas felled to accommodate development infrastructure;

c. Proposals to maintain the tree belt necessary to mitigate the risk of shadow flicker adversely impacting on the existing residential property at Blairmore and the proposed residential property at Cragganvallie.

Reason: To comply with Scottish Government Policy on replacement tree planting.

13. No development shall start on site until a suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works is in post. The Heads of Terms relating to the duties of the post and terms of appointment shall be submitted to THC for approval with the Planning Authority and shall include responsibility for:

a. monitoring compliance with the approved Construction and Environmental Management Plan during the development construction period; and

b. reporting potential and actual breaches of the requirements of the approved Construction and Environmental Management Plan to the Planning Authority;

c. stopping construction operations in breaches of planning control or the requirements of the approved Construction and Environmental Management Plan and to implement mitigation measures.

Reason: To protect environmental features on site during the construction period.

14. No development shall start on site until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH, SEPA and TEC Services. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning Authority no later than two months prior to the Date of Commencement of Development to be specified in the Notice of Initiation of Development to be served on the Planning Authority. Construction of the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved plan, unless

101

otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall be implemented as approved and should include the following matters; a) An Environmental Policy including a statement of responsibility for all identified environmental features, safeguards and mitigation. b) Details of the construction works, the construction methods and surface treatment for all hard surfaces and tracks. c) Details of the temporary site compounds for the storage of materials and machinery, including areas designated for car parking. d) Details of the timing of works and methods of working for cable trenches and foundation works. e) Details of proposals to protect the existing private water supply on site during the construction works. f) Details of the timing of works and construction of the substation / control buildings and anemometry masts. g) Details of the bridges and culverts for all new water crossings. h) Details of how turbine and track micro-siting will implemented and controlled during the construction process. i) Pollution control arrangements, including the protection of water courses and ground water and soils particularly but not exclusively through periods of high flow / high rainfall, bunding of oil / fuel storage areas and sewage disposal. j) Details of borrow pit working methodology including any blasting or ripping operations, noise controls and restoration. k) Peat stability mitigation requirements as set out from the required final design Peat Risk re-assessment. l) Plans showing the details of peat / soil stripping at the site and the storage and proposed use and replacement of peat, topsoil and subsoil. All soil stripping, storage and replacement operations shall accord with the details as approved by the Planning Authority and the scheme shall be implemented in full. In particular the scheme shall incorporate a method statement setting out the measures to protect and store peat.

m) Dust management measures.

o) Post construction restoration / reinstatement of the temporary working areas and borrow pit.

102

q) Details for site waste management.

r) Proposed mitigation measures to minimise indirect impacts on groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs) and other wetland areas.

s) Pollution prevention measures to prevent peat-slide or bog burst.

t) All other pollution prevention issues and related mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Statement submitted with the application.

u) The terms proposed to alert the construction contractors of the possibility of otters being present on site and the legal requirements applicable to such European Protected Species and the requirement that, in the event of discovery of an otter holt, all works within a 250m radius of the holt shall cease immediately and the contractor shall be bound to notify the Ecological Clerk of Works, who will contact SNH for advice. No works shall recommence with the said 250m radius until approved in writing by SNH. The approved terms shall be included in all construction contracts let in connection with the development.

v) The terms proposed to alert the construction contractors of the possibility of wildcat dens being present on site and the requirement that, in the event of discovery of a cat den within 200m of any works, all works within a 200m radius of the cat den shall cease immediately and the contractor shall be bound to notify the Ecological Clerk of Works, who will contact SNH for advice. No works shall recommence with the said 200m radius until approved in writing by SNH. The approved terms shall be included in all construction contracts let in connection with the development.

w) Proposals to ensure that at the end of each daily working period, all excavations are made safe to facilitate escape routes for animals.

Reason: To protect the environment, protected species, amenity and water assets and in the interests of road safety.

15. No development shall start on site until a water quality monitoring programme and pre-construction fish survey has been carried out in accordance with a scope agreed with the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Ness and Beauly Fisheries Trust.

Reason: In the interests of fishery protection

16. No development shall start on site until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include:

103

a) proposals for construction vehicle routing; b) the location and design of all accesses from the public road onto the site; c) details of appropriate upgrading works at all site access connecting to the public road network. Such works may include suitable drainage measures, improved geometry and construction, measures to protect the public road (including its verges) and the provision and maintenance of appropriate visibility splays. d) traffic management measures at junctions to and crossings of the public road and any public rights of way; e) the scheduling and timing of vehicular movements to and from the site; f) details of abnormal load escorts; g) a contingency plan prepared by the abnormal load haulier; h) proposals for avoidance at all times of abnormal load movements during peak periods on the public road network, including school travel times and avoiding local community events as raised in discussion through community liaison; i) advance provision of a detailed delivery programme for abnormal load movements to the Planning Authority in consultation with Community Council’s and other relevant community representatives. j) a procedure for regular monitoring of road conditions and the implementation of any remedial works required during the construction period; k) a detailed protocol for the delivery of abnormal loads/vehicles including the requirement for convoy working and/or escorting vehicles; l) proposals for temporary warning signs on the public road; m) proposals for temporary removal of and replacement of public road infrastructure and street furniture; n) proposed off site road works; o) details of banksman and any other road safety measures; p) measures to ensure that all public roads are kept free of mud and debris arising from the development; q) a risk assessment for transportation during daylight hours and hours of darkness; and

104

r) details of proposals for public information to alert road users, local residents and members of the public of scheduled abnormal loads associated with delivery of turbine parts.

The approved Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect road safety.

17. No development shall start on site until an agreement, including provision of an appropriate financial bond, dealing with liability for remedial work required as a result of any damage to the local road network directly attributable to the Wind Farm construction and providing for pre and post construction surveys of the said local road network has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Road condition surveys need to be carried out jointly with the Council with all costs of the surveys being borne by the Company.

Reason: To address extraordinary wear and tear of the public road network attributable to the development.

18. Two months prior to the erection of the first turbine the applicant will provide the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Geographic Centre (AIS Information Centre) with a statement, copied to the Planning Authority and the Highlands and Islands Airport authority Ltd, containing the following information:

• the date of commencement of the erection of the first turbine;

• the exact position of the turbine towers in latitude and longitude;

• a description of all structures over 300 feet (should be metric) high;

• the maximum extension height of any construction equipment;

• the height above ground level of the tallest structure; and

• details of any scheme for air navigation safety lighting agreed with the Planning Authority and other relevant parties.

Exact position of turbine towers shall be confirmed with the above organisations on final commissioning.

Reason: To raise awareness of the development on the site with aviation interests.

19. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, at least three months prior to delivery of turbine parts to the Site, a community liaison group will be established by the Company, in collaboration with the Planning Authority and local community councils, to discuss the arrangements on the phased delivery of all road mitigation measures required for the delivery of turbine parts to the Site. This should include the Company sharing details of any review on

105

the timing of the delivery of turbine parts (blades, turbine tower section and hubs) using the agreed routes from Port of Entry to site.

Reason: To minimise the potential hazard to and conflict with road users, pedestrians and school pupils travelling to and from local schools.

20. Access to the site by heavy goods vehicles shall be restricted to 0800 hours to 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays and from 0800 hours to 1400 hours on Saturdays with no such access on Sundays. Any deliveries to be carried out outwith these times shall only be permitted with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of any doubt all HGV traffic shall enter and exit the site from the principal site access with the A833, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety, for the amenity of users of the public road and for the amenity of local residents.

21. Operations for which noise is audible at the boundary of the site shall only be carried out between 0800 hours and 1800 hours Monday to Friday, between 0800 hours and 1400 hours on Saturdays and at no time on a Sunday. Work requiring to be carried out outwith these times shall only commence with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect residential amenity

22. Prior to the installation of the turbines, the Company shall commission a survey measuring existing television reception quality, which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. In the event that the Development is found to cause interference to television reception in the vicinity, following a complaint made to the Planning Authority within one year of the final commissioning of the development, the Company, shall take whatever action is deemed necessary, to remedy such impairment and alleviate the problem, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents

23. Following the commissioning of any Turbine the Wind Farm Operator shall log wind speed and wind direction data continually and shall retain the data which has been obtained for a period of no less than the previous 12 months. The data shall include the average wind speed in metres per second for each 10 minute period. The measuring periods shall be set to commence on the hour or in 10 minute increments thereafter. The data shall be kept on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in electronic format. Wind speeds shall be measured at two heights H1 and H2, H1 being not less than 60% of the proposed turbine height and H2 being between 40% and 50% of the proposed hub height. This data shall be used to derive the ‘standardised’ wind speed at a height of 10m in accordance with the method described in the ‘Institute of Acoustics Bulletin Agreement’ of March / April 2009. Details of the wind shear calculation shall be provided.

At derived Wind Speeds standardised to 10 m height and not exceeding 12m/s, at a grid reference or grid references to be approved by the Planning Authority,

106

the Wind Turbine Noise Level at any dwelling or other noise sensitive premises shall not exceed:-

(a) during Night Hours, 43dB LA90,10min, or the Night Hours LA90,10min Background Noise Level plus 5 dB(A), which ever is the greater.

(b) during Quiet Waking Hours, 40dB LA90,10min or the Quiet Waking Hours LA90,10min Background Noise Level plus 5 dB(A), which ever is the greater.

Should these noise levels be exceeded, the Wind Turbine Operator shall take steps forthwith, to ensure that noise emissions from the wind farm are reduced to the aforementioned noise levels or less. This condition shall only apply to dwellings, including extant planning permissions, or other Noise Sensitive Premises existing at the date of this permission.

At the request of the Planning Authority, following a valid complaint relating to noise emissions from the Wind Turbines, the Wind Farm Operator shall measure, at its own expense, the level of noise emissions from the Wind Turbines. The measurement and calculation of noise levels shall be undertaken in accordance with “The Assessment & Rating of Noise from Wind Farms”, September 1996, ESTU report number ETSU-R-97 having regard to paragraphs 1-3 and 5-11 inclusive, of the Schedule, pages 95 to 97; and Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation, pages 99 to 109. In comparing measured Wind Turbine Noise Levels with Background Noise Levels, regard shall be had to the prevailing Background Noise Levels as measured at specified properties and shown by the best fit curves in the Noise Report submitted to the public local inquiry under document reference DB7.1 (Druim Ba Wind Farm, Assessment of Predicted Operational Noise Levels, Golder Associates, May 2012). In the event of a complaint from a property other than one of the specified properties in the Environmental Statement, the measured Wind Turbine Noise Levels at that other property shall be compared to the derived noise limits at the specified property which is most likely to have similar background noise levels.

“Wind Turbine Noise Level” means the rated noise level due to the combined effect of all the Wind Turbines, excluding existing background noise level but including any tonal penalty incurred under the methodology described in ETSU– R –97, pages 99 – 109.

“Background Noise Level” means the measured LA90 noise level pre-existing within the environment (in the absence of noise generated by the Development) as measured and correlated with standardised Wind Speeds.

“Wind Speeds” means those derived at a standardised height of 10 metres above ground level by the method described and on the site at a specified Ordnance grid reference agreed with the Planning Authority

“ Night hours” means 23:00 – 07:00 hours on all days.

107

“Quiet Waking Hours” means 18:00 – 23:00 hours on all days, plus 07:00 – 18:00 on Sundays and 13:00 – 18:00 hours on Saturdays. “Noise Sensitive Premises” means premises, the occupants of which could be exposed to noise from the wind farm and includes hospitals, residential homes, nursing homes, etc.

Reason: - In the interests of the amenity of the local environment and to ensure the Planning Authority has access to information to assist with assessment of noise emissions.

See The Highland Council’s alternative wording at end

24. On completion of the development, a post construction fish survey will be carried out in accordance with a scope and timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with the Ness and Beauly Fisheries Trust. The results of the pre-construction survey required and the post –construction survey required shall be submitted, with a proposed mitigation plan to address any recorded adverse impacts on the fishery population, for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The approved mitigation plan will be implemented as approved.

Reason: To help safeguard local fishery interests and ensure appropriate mitigation is provided as a consequence of the development.

INFORMATIVES 1. No development shall start on site until the completed Notice of Initiation of Development (NID) form attached [not attached with this version] to this decision notice has been submitted to and acknowledged by the Planning Authority. From the date of acknowledgement, the Site Notice attached to it shall be posted in a publicly accessible part of the site until the development is completed.

2. Upon completion of the development the completed Notice of Completion form attached [not attached with this version] to this decision notice shall be submitted to the Planning Authority.

The Highland Council’s suggested noise condition

Following the erection of any Wind Turbine Generator (“WTG”) the wind farm operator (the “Operator”) shall log wind speed and wind direction data continually and shall retain the data which has been obtained for a period of no less than 12 months. The data shall include the average wind speed in metres per second for every 10 minute period. The measuring periods shall be set to commence on the hour or in 10 minute increments thereafter. The data shall be provided to the Planning Authority, on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in electronic format, upon request. If the wind speed is measured at a height other than 10 metres, the data shall be adjusted for wind shear, such that wind speeds are standardised to a 10 metre height. Details of the wind shear calculations, employed, shall be provided. Wind data shall be recorded in integer values up to 12 metres/second standardised to a 10 metre height. The location(s) of anemometers shall be at a grid reference(s) to be approved by the Planning Authority.

108

During nights (2300 to 0700 hours) – 38 dB LA90 10min, or the Night Hours LA90 10min Background Noise Level plus 5 dB (A), whichever is the greater.

During all other times (0700 to 2300 hours) - 35 dB LA90 10min or the Quiet Waking Hours LA90 10min Background Noise Level plus 5 dB (A), whichever is the greater.

Should these Rating Noise Limits be exceeded, then the Wind Farm Operator shall take steps forthwith, to ensure that noise emissions from the wind farm are reduced to levels no greater than the aforementioned noise limits.

The noise limits shall only to Noise Sensitive Premises, including extant planning permissions, existing at the date of this permission.

In comparing measured Wind Turbine Rating Levels with Background Noise Levels, regard shall be had to the prevailing Background Noise Levels as measured at specified properties and shown by the best fit curves in the Environmental Statement submitted with this planning application. In the event of a complaint from a property other than one of the specified properties in the Environmental Statement, the measured Wind Turbine Noise Levels at that other property shall be compared to the prevailing Background Noise Levels at the specified property which is most likely to have similar background noise levels.

“Background Noise Level” means the ambient noise levels already present within the environment (in the absence of noise generated by the Development) as measured and correlated with Wind Speeds.

“Wind Speeds” means wind speeds measured or standardised at a height of 10 metres above ground level on the site at a specified Ordnance grid reference agreed with the Planning Authority. . “Night hours” means 23:00 – 07:00 hours on all days.

109

“At all other times” means 07:00 – 23:00 hours on all days. “Quiet Waking Hours” means 18:00 – 23:00 hours on all days, plus 07:00 –18:00 on Sundays and 13:00 – 18:00 hours on Saturdays.

Reason: - In the interests of the amenity of the local environment and to ensure the Planning Authority has access to information to assist with assessment of noise emissions.

110

Appendix 3

Appearances at the inquiry

For Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited

Mr G Steele QC who called:

Mr D Bell, BSc (Hons) Dip UD, MRTPI, MIHT Mr M van Grieken, ir. (Ingenieur) Landscape Architecture, MSc, CMLI Mr W Sheridan, BSc, Aeronautical Engineering

For The Highland Council

Mr J Findlay, Advocate, who called:

Mr K McCorquodale, BSc (Hons), MRTPI Mr D Sharps, Sharps Acoustics

Mr Findlay also appeared for the combined community council group and the local residents group and called:

Combined community council group

Mr G Hawco, Inverness West Community Council Mrs H Hesling, Inverness West Community Council Mrs C Stanton BA(Hons), CMLI Mr J Mackay, Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society Mr J Barr, Abriachan Forest Trust Mr D Pannwitz, Director of Sylvestrus Ltd

Local residents group

Mr R Lusher, South Teavarran, Foxhole, Kiltarlity Mr A Macmillian, 7 Cragganvallie, Abriachan Mr M Robbins, Cnoc Breac, Abriachan Mrs L Spicer, Convinth Steading, Kiltarlity

For Druim Ba Say No

Mr J Campbell QC who called:

Mr M Steele, BA, DipLD, CMLI Mr I Kelly, MRTPI Mr D Bowdler, FIOA

111

Appendix 4

Note of pre-examination meeting

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989: PROPOSED DRUIM BA WIND FARM NEAR DRUMNADROCHIT, HIGHLAND

Note of pre-examination meeting held on Thursday 15th March, 19:00 pm Kiltarlity village hall

Introduction

1. The inquiry is being held in connection with the application lodged under section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act, by Druim Ba Sustainable Energy limited, to construct and operate a wind farm at Druim Ba near Drumnadrochit, Highland.

2. The Scottish Ministers have appointed Dan Jackman BA (Hons) MRTPI, a Reporter in the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA), to conduct the inquiry and report to them.

The Principle Parties

3. The following indicated that they wished to take part:

• Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited (the applicants) • The Highland Council • A group of local residents (represented by Mr James Findlay) • The combined community councils of Kiltarlity, Inverness West and Kilmorack • Druim Ba Say No Campaign • Caroline Stanton • Mr J Mackay, Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society (by e-mail)

Contact details for each of the parties listed above are contained within Appendix 1.

Application of the Code of Practice for Handling Inquiries under the Electricity Act 1989

4. All the parties present that were taking part, agreed that the recently published Code of Practice would be adopted for running this inquiry. The code is available on the DPEA website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built- Environment/planning/decisions-appeals/Appeals/ElectricityActCoP or on request from the DPEA office.

Main issues and Parties taking part in Further Procedure

5. The parties present agreed that the main issues that would need to be considered in the report prepared for the submission to Scottish Ministers would be:

• National energy policy

112

• National planning policy, development plan and supplementary planning guidance produced by Highland Council • Landscape and visual impact (including cumulative impact and the proximity to dwellings) • Wildlife habitats and ecology (including impact on bird species) • Noise • Cultural Heritage • Construction Impacts • Roads and Traffic • Telecommunications and radar • Tourism and economic impacts • Shadow flicker • Suggested conditions and legal agreement

6. The Reporter heard the views of all the parties present in relation to the need for further procedure. It was agreed that further procedure was necessary for those issues and for those parties indicated in the table below. In order to avoid the overlap between inter-related issues and for the convenience of organising the inquiry, the Reporter has decided that there will be a combined inquiry session, covering the 3 matters set out in the table.

7. The identified parties, will be sent a formal procedures notice confirming the arrangements. These are set out in summary in paragraphs 22 of this note. The Reporter reminded parties that no useful purpose would be served by parties repeating evidence that already had been heard and that in any case the Reporter would not hear repetitive evidence. Parties should consider the benefits of combining where they have the same position to put to the Reporter.

Further Written Submissions: Shadow Flicker Druim Ba Says No – with the applicant responding Hearing Sessions: Tourism and Economic Impacts Applicant; Combined Community Council’s; Druim Ba Says No; Scotways* Suggested conditions and legal Applicant; The Highland Council; Local agreement Residents; Druim Ba Says No Inquiry Session: (Combined but covering the following matters) National planning policy, development Applicant; The Highland Council; plan and supplementary planning Combined Community Council’s guidance produced by Highland Council Landscape and visual impact (including Applicant; The Highland Council; Local cumulative impact and the proximity to Residents; Combined Community dwellings) Council’s; Druim Ba Says No; Caroline Stanton and Scotways* Noise Applicant; Local Residents; Druim Ba Says No

* Scotways indicated by e-mail in advance of the meeting

113

The Hearing of Evidence

Inquiry Sessions a) Background noise data 8. The Reporter raised the matter of access to the raw noise and wind speed data used by the applicant to calculate the background noise levels. The Reporter expressed his concern that without the sharing of this data, the benefits of cross- examination regarding the issue of noise would be limited and that an inability to verify the calculations used may make it difficult for both the Reporter and Scottish Ministers to reach any conclusions.

9. The applicant agreed to discuss this matter with Mr Findlay (representing local residents) and Druim Ba Says No Campaign with a view to making the necessary background data available. b) Length of precognitions 10. Parties agreed that the precognitions would be limited to a length of 2000 words and would cross refer to productions and core documents where ever possible. c) Inquiry procedure 11. In terms of running the inquiry session, each party appearing will be invited to present evidence in chief (normally by reading the precognition), which will be subject to cross examination by those of an opposing view, followed by any questions the Reporter may have. There will be an opportunity for re-examination. Friendly cross-examination between parties of a similar point of view will not be permitted but the Reporter would allow questions for clarification. The Reporter will discourage irrelevant or repetitious evidence or cross-examination.

12. The Reporter will consider any reasonable request to alter the order of hearing evidence but it would normally be the applicant, the council, local residents (represented by Mr Findlay), Druim Ba Says No, Combined Community Councils, Scotways and Caroline Stanton.

13. At the end of the inquiry, parties will have an opportunity to provide closing submissions. The Reporter would find it helpful for the closing submissions to be in writing, circulated according to an agreed timetable with the applicant having the final say.

14. If any party wishes to make formal legal submissions please raise these in writing with the Reporter at the earliest opportunity. This will avoid spending time on the first day of the inquiry session addressing procedural points.

Hearing sessions 15. The hearing sessions will take the form of a structured discussion that the Reporter will lead, directing questions at one of the parties and then seeking views from the other parties present. The Reporter will prepare an agenda that will be circulated in advance based on the hearing statements submitted.

114

16. It would not be normal practice for closing submissions to be submitted for hearing sessions. However, the Reporter would consider any request if there was an obvious inter-relationship with matters considered at the inquiry session.

17. It would be helpful if there were a set of agreed and disputed conditions submitted as part of the hearing statements for the conditions and legal agreement session so that the discussion could be focussed on those matters in dispute.

Further written submission 18. Druim Ba Say No Campaign should submit an additional written statement regarding shadow flicker, with the applicant responding within 14 days.

Dates, Location and Likely Duration of Inquiry/Hearing Sessions

19. It was agreed that the inquiry would start on Tuesday 26 June 2012 and finish by Friday 6 July 2012 at the latest. The Reporter is happy to consider any reasonable request to amend the detailed timetabling, subject to agreement from all the other parties but would aim to circulate a provisional programme nearer the time. The Reporter currently envisages the broad outline to be the Inquiry session, followed by the hearing sessions followed by the accompanied site visits.

20. The Reporter has considered the various options for the venue and has decided that Kiltarlity village hall best meets the DPEA criteria for venue location and is the nearest available venue to the site.

Procedures for the Inquiry/Hearing Sessions (including arrangements for the distribution of paper work) a) Timetable 21. The Reporter reminded the parties of the importance of adhering to the agreed timetable for the submission of paperwork and the prior disclosure of their case. Introducing late evidence is likely to result in objections, the risk the Reporter will rule it out of order and in the worst case a claim of award of expenses.

22. The identified parties will be sent a formal procedures notice confirming the arrangements for the distribution of paper work. In summary these are:

115

Submission Date Notes Parties Inquiry 30 April 2012 Outline of the case to be All attending Statement presented at inquiry, the the inquiry witnesses and a list of session productions Written 14 May 2012 Written statement on Druim Ba Statement shadow Flicker submitted Says No and by Druim Ba Says No with Applicant the applicant commenting within 14 days Hearing 14 May 2012 The case for the hearing All attending Statement sessions the hearing sessions Productions 28 May 2012 Documents, diagrams, All attending maps and photographs etc the hearing or to be relied upon at the inquiry hearing or inquiry sessions sessions Precognition 11 June 2012 The witness’s evidence All witnesses that will be read out and presenting subject to cross- evidence at examination. Limited to the inquiry 2000 words session.

23. One paper copy and one electronic copy (in Word or PDF format) should be sent to the Reporter and all the other parties involved in the respective sessions.

b) Scope for agreed statements 24. In order to save time and focus on the essential matters in dispute, the Reporter encouraged the submission of agreed statements. In particular, the Reporter hoped the following agreed statements could be submitted:

• Site description and description of the project • List of core documents (obviously common documents that would be referred to frequently by all the parties, for example Scottish Planning Policy) • List of relevant policies • Itinerary of unaccompanied and accompanied site visits • Conditions and heads of agreement required in the event of Scottish Ministers granting consent.

25. To progress matters, the Reporter asked the applicant and council to attempt to agree a draft initially, and then circulate to the other parties for their comments. The Reporter would ask Mr Bell to monitor progress. Anne Faulds for the applicants team and Theresa Batchelor for The Highland Council were nominated to take the lead in preparing the agreed statements. Ideally, the agreed statements should be available at the same time as the Inquiry Statements. However, the Reporter recognises that some can take longer to agree than others. Even when complete agreement is not possible, it is still helpful to identify those areas where agreement is possible and those areas in dispute.

116

26. In relation to noise, the Reporter would encourage the technical experts representing the applicant, local residents and Druim Ba Says No to submit an agreed statement covering:

• Methodology • Specifications of recording instruments • Candidate turbines and there specifications • Glossary of technical terms • Baseline data for noise and wind speed used to calculate the background noise levels

Housekeeping matters 27. It was agreed that sound equipment would be necessary and the DPEA will make the necessary arrangements.

28. The first day of the inquiry on Tuesday 26 June 2012 will start at 10:00 and finish at 16:30 – 17:00. There will be a one hour lunch break and other breaks during the day at appropriate points. The times for subsequent days will be agreed in consultation with the parties and in response to progress made.

Miscellaneous 29. There was a discussion about site visiting arrangements and the benefits or otherwise of having an accompanied site visit prior to the inquiry. The Reporter stated that it was his practice to visit the area extensively on an unaccompanied basis prior to an inquiry and normally accompanied site visits took place at the end of the inquiry. However, at this stage the Reporter was content to rely on the parties attempting to agree an itinerary. In devising such an itinerary, the Reporter requested that the parties were realistic in the time commitments and the practicalities of accompanied site visits with potentially large numbers of people (e.g. travel arrangements, parking, access etc)

30. A copy of this note has been sent to the persons present at the meeting and to all other parties/persons who have submitted consultation responses or representations on the application.

117

APPENDIX 1

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989: PROPOSED DRUIM BA WIND FARM NEAR DRUMNADROCHIT, HIGHLAND

LIST OF PRINCIPLE PARTIES:

PARTY CONTACT DETAILS

Ms Ann Faulds Dundas & Wilson CS LLP Saltire Court 20 Castle Terrace Edinburgh Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Ltd EH21 2EN (the applicant) Tel: 0131 200 7452 Fax: 0131 228 8888 E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Theresa Batchelor Legal Services Chief Executives Office Highland Council Glenurquhart Road Highland Council Inverness IV3 5NX Tel: 01463 702 148 Fax: 01463 702 198 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Ian Kelly Graham & Sibbald 3 Charlotte Street Perth Druim Ba Say No Campaign PH1 5LW Tel: 01738 445 733 Fax: 0141 332 5914 E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Hilda Hesling School House Combined Community Councils Abriachan (Kiltarlity, Inverness West and Inverness Kilmorack) IV3 8LB E-mail: [email protected]

118

Mr David S Scott – Partner Ledingham Chalmers LLP Johnstone House 52-54 Rose Street Aberdeen Group of Local Residents AB10 1HA Tel: 01224 408 408 Fax: 01224 408 409 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr John W Mackay 24 Annandale Street Scotways Edinburgh EH7 4AN E-mail: [email protected]

119

Appendix 5

1. Core documents

2. Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited’s Inquiry Documents

3. Druim Ba Sustainable Energy Limited’s Hearing Documents

4. The Highland Council’s Documents

5. The Combined Community Council Group’s Documents

6. The Local residents Group’s Documents

7. Druim Ba Say No’s Document

DW:#16195981-v2 u 120

DRUIM BA WIND FARM PLI

CORE DOCUMENTS

COMMITTEE REPORTS & MINUTES

CD1 Report to Inverness, Nairn and Badenoch and Strathspey Planning Applications Committee 20th September 2011

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7985DA20-7E18-42F6-9BD0- 240B230D958C/0/Item21PLI4911.pdf

CD2 Minutes of Inverness, Nairn and Badenoch and Strathspey Planning Applications Committee 20th September 2011

http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/committees/archive/planning/invernessnairnbadeno chandstrathspeyplanningapplicationscommittee/2011-09-20-inbs-pac-min.htm

CD3 Report to Planning, Environment and Development Committee 14th March 2012 re Planning Policy and Guidance for Onshore Wind Energy

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F3A59A16-4986-4C81-A3B2- 8E9DE92D1256/0/Item12ped2612.pdf

CD4 Report to Planning, Environment and Development Committee 14th March 2012 re adoption of Highland Wide Local Development Plan

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6FDC0524-FC7D-4BBF-A502- 20FCE9AF432A/0/Item11ped2512.pdf

CD5 Minutes of Planning, Environment and Development Committee 14th March 2012

http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/committees/strategiccommittees/planningenvironm entanddevelopmentcommittee/2012-03-14-ped-min.htm

CD6 Draft Minutes of Highland Council meeting on 5th April 2012

No link available at present. Copy can be provided on request.

CD7 Report to South Planning Applications Committee 24th April 2012

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7409B192-3286-4B6F-B640- F0510A5F6AAC/0/Item51PLS04012.pdf

CD8 Draft Minutes of South Planning Applications Committee 24th April 2012

No link available at present. Copy can be provided on request.

CD9 Report to Planning, Environment and Development Committee 22nd September 2010 re Planning Policy and Guidance for Onshore Wind Energy

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/44214A0C-8BEC-40B5-A45B-

DW:#16195981-v2 u 2

B56133244813/0/Item7ped7210.pdf

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/97585EC2-C6B9-4662-B62A- 434D9A36DE17/0/Item7Appendix1.pdf

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2A04A8EA-B527-4D6C-87D0- B54B8593E0C0/0/Item7Appendix2.pdf

CD10 Report to Planning, Environment and Development Committee 17th November 2010 re Planning Policy and Guidance for Onshore Wind Energy

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/ADB6FAD0-5D00-4B5A-8D52- 5CEFE7087E9C/0/Item10PED8810.pdf

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6B2878D1-51C8-42C0-BBC0- BA08D6405899/0/Item10BookletB.pdf

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

CD11 Highland Wide Local Development Plan (April 2012)

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/08920680-3F0F-42A2-912E- AF8997F69B0E/0/HwLDPASMODIFIEDandasIntendedtobeadopted.pdf

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/17B86F89-CE7F-4430-B2C5- E31D10894D8A/0/ProposalsMap.pdf

CD12 Inverness Local Plan (2007)

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/15F0F086-8239-4500-B86D- 760D99D6068F/0/InvernessLocalPlanWrittenStatementAdoptedPlan.pdf

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/674CD97E-B57C-47E5-A6C8- 97FCD12852E6/0/analysis_map_b.pdf

CD13 Interim Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy (March 2012)

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9FDEE9C8-0E51-48C2-9656- 8959011D1219/0/OnshoreWindEnergySG_ForWebPostCtteeMarch2012.pdf

CD14 Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Developments (January 2010)

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3AB93631-8D75-46C7-B4E2- 07B1FE3842FE/0/VisualisationStandardsforWindEnergyDevelopmensamended200510.pdf

CD15 Consultation Version of the Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy, Highland Council, April 2011 (including "Background Paper" entitled "The Consideration of Landscape and Visual Issues in the Development of the Daft Supplementary Guidance", dated April 2011)

CD16 Background Paper to the Highland Council's Draft Offshore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance April 2011 (dated April 2011)

DW:#16195981-v2 u 2 3

CD17 Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines (2006) - partially superseded

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DA6EF327-46B5-4904-8E1D- CD622B103C77/0/hresmay2006.pdf

CD18 HRES 2006 (2 No plans) and draft Supplementary Guidance 2011 Landscape Guidance Plan (1 Plan)

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EE171B27-12FB-4D20-A17C- DCF441FA0C07/0/fig624a1.pdf

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FBA5C471-3AAE-4875-A610- 09AE623C8F2F/0/fig627a1.pdf

CD19 The Highland Council in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage (June 2011) Assessment of Highland Special Landscape Areas – Extract (cover page, pages i-vi and 116-122.

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/75BE9453-1C1D-4076-BCFE- D7A3BEADCB9E/0/AHSLA.pdf

NATI ONAL PLANNING POLICY, ADVICE STATEMENTS, AND CIRCULARS

CD20 Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010)

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/300760/0093908.pdf

CD21 Code of Practice for Handling Inquiries under Section 62 and Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 (DPEA 2011)

CD22 Guidance on the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1998

CD23 National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2) – extracts only

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/278232/0083591.pdf

CD24 Circular 4/1998: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions

CD25 Circular 6/1990: Awards of Expenses in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings

CD26 Circular 17/1998: Code of Practice For Public Inquiries

CD27 Circular 1/2010: Planning Agreements (with Annex)

CD28 Circular 1/2010 Annex: Planning Agreements

CD29 PAN 1/2011: Planning and Noise

CD30 PAN 45: Renewable Energy Technologies and Annex 2 (revoked)

CD31 Scottish Government, Web Based Advice: Onshore Wind Turbines

CD31A Scottish Government, Web Based Advice: Process For Preparing Spatial Frameworks For Wind farms

DW:#16195981-v2 u 3 4

CD32 PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage

CD33 Planning Advice Note: PAN 58 – Environmental Impact Assessment

CD34 Scottish Government (2003) Planning Advice Note 68 – Design statements

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47133/0026407.pdf

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL DOCUMENTS

CD35 "Assessment of Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Turbine Development in Highland" by Macaulay Land Use Research (September 2010)

CD36 SNH Policy Statement 01/02 – SNH's Policy on Renewable Energy (2001)

CD37 SNH Policy Statement No 02/02 – Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in respect of Natural Heritage (2009)

CD38 SNH Policy Statement 05/01 – SNH's Landscape Policy Framework (2005)

CD39 Scottish Natural Heritage, "Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy Developments" March 2012

CD40 The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Spons Press

CD41 Number not used

CD42 SNH Map – Zones of Natural Heritage Sensitivity 2009

CD43 SNH Windfarm Footprint Map

CD44 Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) Siting and Designing of Windfarms in the Landscape. Scottish Natural Heritage

CD45 Richards, J. (1999) Inverness District Landscape Character Assessment. Scottish Natural Heritage

CD46 Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Windfarms and Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes – Extract (cover page, contents page, pages 9-23).

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/Guidelines%20Windfarms%20 Hydroelectric%20Schemes.pdf

CD47 Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Society Directors of Planning and Scottish Renewables (2006)The Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance (VRWGPG) – Extract (cover page, summary, contents, pages 23-25,41-42,51-52,53-59,69-76,85-87,98-99,110-111, 123-127,138-142).

- http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A305436.pdf

OTHER RELEVANT POLICY DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS

CD48 Economic Research Findings – The Economic Impacts of Windfarms on Scottish Tourism, "The Moffat Report" 2008

DW:#16195981-v2 u 4 5

CD49 European Commission: Directive on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources 2009/28/EC (2009)

CD50 DECC: The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009)

CD51 DECC: UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (July 2011) – extracts only

CD52 The Scottish Government, 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy, 2011

CD53 The Scottish Government, The Low Carbon Economic Strategy 2010

CD54 The Scottish Government, 'Draft Electricity Statement' 2012

NOISE ISSUES

CD55 ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Turbines, DTI September 1996

CD56 BS 4142

CD57 IEC61400 Part 11

CD58 IEC61400 (BS EN 61400) Part 14

CD59 March/April 2009 edition of the Institute of Acoustics (IoA) Bulletin Technical Contribution “Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise – Agreement about relevant factors for noise assessment from wind energy projects” – Dick Bowdler, Andrew Bullmore, Bob Davis, Malcolm Hayes, Mark Jiggins, Geoff Leventhall, Andy McKenzie

CD60 Electricity Works (EIA) (Scotland) Regulations 2000

CD61 Extract – DEFRA report NANR 277 “Wind Farm Noise Statutory Nuisance Complaint Methodology”. Executive Summary

CD62 Development of a wind farm Noise Propagation Model. Bass, Bullmore and Sloth

CD63 Noise Measurements in Windy Conditions. ETSU

CD64 Health Effect Based Noise Assessment Methods: A Review and Feasibility Study. NPL. September 1998.

CD65 Technical Advice Note – Assessment of Noise

8 May 2012

DW:#16195981-v2 u 5 6

RED – HIGHLAND COUNCIL

BLUE – APPLICANTS

ORANGE – DBSN

GREEN – CAROLINE STANTON

DW:#16195981-v2 u 6 Druim Ba Wind Farm PLI

Applicant's Document List

Note: The 10 documents highlighted in blue are those prepared by the Applicant for the inquiry. 2 of the 10 have been published as Additional Information. All of the remaining documents are either those relating to the s36 application or other documents already in the public domain, such as policy documents and case reports.

1. POLICIES AND ADVICE

DB 1.1 The Scottish Government: Renewables Action Plan (2009)

DB 1.2 Committee on Climate Change: The Renewable Energy Review (May 2011)

DB 1.3 DECC: Planning our electric future: a White Paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity (July 2011) - extracts only

(Extract Contains Cover, Contents Page, Chapter 1: Sections 2.3 and 9.1)

DB 1.4 DECC: Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1 (July 2011) – extracts only

(Extract Contains Cover, Contents Page, Section 3.4: Pages 26 and 27)

DB 1.5 'The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future' DECC (December 2011) – extracts only

(Extract Contains Cover, Contents Page, Paragraphs 10, 44, 45 and 46)

DB 1.6 Summary of Renewable Energy Projects in Scotland – 22 December 2011, Scottish Renewables

DB 1.7 Evidence gathering on the impact of wind farms on visitor numbers and tourist experience, UWE (June 2004)

DB 1.8 Delivering the Ambition: Employment in Renewable Energy in Scotland, Scottish Renewables, 2012

DB 1.9 Scotland Visitor Survey 2011 & 2012, VisitScotland 2012

DB 1.10 DECC Renewable UK Onshore Wind – Direct & Wider Economic Impacts – May 2012

DB 1.11 Letter from Lord Turner re Increasing the Target for Energy from Renewable Sources dated 29 July 2010 and Letter to Rt Hon Chris Huhne ‘The Level of Renewable Energy Ambition to 2020’ dated 9 September 2010

DB 1.12 EFR Response to The Highland Councill Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy (June 2011)

DB 1.13 CASA Planning & Environment Consultation Response to Highland Council re Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy (June 2011)

DB 1.14 The Government Economic Strategy (2011)

DW:#16196376-v10 AF 2

DB 1.15 All Energy 2012: Update on The Highland Council's Onshore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance

DB 1.16 Highland Council Planning, Environment and Development Committee 28 May 2008

Item 15. Spatial Planning Framework for On-Shore Wind Energy Developments

Minute of Meeting

DB1.17 Letter from Derek MacKay and Fergus Ewing, Scottish Government, to COSLA/HoPS dated 19 June 2012

2. THE SECTION 36 APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED

DB 2.1 Location Plan

DB 2.2 Volume 1 of the Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary

DB 2.3 Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement: Written Statement

DB 2.4 Volume 3 of the Environmental Statement: Figures

DB 2.5 Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement: Appendices

DB 2.6 Volume 5 of the Environmental Statement: Landscape and Visual Figures for the Highland Council

DB 2.7 Environmental Statement; Other Documents

DB 2.8 Applicant's Outline Response to Issues Raised by Objectors, 20 Jan 2012

DB 2.9 Scottish Government – Energy Consents and Deployment Unit

Scoping Opinion for the Proposed Druim Ba Wind Farm Near Drumnadrochit, By Inverness

3. APPEAL DECISIONS

DB 3.1 IEC-3-42 - Fallago Rig Report to the Scottish Ministers dated 5 August 2010 and Consent dated 9 November 2010

DB 3.2 IEC/3/77 - Harestanes Wind Farm Report to the Scottish Ministers and Consent

DB 3.3 Beauly-Denny s37 Inquiry Report, Volume 1: Chapter 2 - Statutory Context

DB 3.4 Beauly-Denny s37 Inquiry Report, Volume 3: Chapter 10 - Development Plan and Other Relevant Planning Policies

DB 3.5 Beauly-Denny s37 Inquiry Report, Volume 2: Chapter 9 - Development Plan and Other Relevant Planning Policies

DB 3.6 IEC/3/105/3 - Baillie Wind Farm Report to the Scottish Ministers dated August 2009 and Consent

DB 3.7 IEC/3/101 Calliachar Wind Farm Report to the Scottish Ministers dated March 2007, Decision Letter dated 10 September 2007 and Consent dated 31 January 2008

DW:#16196376-v10 AF 2 3

DB 3.8 IEC 3/153 - Blackcraig Hill Report to the Scottish Ministers dated 9 April 2010 and Consent dated 22 March 2011

DB 3.9 Dorenell Wind Farm Report to the Scottish Ministers dated 28 June 2011 and Consent dated 22 December 2011

DB 3.10 P/PPA/270/431 - Stroupster Wind Farm, Appeal Decision Notice dated 8 April 2010

DB 3.11 P/PPA/140/357 - Drone Hill, Appeal Decision Notice dated 24 November 2008

DB 3.12 P/PPA/110/634 - St Johns Hill, Decision letter dated 26 November 2007

DB 3.13 P/PPA/140/337 - Langhope Rig, Appeal Decision Notice dated 27 August 2007

DB 3.14 P/PPA/270/438 – Achany Estate, Appeal Decision Notice dated22 July 2008

DB 3.15 APP/X2220/A/08/2071880 - Enifer Downs Farm, Appeal Decision dated 28 April 2009

DB 3.16 APP/P1560/A/08/2088548 - Earls Hall Farm, Appeal Decision dated 19 November 2009

DB 3.17 APP/F2415/A/09/2096369 – Swinford, Decision letter dated 3 December 2009

DB 3.18 APP/D0840/A/09/2103026 - Carland Cross, Appeal Decision dated 19 January 2010

DB 3.19 APP/P1045/A/07/2054080 - Carsington Pastures, Appeal Decision dated 17 September 2008

DB 3.20 APP/D0515/A/10/2123739 and APP/D0515/A/10/2131194 - Burnthouse Farm and Staffurth's Bridge Farm Appeal Decision dated 6 July 2011

DB 3.21 APP/D2510/A/10/2130539 – Langham Appeal Decision dated 29 September 2011

DB 3.22 APP/E2001/A/09/2113076 – Roos Appeal Decision dated 13 May 2010

DB 3.23 Mark Hill Consent dated 25 June 2008

DB 3.24 EK/09/0290 - Hareshawhill Farm – Report to South Lanarkshire Council Planning Committee, 29 November 2011

DB 3.25 IEC-3-33 – Whitelee Consent, 5 May 2006

DB 3.26 Whitelee Extension Consent, April 2009

DB 3.27 Whitelee Extension Phase 2 Consent dated 12 December 2009

DB 3.28 PPA/270/2063 – Moy Estate Appeal Decision Notice dated 29 February 2012

DB 3.29 07/00673/FULIN – Corriegarth Wind Farm, Report to Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey Planning Applications Committee, 19 January 2010

DB 3.30 05/00113/S36CA – Wind Farm West of Dunbeath, Report to Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee, 9 February 2010

DB 3.31 APP/H0520/A/11/2158702 - Woolley Hill Appeal Decision dated 23 March 2012

DW:#16196376-v10 AF 3 4

DB 3.32 APP/E2001/A/10/2137617 – Spaldington Airfield and APP/E2001/A/10/2139965 – North- West of Ivy House Farm, Spaldington Appeal Decisions dated 29 September 2011

DB 3.33 PPA/140/262 –Toddleburn, Decision letter dated 14 May 2007

DB 3.34 APP/V2635/A/11/2154590 - Land (known as the Chiplow site) and APP/V2635/A/11/2158966 – Jack's Lane Site Appeal Decisions dated 24 May 2012

DB 3.35 APP/H0520/A/09/2119385 - Cotton Farm Appeal Decision dated 14 December 2010

4. CASE LAW

DB 4.1 R (Lee) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Maldon District Council & RWE Npower Renewables [2011] EWHC 807 (Admin)

DB 4.2 R (Hulme) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWHC 637 (admin) and Order No.8152

DB 4.3 R (Hulme) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 2386 (Admin)

DB 4.4 Michael William Hulme v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & RES Developments Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 638

DB 4.5 (1) Derbyshire Dales District Council (2) Peak District National Park Authority v (1) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2) Carsington Wind Energy Limited[2009] EWHC 1729 (Admin)

DB 4.6 R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate and National Grid Electricity Transmission plc [2012] EWHC 46 (Admin)

5. POLICY ISSUES

DB 5.1 Druim Ba Wind Farm, Planning Report, Jones Lang LaSalle, May 2012

DB 5.2 Druim Ba Wind Farm, Tourism and Economics Report, Jones Lang LaSalle, May 2012

6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ISSUES

DB 6.1 Druim Ba Wind Farm Local Visual Amenity Assessment, Prepared by LUC, May 2012

DB 6.2 Druim Ba Windfarm: Landscape Report, LUC, Prepared by LUC, May 2012

DB 6.3 Statement to the Inquiry by James Truscott, ASH

DB 6.4 Number not used

DB 6.5A Druim Ba Wind Farm

Figure 8.1 Zone of Theoretical Visibility

DB 6.5B Druim Ba Wind Farm – Design and Access Statement

Figure 15 – 15km ZTV

DW:#16196376-v10 AF 4 5

DB 6.5C Druim Ba Wind Farm – Design and Access Statement

Figure 14 – Strathglass

DB 6.5D Druim Ba Wind Farm – Design and Access Statement

Figure 13 – 7.5km ZTV

DB 6.6 SNH Letter to David Cowie (The Highland Council) dated 24 August 2009 on Landscape Assessment of the Capacity for Wind Turbine development in Highland

DB 6.7 SNH Memo to David Cowie (The Highland Council) dated 16 July 2010 on Prioritisation of SNH concerns in relation to 'Landscape Assessment of Capacity for Wind Turbine Development in Highland: study

DB 6.8 Fletcher, S. (1998) Inner Moray Firth Landscape Character Assessment. Scottish Natural Heritage DB 6.9 Horner + Maclennan and Envision (2006) Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance. Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance DB 6.10 McIlveen, F. (1999) Ross and Cromarty Landscape Character Assessment. Scottish Natural Heritage DB 6.11 Richards, J. (1999) Inverness District Landscape Character Assessment. Scottish Natural Heritage DB 6.12 Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Windfarms & Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes. Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) DB 6.13 Cumulative Effect of Windfarms, Version 2. Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance (2005) DB 6.14 Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance (2012) DB 6.15 Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Respect of the Natural Heritage, Policy Statement No. 02/02. Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) DB 6.16 Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency And Scottish Natural Heritage, Carys Swanwick, University of Sheffield and Land Use Consultants (2002) DB 6.17 Whitelee & Calder Water Map