The Kendoon to Tongland 132Kv Reinforcement Project Appendices

The Kendoon to Tongland 132kV Reinforcement Project Appendices to Summary of Feedback from Second Round of Consultation March 2017 The Kendoon to Tongland 132kV Reinforcement Project Appendices SP Energy Networks March 2017 Appendix A: Summary of responses from statutory consultees The Kendoon to Tongland 132kV Reinforcement Project March 2017 Appendices Appendix A: Statutory stakeholders Ref Consultee Issues raised Resulted SPEN Response in change A01 Forestry General: N Commission Disappointing that so much of the proposed routeing As outlined in the KTR Project: Routeing and Scotland has been targeted towards woodland areas. Such Consultation Document (October 2016), in accordance routeing will inevitably result in significant woodland with Holford Rule 5, and accompanying notes, losses, likely running into hundreds of hectares. Such woodland was avoided where possible. However, losses act against the achievement of the Scottish where routeing through areas of extensive Government’s wider objectives around the expansion woodland would help avoid other environmental of woodland cover in Scotland. constraints, including people, in accordance with the routeing objective, the implications of routeing through woodland (including the potential for natural screening and backclothing) was considered. A02 Wayleaves installed within woodlands generate N When routeing through woodland, we tried to avoid significant long-term land use impacts, well beyond ancient woodland and minimise the loss of native the footprint of the wayleave itself. Specifically they woodland where possible. In identifying route significantly restrict and compromise forest options through commercial woodland, all other operational activity in close proximity to the things being equal and in accordance with Holford wayleaves and also generate a significant health and Rule 3, the most direct line was chosen. However, safety hazard which needs to be appropriately the scope for limiting the effects of the 80m managed. The net result of such impacts is that the wayleave on woodland management, such as “effective land take” in woodland areas is much more woodland loss (e.g. increased felling to a windfirm significant than the equivalent line in an open or edge), and visual and ecological effects, will agricultural context. continue to be considered during the alignment and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) stage reflecting the type of woodland, age, structure and use, in consultation with the forestry manager and / or Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). Placing wayleaves within woodlands also presents N Opportunities to use wayleaves for ‘low-level’ potential landscaping impacts, with the woodlands planting for landscape and ecological benefits and effectively “framing” the wayleave corridor, making increase species mix from coniferous monoculture its presence more obvious in the wider landscape. will be considered during the alignment and EIA in The only practical mitigation for such scenarios is consultation with woodland managers and FCS. often to further landscape the associated woodland, resulting in additional losses in woodland area. Wayleaves within woodlands are also more vulnerable to resilience challenges, often again mitigated by the removal of yet more woodland beyond the wayleave itself. In summary, whilst it is fully recognised that a wide N As well as trying to minimise potential loss of variety of issues needs to be considered within the woodland through the alignment, the effects of the routeing process, the choice to route so much of the loss of woodland resource will be assessed as part line through woodlands will lead to significant of the EIA. As this process progresses, SPEN will impacts which should not be dismissed or continue to work closely with woodland managers discounted. and FCS to minimise loss of, and disruption to, commercial woodland. A03 Specific Routeing: N Specific Routeing: Polquhanity to Kendoon: Polquhanity to Kendoon: Alternative route C preferred as it largely follows It is acknowledged that whilst route C would result existing corridor and thus has a minimal impact on in the lowest amount of woodland loss, as outlined woodland areas. in the KTR Project: Routeing and Consultation Document (October 2016), route B is, on balance, preferred as it is routed within the forestry to the west of the A713, minimising views from this tourist route and avoiding the principal views of the properties at Polmaddie and Dundeugh. The construction of an overhead line on this route would allow the removal of the existing 132kV overhead line from the principal views, and a number of curtilages, of these properties. Whilst routeing through commercial woodland will enable the overhead line to be backclothed from the A713, and cultural heritage features, the alignment will need to be designed to minimise loss of, and disruption to, commercial woodland. A04 Kendoon to Glenlee: N Kendoon to Glenlee: Alternative route B preferred as route indicated As outlined in the KTR Project: Routeing and minimises the impacts on existing woodland areas. Consultation Document (October 2016), route A is preferred on balance, including in relation to woodland, as it offers opportunities to avoid commercial forestry as well as native (NWSS) and ancient (AWSS) woodland. A05 Glenlee to Tongland: Y Glenlee to Tongland: Alternative route 1B preferred as there is a 1B was not the preferred option primarily due to the substantial new woodland just being planted at Rig potential for long distance views of the overhead of Airie which would be significantly impacted by line from the Glenkens Valley, the A76, the preferred route 1A. Option 1A would result in the settlement of New Galloway and potential for leading face of the woodland being removed, associated indivisibility with cultural heritage potentially generating significant landscape impacts features in these areas. and also a loss in species diversity. It would thus However, informed by feedback from the significantly compromise the new woodland design consultation process and subsequent meetings and as such should be avoided. with the public and Scottish Woodlands, in relation to route options 1A and 1B, the preferred route 1A has been re-routed to the east to increase the distance to the property at Darsalloch and minimise the loss of woodland within the Scottish Woodlands Rig of Airie planting area. A06 Preferred route 2B preferred as it minimises the Y Option 2B remains SPEN’s preferred route, however impact on woodland. the route is being modified to be located within the woodland to the west of Slogarie, with an area of woodland judged able to withstand windthrow being left in situ. The route modification would not result in the preferred route requiring significantly more woodland to be felled, in relation to the other route options considered. A07 Alternative route 3A preferred, marginal, but on N As outlined in the KTR Project: Routeing and balance has less impact than other two alignments Consultation Document (October 2016) route 3C is proposed. preferred on balance, including in relation to woodland, as the NWSS can be avoided. A08 The place where route sections 4 and 5 meet is at a N SPEN will seek to avoid or minimise any woodland location where a small existing woodland is located. It loss in this area during the detailed design of the would be helpful to avoid that woodland and final route alignment. localised review of line alignment (on whichever option) should be able to achieve this. A09 Detailed design and delivery of wayleave: N Detailed design and delivery of wayleave: Regardless of the route ultimately selected, FCS SPEN is currently liaising with forestry owners / would strongly urge SPEN to liaise at an early stage managers including Forest Enterprise Scotland and with FCS and woodland owners and managers to Scottish Woodlands and will continue to liaise review and agree the best detailed alignments and during the alignment and EIA stage to seek to agree associated infrastructure required. Such an alignment which minuses loss of woodland and consideration should consider existing woodland associated effects. boundaries and windfirm edges, existing roading infrastructure and existing long-term forest plans for the areas in question. If such an approach is adopted, some of the potential impacts of this project could be significantly reduced or mitigated. FCS would be happy to support such engagement. A10 Dumfries & Comments of Landscape Architect N Comments of Landscape Architect Galloway Council Proposals to remove approximately 90km of Comments are noted in relation to removal existing line are welcomed; in particular the of existing line in the vicinity of Loch Ken. section crossing Loch Ken and the section The design of route and associated from Lochfoot to Cargenbridge. The reuse of wayleave and the implications for existing an existing line has acknowledged benefits in forestry will be considered during the terms of an assumed ‘acceptance’ of the alignment and subsequent EIA stages. established development. However, this has to be balanced against potential opportunities for an improved outcome by adopting a new line - such as removing the need to cross Loch Ken by following a route to the west of the valley. The requirement for an 80m wayleave is noted; this will have implications for existing forestry and will require careful design at the detailed design stage. The EIA process adopted as part of the next stage of design is expected to pick up detailed design considerations

Load more