ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 26 NOVEMBER 2013
13/00215 - DRUIM LEATHANN, TOLSTA, ISLE OF LEWIS - APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION TO ERECT 14 WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
Report by Director of Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT The Druim Leathann Wind Farm proposal is a ‘Major development’ proposal, and subject to EIA and is presented to the Comhairle for a decision. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendations being implemented. SUMMARY 2.1 An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) application, also categorised a ‘Major development, was submitted on 30 April 2013 on behalf of Druim Leathann Windfarm Ltd (DLWL) for the development of a 42MW Windfarm, consisting of 14 wind turbines and associated infrastructure at Tolsta, Isle of Lewis. Each individual turbine has a hub height of 80m, a rotor diameter of 93m, a blade tip height of 126.5m and a generation capacity of 3MW. 2.2 The wind farm will ‘frame’ the western views from the village. The nearest homes in Tolsta are sited at only 1km distance from certain turbines. The proposed development has a generation capacity of 42MW. Approximately 75% of the application site (8 of the 14 turbines) will lie inside a 1.5Km buffer around the settlement of Tolsta, contrary to the Comhairle’s policy for locating windfarms of a scale in excess of 20MW. Due to the scale of the turbines and the close proximity of the windfarm to the settlement of Tolsta, the proposal will have impacts of major significance on the visual amenity of Tolsta village and on a number of its residences. 2.3 The siting of the proposed wind farm within the 1.5km settlement buffer and the significant impacts on the visual amenity of the residences and the settlement of Tolsta comprise the determinative issues in relation to the application. 2.4 There are a range of other issues which have informed the recommendation, but having taken into cognisance the advice of consultees, could be managed by way of condition. These include: Mitigation of impact on the designated Drinking Water Protection Area (DWPA) of Loch Ionadagro which feeds the public drinking water supply for Tolsta, Gress, Back, Vatisker and Coll – 75% of the development site lies within the DWPA; The Water Framework Directive places a responsibility on decision makers as well as Scottish Water to seek no deterioration in drinking water quality; Management of Noise emissions from the wind farm requiring a scheme whereby the turbines may need to be closed off to bring noise levels within acceptable limits in certain conditions i.e. wind direction and strength; Management of peatland and peat slide risk on the site which borders European designated Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation; Impact on TV reception in Tolsta (Scheme setting out action programme of mitigations required) HIAL Aviation issues Proposed Removal of Turbine 14, to avoid disturbance to and protect the habitat of Golden Eagle as advised by SNH. 2.5 The detailed considerations on all the above matters are set out within the Report. 2.6 Before determining an EIA application, the planning authority must take into account all the environmental information, including the content of the Environmental Statement (ES), the views of consultees, the views of the public and any additional information from the applicant. Thereafter, the Comhairle requires to determine the application in accordance with the provisions of its Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.
2.7 The ES has been assessed and in turn the proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development. 2.8 The conclusion of the Development Plan Assessment is that the proposal is considered to be contrary to its provisions. This is by virtue of the close proximity (1km) of the 42MW windfarm (14 no turbines; tip height 126m) to the settlement of Tolsta, and in turn the proposal is predicted to have impacts of major significance on the visual amenity of Tolsta village and on a number of its residences. 2.9 Due weight has been placed on material planning considerations which include material planning matters raised in representation, Scottish Planning policy, Climate Change and socio-economic benefits. 2.10 It is concluded that on balance the material considerations neither individually nor collectively, carry such weight that they indicate that the Comhairle’s Development Plan should be set aside. 2.11 It is therefore recommended that the application be refused as it is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan by virtue of non-compliance with the following policies: Policy 1 - Development Strategy of the OHLDP – largely outwith a Remote Area where large scale wind energy proposals are directed; Policy 5 - Landscape of the OHLDP – due to significant adverse impacts on visual amenity of groups of houses and the settlement of Tolsta and adverse localized landscape impacts, neither of which can be mitigated further; Policy 19 – Energy Resources of the OHLDP as the proposal is not considered to be in an appropriate location; Spatial Strategy Policy 2 – Areas of potential constraint by virtue of the proposal being in excess of 20MW but located within the 1.5km settlement buffer; and Development Criteria DC 2 – Landscape & Visual of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development, due significant adverse visual impact on residential properties and the Tolsta settlement and adverse localised impact on landscape. 2.12 Further, in the absence of the Removal of Turbine 14 from the proposed development, the application would also not be in compliance with Policy 28 – Natural Heritage or DC1 of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development. In order to secure the required mitigation, the developer would require to submit an amended plan and agree an amendment to the proposed scheme or alternatively there is potential to address the matter by way of a condition. 2.13 A copy of Volume 1 – Written Statement and Figures of the Druim Leathann Windfarm Environmental Statement has been placed in the Members’ Lounge. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out at Appendix 1 to this Report.
Contact Officer Sheena Lamont Telephone: 01851 822690 Email [email protected] Appendix 1 Schedule of Reasons for Refusal 2 Broad Area of Search, Site location and (DWPA) 3 Tolsta Wind Farm and Turbine Visibility Plan 4a Developer Correspondence on effects on residential amenity 4b Developer Correspondence on effects on residential amenity 4c Developer Correspondence on effects on residential amenity Background Papers None
REPORT DETAILS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 4.1 This is an EIA application for the erection of 14 wind turbines up to 126.5m to blade tip and maximum combined output of 42MW, associated infrastructure both permanent and temporary development such as the borrow pits. The turbines will connect into a control building and substation via onsite underground cables. At the substation, the voltage will be stepped up for transmission to the national electricity network (the ‘grid’). A site layout plan and the relationship of the site to the village is shown in Appendix 1.
4.2 The main components of the proposed wind farm comprise: 14 turbines of up to 126.5m in height to blade tip, with a maximum combined output of 42 megawatts (MW); a total of 8km of permanent access tracks and upgrading of 1.1km of existing tracks, passing places and turning areas; the construction of two new watercourse crossings and the upgrading of two existing watercourse crossings; construction of ancillary development comprising transformers for each wind turbine, crane hardstandings, connecting cabling and one permanent wind monitoring mast of 80m in height; erection of a substation and control building; creation of two temporary construction compounds; creation of a temporary laydown area; creation of two temporary onsite borrow pits for the extraction of stone; and felling of trees to accommodate turbine 13 and associated infrastructure.
4.3 It is anticipated that the construction of the wind farm will take place over a period of 12 months. The operational life of the wind farm is 25 years.
4.4 The application site is located in the north-east of the Isle of Lewis, to the west of the village of Tolsta with a close proximity of 1km to 1.5km. The nearest residential property is 1km (1003m) away from the nearest turbine. Of the estimated 245 properties in Tolsta Village, 110 properties are within 1.5km of turbine locations.
4.5 The site is situated in a moorland area at Druim Leathann, which is landscape character type ‘Boggy Moor’ for all but one turbine which is on Rocky Moor (T14). The west of the site is adjacent to the Lewis Peatlands Special Planning Area (SPA) and the Lewis Peatlands Special Area for Conservation (SAC).
4.6 Approximately 75 percent of the development site lies within the Loch Ionadagro DWPA. This Drinking Water Protected Area (as laid before Parliament in March 2013) serves a number of the communities with their drinking water, namely Tolsta, Back, Gress, Vatisker and Coll.
4.7 The proposal is classed ‘Major Development’ within the Planning Hierarchy and in terms of its nature, scale and location is also an EIA development.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES 5.1 The planning application by 2020 Renewables Windfarm Ltd on behalf of Druim Leathann Windfarm Ltd, Glasgow, was registered on 30 April 2013.
5.2 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Regulations) (Scotland) 2013 and Section 35A, B and C of the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 set out the planning procedures, including the requirements for statutory pre-application consultation with communities, for national and major developments. This Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) process was completed prior to submission and the summary of this stage is covered in the PAC Report which accompanied the planning application. 5.3 The EIA application was advertised for public comment in the public notices section of the Stornoway Gazette in the publication dated 9 May 2013 and the Edinburgh Gazette in the publication dated 3 May 2013 as required by regulations. The information contained in the ES and any other substantive information provided voluntarily by the applicant and relating to the ES is defined as ‘additional information’ (Regulation 2(1)) and must be publicised in the same way as the Environmental Statement itself. Further information requested from the applicant was advertised for public comment in the public notices section of the Stornoway Gazette in the publication dated 12 September 2013 and the Edinburgh Gazette in the publication dated 17 September 2013 as required by regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2011 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (The 2011 Regulations) apply to this proposal. 6.2 The proposed development is Schedule 2 Development – Category: wind farm of more than 2 turbines, in terms of the 2011 Regulations. 6.3 An EIA application including an Environmental Statement (ES) has been submitted with the Planning Application. An ES is a statement that includes the information required to assess the environmental impacts of the development and which the applicant is required to compile, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment and includes at least the information required in Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. The planning authority must not grant planning permission pursuant to an EIA application unless they have first taken the environmental information into consideration and they must state in their decision that they have done so. 6.4 The EIA process requires the applicant to provide a description of the aspects of the environment that are likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors. 6.5 The ES is divided into three main sections, The first section comprises a Non Technical Summary, Introductory Chapters 1-5; The second part of the ES (Chapters 6-14) describes the potential environmental impacts and is supported by Technical Appendices while the third part comprises Chapter 15. The third part of the ES, Chapter 15 provides a summary of Impacts identified through EIA. Chapter 1 Introduction provides a brief introduction to the windfarm and the legislative requirements and outlines the structure of the ES; Chapter 2 Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment provides more detail on the EIA process including consultation; Chapter 3 Site Selection and Design Strategy defines the benefits of the windfarm, summarises the reason for site selection and provides details of the approach to the design strategy and layout modifications; Chapter 4 Scheme Description provides a detailed description of the windfarm and explains the context of the site; Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context summarises the national and local planning policy context.
6.6 The second part of the ES (Chapters 6-14) describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed scheme in relation to the following topic areas: Chapter 6 Landscape and Visual Amenity; Chapter 7 Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat; Chapter 8 Ecology; Chapter 9 Ornithology; Chapter 10 Noise; Chapter 11 Traffic and Transport; Chapter 12 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; Chapter 13 Socio-Economics Impacts; Chapter 14 Other Issues.
6.7 The third part comprises Chapter 15 which presents a Summary of Impacts identified through EIA. 6.8 The key issues and findings of the Environmental Statement as submitted are summarised as follows: Landscape and Visual Amenity – Major Long-term (negative) Impacts on Landscape and Visual Amenity on the Village of Tolsta. Major Short-term impacts on the Village of Tolsta during construction; Ecology - Negative Impacts - a significant impact on blanket bog and related habitats due to the direct loss of approximately 12.4ha of habitat and indirect impacts on approximately 22.8ha of blanket bog and related habitat, loss of blanket bog habitat considered unavoidable along with and changes to hydrology on site; Other Issues – Aviation Impacts and Television reception - Negative Impacts potential but recognised technical mitigations available which can be addressed through condition. Socio- Economic - Positive impacts are identified based on 8.8 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs created through construction and operational activity together with contributions to a Community Benefit Fund. Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat – impacts on Hydrology and Peat arising from the fact that the proposal is sited on boggy moorland underlain with peat including some deep pockets and largely within a water catchment area which comprises a number of streams and burns which in turn feed a loch which serves as a public drinking water supply reservoir. The Draft Pollution Prevention Plan requires to be informed by a risk assessment which will guide a range of accepted mitigations and potentially additional mitigations where required. Ornithology – Overall, impacts are assessed as satisfactory bar a key issue relating to a single turbine which will impact on Golden eagles protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Noise – Construction Noise impacts on nearby properties require mitigation and Operational impacts which will require a Noise mitigation Plan which will be managed by condition. Traffic and Transport – A Traffic Management Plan and Route assessment required to be covered through condition. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage – No significant impacts identified but good practice on site excavation/management will be conditioned to protect archaeological interest. PREVIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS RELATING TO THE SITE 7.1 The following planning history relates to the site. Ref. No. Description Decision Date 12/00469/PPD Erect Meteorological Mast Approval 21/09/2012
12/00468/SCO EIA Scoping Opinion Opinion given 01/10/2012 12/00627/PAN Pre-Application Notification Agreed 06/11/2012 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 8.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultation by the Planning Authority can be read on file at the Development Department. The following is a summary of those relevant to the determination of the application.
HISTORIC SCOTLAND 8.2 ‘Historic Scotland does not object to the proposed development.’
SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY 8.3 ‘We ask that the planning conditions in Sections 1 to 3 be attached to the consent. If any of these will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Advice for the planning authority Pollution prevention and peat management We welcome the general mitigation principles and pollution prevention measures set out in Draft Pollution Prevention Plan and Draft Peat Management Plan. Some of proposed measures relate to works which may be regulated by us. However, many of the works will not be regulated by us and need to be covered by condition. Therefore, we request that a condition is attached to the consent requiring the submission of a site specific Pollution Prevention Plan. If this is not attached, then please consider this representation as an objection. It is best practice for the Pollution Prevention Plan to include items such as the Peat Management Plan, groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystem GWDTE mitigation and forestry removal proposals. As all these issues are interrelated, it is best to compile one document for the ease of reference of contractors and to ensure consistency. Full details of what should be included in the Pollution Prevention Plan can be found on our website. The applicant should note our technical comments in Section 4 below. Micro siting and buffer zones We welcome the applicant's proposals for micro siting to avoid deep peat or sensitive habitats and buffer zones in Section 7.70 to protect the water environment. We therefore request that a planning condition is applied which enables micro siting to be undertaken provided it does not breach the buffers stated in Section 7.70, and where it is proposed to breach these buffers SEPA would need to be consulted on the micro siting. If this condition will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Watercourse crossings We note the proposal to utilise half moon or bottomless culverts. This design is likely to be consentable under The Water Environment Controlled Activities Scotland Regulations 2011 (CAR) and therefore we request that a condition is applied requiring all watercourse crossings to be bottomless or half moon culverts. If this will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Wetlands We are generally satisfied that proposals have avoided Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems where possible and the restoration proposals will mitigate against any loss or impacts. We note that in Section 8.113 they predict that the permanent loss of blanket bog and related habitat is Significant. Blanket Bog is an Annex 1 habitat under the Habitats Directive. This is a matter outwith our remit and therefore we recommend you seek comments from SNH on this issue. Advice for the applicant
Peat and timber management in relation to pollution prevention plan In relation to the Peat Management Plan we have two queries which will need to be addressed within the finalised plan. Section 5 states that 22456 m3 catotelmic peat will be required for the displacement techniques used for hardstanding. Details of this are not included within Section 2.6 and therefore clarification of what is proposed will need to be included in the finalised plan. We welcome Section 2.7 where it is identified how unsuitable peat would be re-used. Please note that unless to target habitat for the borrow pit requires this type of peat, i.e. it is required for ecological benefit, it could be classed as a waste under The Waste Management Licensing Scotland Regulations 2011 WML. We would be happy to discuss any draft restoration proposals prior to formal submission of the finalised plan to ensure it meet the requirements of WML. For information we note that peat probing does not appear to have been undertaken for the proposed borrow pits. Section 7.54 states that rock was observed in these locations and therefore peat was likely to be relatively thin. Whilst we agree with this statement it would have been useful to support this statement with photographs of the proposed borrow pit locations. We note the proposed tree felling for Turbine 13 and note that Section 7.91 states this will be in accordance with the Forest and Water Guidelines. Details of how this will be undertaken will need to be included in the Pollution Prevention Plan. We would support the approach of key-holing wherever possible as large scale felling can result in a peak release of nutrients which can affect local water quality. We may, however, be supportive of clear felling in cases where planting took place on deep peat and it is proposed through a Habitat Management Plan to reinstate peat-forming habitats. This should be specifically referenced in the plan. We would be especially interested in and are likely to have significant concerns relating to any proposals to fell to waste where the waste generated by the process will be managed by techniques such as chipping, mulching or spreading. This is because where material is classed as waste then appropriate waste management options require consideration and, where appropriate, adoption. In such cases we would wish the plan to include information which explains how the waste hierarchy has been applied in a way which delivers the best overall environmental outcome. Further guidance on this can be found in our guidance Management of Forestry Waste. It has previously been argued that using waste on the site could yield an ecological improvement and so has been considered as an exemption under waste management licensing. However, this approach is now being questioned as the results of early research show there is a lack of clarity and evidence to support the claim that this practice delivers overall ecological improvement for the main target vegetation types blanket bog or wet heath. Currently, this restoration practice is being tested and researched at a number of sites across Scotland. This research will provide greater clarity on the benefits and risks associated with the practice. If ecological benefit from use of waste is to be claimed, then reliable site-specific evidence must be provided. For avoidance of doubt, where it is sought to claim ecological benefit from deposition of forestry waste a the ecological benefit must relate to the land to which the waste is applied rather than off-site benefits and b there must not be an ecological harm also associated with the deposition of the waste. Note that if there are likely to be significant amounts of surplus forestry material without a clear use, and if scope for an exemption under waste management is unclear, then unfortunately we may need to object to an application due to our inability to advise on consentability under our regulatory regime and hence it is essential that these issues are addressed at an early stage. If it is proposed to re-use timber on site the plan will need to detail:
. Full justification for using the material on-site must be provided. Evidence must be provided to show that all options for use of the material off-site have been considered; . The proposed use of the material must be beneficial in reaching the objectives of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as agreed by the local authority in consultation with statutory agencies SNH and SEPA. . Detailed monitoring proposals should be included in the HMP; . Material used on site should not have any negative impact on the water environment or other sensitive receptors e.g. protected species; . Details of the size, volume, and depth of material to be used on site must be provided. A detailed map showing areas where the material will be used and extent of cover should also be provided; . clear specification for contractors is required to ensure the correct machinery is used, and that any material left on site is used in line with the HMP. The quality of the material is an important factor; maximum chip size (or other criteria) should be defined and agreed with the contractor. A maximum depth of material should also be agreed with the contractor.’ SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE 8.4 Further Response from SNH dated 18 October 2013 ‘Background 8.4.1 The proposal is adjacent to the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA), designated for its breeding diver, raptor and wader interests, and the Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its blanket bog habitat amongst other interests. 8.4.2 The sites’ status means that the requirements of either the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended, (the “Habitats Regulations”) apply, or (for reserved matters), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 as amended apply. See http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A423286.pdf for a summary of the legislative requirements. 8.4.3 In our original response we noted that fieldwork on breeding birds, including the qualifying interests of the SPA, was on-going during the 2013 breeding season. This comprised of vantage point work and detailed breeding surveys for the key species including Red Throated Diver and Golden Eagle. The supplementary information has now been made available and our assessment of the potential impacts is outlined below. 8.4.4 The main areas for concern, as detailed in our previous response dated 11th June 2013, are potential impacts on SPA qualifying species, in particular red throated divers, and a known Golden Eagle nest site outwith the SPA but very close to the proposed development. Cumulative impacts on the SPA and the Western Isles Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) populations are also considered. Summary 8.4.5 In order to protect the natural heritage features of the SPA and the NHZ we recommend that Turbine 14 is not included in any consent granted for this proposal. Advice in Relation to Protected Birds Breeding bird features of the SPA 8.4.6 On the basis of the data within the Environmental Statement (E, we agree that the impact on the current populations of breeding waders, moorland birds and raptors within the SPA will be minor. Red Throated Diver 8.4.7 We agree with the findings of the ES that the potential loss of 2 birds from the SPA to collision over 25 years does not constitute an adverse effect on site integrity. In terms of the wider countryside we agree that a loss of 7.25 birds over 25 years to collision within
the context of the Western Isles Natural heritage Zone (NHZ) is sustainable based on population modelling. Golden Eagle Disturbance 8.4.8 The proposal includes a single turbine (number 14) and Borrow Pit 2 that lie within 1000m of a known Golden eagle nest site. We agree with paragraph 9.138 of the ES stating that range abandonment due to a combination of displacement and potential disturbance is possible. It is our opinion that the ES does not provide adequate mitigation to prevent an offence under schedule 1A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which protects Golden eagles from intentional harassment where repeated disturbance i.e. the building of wind turbines over a 12 month period, can be considered harassment. We do not consider the mitigation cited in the ES (table 9.7) for Golden Eagles to be sufficient to prevent potential disturbance. 8.4.9 Therefore our advice is to omit turbine 14 from any consent granted in order to minimise the risk of range abandonment which could impact on the golden eagle population of the Western Isles NHZ. Cumulative impacts are discussed further below. Collision Risk 8.4.10 We agree with the ES that a collision risk of 0.46 birds over the lifetime of the development does not constitute a risk to the viability of the population at the scale of the NHZ. Cumulative Impacts 8.4.11 Presently there are uncertainties over the cumulated predicted collision risk and range abandonment for Golden Eagle at the NHZ scale due to other planned developments in the Outer Hebrides. We acknowledge that the ES has attempted to overcome this by using a highly precautionary mortality rate of 28 in the model, wherein the model predicts a favourably maintained population with the mean growth rate of just above 1% at 0.0108 and the lower confidence limit (0.0025) above zero (Paragraph 9.2.1.22). However these margins are close to the limit of what the population could sustain and should be taken into consideration given the limitations of modelling a highly complex situation, and the potential impacts of other planned developments within the Western Isles NHZ. Monitoring 8.4.12 We welcome the commitment to monitoring and carcass searching and recommend that a methodology be agreed with us should consent be granted. 8.4.13 For further details on our assessment of the impact on birds, please refer to Annex 1. ‘
SNH Response dated 11 June 2013 8.4.14 ‘Summary The proposal is adjacent to the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA), designated for its breeding diver, raptor and wader interests, and the Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its blanket bog habitat amongst other interests. The sites' status means that the requirements of either the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended, (the "Habitats Regulations") apply, or (for reserved matters), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 as amended apply. In our view, there is insufficient information to determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of these sites. In order for this to be determined, we recommend that the following additional information is obtained: Lewis Peatlands SAC - an assessment of the potential for a peat slide to cause loss or damage to the blanket bog feature of the Lewis Peatlands SAC. Lewis Peatlands SPA - completion of fieldwork for breeding red-throated divers during 2013 to inform a full assessment of the impacts upon this species in the SPA. Once this information has been provided we will be able to give further consideration to this proposal. The proposal could therefore raise natural heritage issues of national interest and we therefore object to the proposal until this further information
is obtained from the applicant. If the planning authority intends to grant planning permission against this advice without the requested information, you must notify Scottish Ministers. No holts or resting places of the European Protected Species otter will be disturbed by the proposal. 8.4.15 The proposal would generate major landscape and visual impacts in the vicinity of North Tolsta, but it does not impinge on landscape interests that are nationally significant or scarce. Appraisal of Impacts - Lewis Peatlands SPA and Birds 8.4.16 We note that fieldwork on breeding birds, including the qualifying interests of the SPA, is ongoing during the 2013 breeding season. This comprises vantage point work and detailed breeding surveys for the key species. The conclusions about impacts of these species, as presented in the Environmental Statement (ES), are thus tentative. We have therefore reserved our position in relation to these impacts pending completion of this work, when a fully informed assessment of impacts can be considered. We expect this to be presented as supplementary information later this year.
8.4.17 The ES points out that turbine 14 is closer than 1000m from a golden eagle nesting crag. This is within the distance which may cause the nest site to be abandoned due to disturbance. As there are no other known nest sites for this pair, this would effectively lead to range abandonment. The ES characterises the cumulative loss of a total of three golden eagle ranges within the Outer Hebrides Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) as of moderate significance. However turbine 14 was not relocated during the iterations of the layout illustrated at figure 3.2. There is also no operational – phase mitigation proposed for this impact (ES 9.147). The applicant may wish to consider this issue ahead of submitting supplementary information on birds at a later date.
Appraisal of Impacts - Lewis Peatlands SAC 8.4.18 The proposed wind farm is located next to, but not within, the Lewis Peatlands SAC. We agree that the wind farm site and the SAC are hydrologically discrete. The ES assumes that because of this, and because there is no continuity of peat across the boundary, then the proposed development will have no effect on the SAC. This is not necessarily the case. Specifically, it has not been demonstrated that the qualifying features of the SAC could not be affected by a peat slide originating from the proposed development. For example, a peat slide associated with infrastructure to the west of the site could potentially block the watercourse which separates the site from the SAC resulting in loss or damage to qualifying features of the site.
8.4.19 We therefore object to this proposal on the basis of un-assessed risk to the qualifying features of the Lewis Peatlands SAC. That objection can be withdrawn if: a) The Hazard Ranking assessment is made more transparent; and b) it is demonstrated that should a peat slide associated with the infrastructure immediately to the east of the SAC occur, it will not have an adverse effect on the SAC. Further advice in relation to the SAC and peat is at Annex 1. Appraisal of Impacts - Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.4.20 The proposal would generate major landscape and visual impacts in the vicinity of North Tolsta. These impacts would particularly affect the visual amenity of the settlement and its surroundings. Aspects of the local landscape and coastal character will also be acutely affected, when these are exposed to significant influence from the turbines on adjacent higher moorland. In particular, the rural character of North Tolsta's crofting landscapes and the intimacy, enclosure and perceived scale of coastal areas in the vicinity of the village will be adversely affected. 8.4.21 Wider impacts across Lewis are within the capacity of the landscape and visual resource. The proposal does not impinge on landscape interests that are nationally
significant or scarce and, therefore, we do not consider that this proposal raises landscape issues of national interest. 8.4.22 Figure 4.2 illustrates a 'possible' external transformer beside a wind turbine elevation. We consider that the inclusion of 14 external transformers across the site is likely to increase the visual impact of the development, where these structures are apparent in views. We therefore recommend that the developer houses the transformers within the turbine towers, as supported by our 'Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape' guidance. Further advice in relation to landscape and visual impacts is at Annex 2. I hope you find this advice helpful. We look forward to providing further advice in relation to birds and the Lewis Peatlands SPA and SAC once the outstanding information has been provided. ANNEX 1 - LEWIS PEATLANDS SAC & PEAT Detailed Comments Chapter 4 Scheme Description 8.4.23 Paragraph 4.45. It is unclear why the floating tracks are to be 7m wide, including 'useable verges', when the upgraded track will be only 4m wide. There is also no mention of passing places on the floating tracks and so whether they will have been taken into account in the assessment of impacts in the Ecology Chapter. We advise that impacts on habitats from infrastructure should be kept to the minimum necessary. 8.4.24 Paragraph 4.57. Micrositing. We are content with the micrositing proposals in principle. However, we recommend that none of Turbines 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 or 14 should be microsited any closer to the boundary with of the Lewis Peatlands SAC to avoid additional risks of impacts on qualifying features. 8.4.25 Paragraph 4.63. Working of Borrow Pits. Note that blasting can contribute to peat instability and this should be taken into account in assessing peat slide risk. 8.4.26 Paragraph 4.79. Construction of Cabling. As described in Chapter 7, Paragraph 7.92, check dams should be incorporated into cable trenches to prevent them acting as drains. 8.4.27 Paragraph 4.86. Site Restoration, General Approach. While the re-turfing method is appropriate, we consider that turf may be in short supply as the floating track construction method does not generate turf. It may therefore be necessary to give further consideration to how restoration would be achieved if this proves to be the case. 8.4.28 Paragraph 4.91. Turbine Bases and Hardstandings. It is not clear whether the creation of raised mounds is for landscaping purposes or if subsequent settlement is anticipated. Any raised mounds are likely to dry out and thus degrade. We therefore recommend that raised mounds be avoided. Appendix 4.2: Draft Peat Management Plan 8.4.29 Section 2.4.2. Rock Displacement. Although this method may be widely used in the Western Isles it is not without its risks. By definition, material, in this case peat, is displaced from one place to another. There is, however, uncertainty as to where it is displaced to, and indeed whether there is also a change in structure. The most likely direction in which the peat will move is up, given the resistance provided by the surrounding peat. If it does move up then water is likely to drain from the peat which has been forced above the original surface. 8.4.30 There is thus likely to be a change towards a drier form of the habitat which equates to a loss of quality. Alternative methods that were less likely to reduce the quality of the peatland habitat would be preferable. 8.4.31 Section 2.8.1. Restoration of Historical Peat Cuttings: We recommend that another criterion relates to the depth and extent of infilling, to reduce the risk of large scale slippage. 8.4.32 General: We welcome the preparation of the draft Peat Management Plan (PMP) and the overall approach to the issues being considered.
8.4.33 Section 5 Re-use Requirements: In the line in the table relating to 'Floating track verges' it is important that redistributed peat does not restrict drainage off the track surface. We would also recommend that in dressing the edges of the track there should be no burial of intact vegetation by redistributed peat. 8.4.34 Appendix 2: Peat Requirements: Foundations Table. It is not clear why the peat depths in this Table bear little relationship to the measured peat depths reported in Table 5.3 of Appendix 7.1: Stage 1 Peat Stability Assessment. Chapter 8 Ecology 8.4.35 Paragraph 8.4: It assumed that because there is no hydrological connection between the site and the adjacent SAC, which we accept, then operations on the site cannot affect the SAC. We do not accept this conclusion for the reasons given in relation to Appendix 7.1: Stage 1 Peat Stability Assessment. 8.4.36 Paragraphs 8.52 - 8.61: We welcome the clear description of the blanket bog, and subsequent other, habitats. 8.4.37 Paragraph 8.133. Ecological Clerk of Works: We welcome the identification of some of the responsibilities of the ECoW. We recommend that the ECoW be given explicit powers to stop any damaging activity or activities which are likely to lead to damage. 8.4.38 Paragraph 8.137: "A formal habitat management plan is not proposed as part of this wind farm". This runs contrary to good practice and suggests a failure to appreciate the quality and value of the habitats which will be lost and damaged if this proposed development goes ahead. We would encourage the developers to reconsider this position. 8.4.39 Chapter 7 Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat: Section 7.10. Given that the Peat Stability Assessment concluded that there were areas with the potential for significant risk of peat instability, we recommend that it is scoped back in to the Environmental Impact Assessment. Appendix 7.1: Stage 1 Peat Stability Assessment 8.4.40 Section 6.5.1 Methodology. While we are content with the general approach to Hazard Ranking, there is a lack of transparency in the assessments of the Hazard and Exposure Scales for individual cells. As a result, it is not possible to determine whether the Hazard Rankings have been determined appropriately. 8.4.41 On account of the above, and because of an apparent lack of consideration of the potential for a peat slide to affect, directly or indirectly, the SAC, we cannot assess whether, for example, a peat slide associated with infrastructure to the west of the site could block the watercourse which separates the site from the SAC resulting in loss or damage to qualifying features of the SAC. Provision of the following would address this issue: 8.4.42 The Hazard Ranking assessment is made more transparent and b) demonstration that, should a peat slide associated with the infrastructure immediately to the east of the SAC occur, it will not have a significant effect on the qualifying features of the SAC. Section 7.2 Construction Methodologies and Mitigation Measures 8.4.43 We welcome the identification of a range of relevant mitigation measures. Section 8.5 Further Works. We welcome the commitment to further investigation to reduce the potential risk of peat failure in areas identified as being of 'significant hazard'. However, with regard to the integrity of the adjoining Lewis Peatlands SAC, it may be necessary to undertake some of these works prior to determination of this application. ANNEX 2 - LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS Summary Advice 8.4.44 The LVIA is of good quality and reaches conclusions that are broadly sound. The proposal would generate major landscape and visual impacts in the vicinity of the village of North Tolsta. These impacts would particularly affect the visual amenity of the settlement and its surroundings. Aspects of the local landscape and coastal character
will also be acutely affected, when these are exposed to significant influence from the turbines on adjacent higher moorland. In particular, the rural character of Tolsta's crofting landscapes and the intimacy, enclosure and perceived scale of coastal areas in the vicinity of the village will be adversely affected. Wider impacts across Lewis are considered to be within the capacity of the landscape and visual resource. The proposal does not impinge on landscape interests that are nationally significant or scarce and, therefore, we do not consider the proposal raise issues of national importance. Landscape Impacts 8.4.45 The development site is predominantly located in the Boggy Moor 2 landscape character type (LCT), with a lesser proportion located in the Rocky Moor LCT. The Landscape Capacity Study for Onshore Wind Energy Development in the Western Isles (Benson et al, 2004) assesses both LCTs as providing 'medium' capacity for wind energy development. Proposed access to the site is from the B895, which serves as the primary route to the village of North Tolsta, a settlement which is comprised of Crofting 1 and Crofting 2 LCTs. Crofting 2, which is considered to be of medium-high sensitivity to wind energy development, is located closer to the development site than Crofting 1, which is of medium sensitivity. To the east of the settlement is Tolsta Head, with its associated bay and beach. This area is classified within the Machair LCT, which is of medium-high sensitivity. Overall, the landscape of the development site and the moorland to the west provides capacity for the proposed development. However, the development's proximity to settlement and coastal areas of sensitive rural character means that the wind farm has the potential to detract from valued landscape characteristics of Tolsta and its environs. The turbines would become a dominant new focus, adversely affecting the rural character of the settlement and the sense of intimacy, enclosure and perceived scale in the predominantly coastal areas to the east. Although the LVIA recognises the sensitivity of the eastward LCTs, we do not consider that the assessment emphasises the significance of landscape impacts that will affect the character of settlements and coastal areas within approximately 5km of the development site. In terms of wider effects on landscape character, we consider that the LVIA accurately assesses the likely impacts of the proposal. The turbines are distant from designated landscape interests and positioned in a location that provides an acceptable degree of separation between the proposed turbines and notable focal points in the landscape, such as Muirneag. Overall the impact of the proposal on valued landscape interests across the study area, comprising much of north Lewis, is not considered to be of national interest. Visual Impacts 8.4.46 We consider that the visual impact assessment has accurately predicted the effects of the proposal. There will be major impacts on visual amenity in North Tolsta, which will experience a dominant new visual focus. The emphasis of existing views is both along the coast and seawards, and the introduction of moving structures in the westward moorland will adversely affect the visual composition of the settlement's setting. This affects areas outwith the settlement, particularly in coastal areas that experience visibility. The adverse nature of this effect is recognised through the major impact that the LVIA predicts on views from the heritage trail that links Skigersta with Tolsta. The dominant nature of the development within views from these areas is clearly represented by the photomontage imagery for VP1 and VP3. 8.4.47 There are likely to be significant visual impacts experienced when travelling northbound on the B895. These are represented through the photomontage from VP6, at Tong, which is predicted to experience a significant effect. Elsewhere impacts on northbound journeys on the B895 continue, particularly northwards where a 5km stretch of road to the south of Tolsta is affected due to the close proximity and direction of view towards the development. As Tolsta is the final settlement served by the B895, the impact of the development on this final section of the road, in conjunction with the effects on the visual amenity of the settlement itself, are such that the experience of arriving at and visiting/dwelling in Tolsta is likely to be significantly adversely affected by the scale and proximity of the turbines. In the wider area the LVIA makes a suitable assessment of the impacts of the proposed development, which will generate adverse effects when viewed from a number of locations across the Eye Peninsula, due to this area's uninterrupted
views of the proposed development and the lateral extent of the development when viewed from this direction. An issue that should be clarified is the need for external transformers at the base of each turbine. Figure 4.2 illustrates a 'possible' external transformer beside a wind turbine elevation. We consider that the inclusion of 14 external transformers across the site is likely to increase the visual impact of the development, where these structures are apparent in views. We therefore recommend that the developer houses the transformers within the turbine towers, as supported by our Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape guidance. Cumulative Impacts 8.4.48 We do not consider the proposal to produce significant adverse cumulative issues in terms of its contribution to the pattern of consented and proposed commercial wind farms across Lewis. However, the close proximity of the Tolsta community turbine, which has a tip height approximately 50m below that of the turbines proposed at Druim Leathann, will not be visually complementary, particularly as contrasting speeds of rotation will limit perceptions that the turbines form a unified cluster. From some perspectives, such as those experienced from the B895, there will be separation between the developments, with the community turbine appearing outlying and distinct from the larger wind farm. However, from other locations, such as the Eye Peninsula, the community turbine will be in the foreground of the larger development and the contrasting scale and rotation speeds may generate adverse impacts due to the contrasting scene.’ SCOTTISH WATER - RESPONSE – 31 OCTOBER 2013
8.5 ‘Thank you for your letter dated 26th September 2013, regarding the above. 8.5.1 The Scottish Water submission, dated the 5 July 2013, does not require to be treated as an objection to the EIA and/or Planning Application for the Druim Leathann wind farm proposals (13/00215/PPDM). Scottish Water raised concerns that the proposed wind farm could potentially impact on the ability of Scottish Water to meet its regulatory requirements. The regulations relating to the quality of water supplied by Scottish Water are the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 2001. Quality Standards are derived from the European Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. Under Article 7 of the WFD we are required to ensure that activities within catchments do not result in a deterioration in water quality that would impact on the water treatment process. Impacts include if a source requires to be abandoned and an alternative used to provide the supply, water abstracted has to be blended with water abstracted from another source, additional purification treatment has to be applied or the operating demand on the existing purification treatment system has to be significantly increased. 8.5.2 A meeting was held between Scottish Water and the developer on 30 August 2013 to discuss Scottish Water concerns and requirements. An action log was produced and there has been discussion and correspondence since to address outstanding issues. A number of the key concerns have now been addressed; please refer to the Action Log version 3 dated 08/09/13 and Summary of Agreed Actions Revision 4 dated 14/10/13. 8.5.3 A few items remain to be addressed, however it is acceptable for these to be addressed at a later date within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Risk Assessments (RA), Method Statements (MS), Pollution Prevention Plans (PPP) and the Peat Management Plan (PMP), which has been agreed will be submitted to Scottish Water for approval prior to any activities commencing on site. It has also been agreed to assess the potential to incorporate additional mitigation measures (once known) within the CEMP. 8.5.4 The developer will require to provide assurances that the wind farm and associated activities will not result in water quality from the site deteriorating and resulting in water quality out with the treatment works design envelope. An assessment of the risk to the treatment envelope is to be included within the PPP. In addition, any water quality issues occurring following construction will be monitored, investigated and remedied. 8.5.5 In relation to the specific issue of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), a number of mitigation measures have been proposed in the Environmental Statement, such as
floating roads, undertaking activities out with the higher risk period, early restoration of disturbed areas, etc. The impact of activities and disturbance of peat and resultant impact on Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and water quality at this site is not known and further information is to be provided through the CEMP, MS and PMP and as the development progresses any impacts that materialise will require to be addressed. 8.5.6 In the event of an incident that may impact on water quality and the treatment works, there will be immediate notification of Scottish Water and the PPP will detail Scottish Water central and local emergency contact details including the Public Health Team. 8.5.7 I trust that the above is acceptable in the mean time however, if you have any questions relating to the above do not hesitate to contact me at the above address.’
SCOTTISH WATER RESPONSE DATED 30 SEPTEMBER 2013
8.5.8 Please find attached an update to the Scottish Water (SW) Response to ES Consultation V2 tracker produced by 2020renewables, dated 30/08/13.
Druim Leathann Wind Farm, Tolsta 8.5.9 Scottish Water note dated 30/08/13 amending earlier notes circulated
Ref No.1 8.5.10 DLWF response accepted. Following provision of further information, SW request that the impact of the proposal on the treatment envelope is assessed. Actions: 1. SW to provide additional information on current operational capacity of Tolsta WTW with regard to colour/DOC and THM thresholds and treatment ‘envelope’.- Sample data obtained and graphs attached 2. SW to assess potential for alternative disinfection procedures.- The treatment process uses chloramination. Disinfection by chloramination reduces THM formation and other ‘disinfection by-products’ in comparison to chlorination. Changes to existing process due to deteriorating water quality could result in the Drinking Water Protected Area being classed as failing under Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. It is far more cost effective to prevent organic material from entering the raw water supply than to remove it afterwards. Ref No. 2 8.5.11 From the raw water sampling data it would appear there is a seasonal trend in the colour. There is limited TOC data at this time. As discussed at the meeting, targeting works out with the high risk periods and particularly for the activities closer to the intake, could reduce the risk.
8.5.12 Please note that a number of the turbines, crane hardstanding areas and roads are in close proximity to the actual intake and Loch Ionadagro which SW directly abstract from. The close proximity rather than the total catchment area affected is a concern and risk and requires to be appropriately managed.
Ref No. 3 8.5.13 SW to provide information / update on the use of food grade oils at wind farm developments on SW catchments. - SW still to obtain this information and send once received.
Ref No. 4 8.5.14 SW to provide clarification regarding concern.- This concern was in relation to responsibility in the event of an incident. Both parties will require to work together to reduce the risks and address any issues that arise.
Ref No. 8 8.5.15 There will be generic insurance arrangements for the wind farm development.
8.5.16 Ref No. 14 1) SW to provide clarification regarding apparent colour and normal colour requirement.- Apparent colour is required to give a representation of the whole sample colour including suspended and dissolved compounds. True colour is the dissolved component only following filtering of the sample. Both will be required to understand the potential impacts on the water treatment process and the costs associated with apparent colour analysis is very low. Filtered and unfiltered sample can be analysed in the same batch of analysis.
2) SW to provide clarification regarding DOC and / or TOC requirement. - DOC and TOC are the main target parameters which need to be monitored before, during and after the construction of wind farm development. Identified risk of failing THM standards in drinking water should be closely monitored and DOC (dissolved fraction of organic carbon) is closely related with the formation of THMs in treated water during disinfection. Both, DOC and TOC should be monitored at all agreed sampling locations.
3) SW to provide clarification of need for / justification for bacteriological analysis. DLWF view is that bacteriological results will fluctuate greatly depending upon the prevailing flow conditions. - The risk of bacteriological input can increase when land is disturbed and the hydrology is altered. Land disturbance in the area prior to and during the wind farm construction can impact on bacteriological releases to watercourses in the area. SW therefore would require this to be monitored at the sample points. There has been a recent press articles regarding the potential impact of a wind farm development on E Coli and other coliform bacteria in private water supplies. 4) SW to provide clarification of need for / justification for flow metering. DLWF view is that the vast majority of carbon loading will be from out-with the wind farm footprint and query the cost benefit of installing flow gauging weirs noting that flow ranges may be estimated using other techniques. Following further consideration of this, flow gauging may not be appropriate for this site and may not be able to provide particularly useful information. As discussed at the meeting another form of determining and assessing he flows in the watercourses such as sub-catchment calculations and photos, in particular at the sampling points when samples are taken, would be beneficial and provide a suitable alternative. It is not know what the relative contributions of carbon will be from within or from out with the wind farm area. 8.5.17 It has not been included in the notes from the meeting, however it was discussed that the following sampling points will be required for SW purposes: 1 Allt Mhor - NGR NB 5111 4686 (existing location proposed by DLWF) 2 Scottish Water abstraction point at Loch Ionadagro (adjacent to the dam) - NGR NB 5131 4645 3 Inlet to Loch Gaineamhaich - NGR NB 5103 4766 – to enable an assessment of the impact of the activities in the upper catchment from those in the lower catchment in closer proximity to the intake. Also to provide an early warning of any issues 4 On the Feadan Mor a Chuil - NGR NB 5117 4854, just above the confluence with the watercourse between Loch Diridean and Loch Lingeabhat Mor to be used as a control site. Points 1, 2 and 4 were agreed, however the requirement for point 3 was questioned and the purpose for including this point is detailed above and SW would still request that this point is included.
Ref No.15 8.5.18 SW to clarify expectations in relation to field monitoring equipment. - Field monitoring for colour, pH and hydrocarbons, would be more appropriate than as previously stated requirement for all parameters.
Ref No. 21 8.5.19 SW to provide information on current contingency arrangements and logistics of providing alternative supplies / tankered and bottled water supplies for population served by Tolsta WTW. - SW have these plans in place but are unable to release this information at this time.
8.5.20 Additional Request not detailed in documentation or discussed at the meeting which would be a key influence on DOC releases is for information to be provided regarding the drainage proposed for the site in particular around the turbine and crane hardstanding areas. The drainage of peatlands and lowering of the water table can result in the subsequent oxidation of the peat which can be the key contributing factor to the release of carbon. The impact on the water table and impact on the peat during and post construction in the medium to long term can have a key impact and therefore requires be assessing and mitigating.
SCOTTISH WATER RESPONSE DATED 5 JULY 2013 8.5.21 ‘Thank you for consulting with Scottish Water (SW) regarding the proposed wind farm proposed by Druim Leathann Windfarm Limited (DLWL). As you will be aware the wind farm and associated infrastructure is within the catchment area for the Loch Ionadagro Drinking Water Protected Area (DWPA). Please see comments below for you attention and the consultants promoting the development. Generic Comments 8.5.22 SW has significant concern regarding the impact of the wind farm development on water quality. No deterioration in water quality can be accepted. Water Treatment Works (WTW) are designed to work within a designed water quality envelope and changes in the catchment which impact on water quality seriously impact the ability to provide compliant drinking water to customers. At this source and WTW there are already concerns in relation to Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and the formation of Trihalomethanes (THMs). THMs are a group of chemicals that include chloroform. They are by-products of disinfection and form when naturally occurring organic material, such as humic acids derived from peat, react with chlorine used to disinfect the water. SW is regulated for this parameter and the Prescribed Concentration Value (PCV) for THMs is 100 microgrammes per litre for a sum of four THMs, including chloroform. Any activities or processes within the catchment which result in disturbance of peat and therefore DOC releases, will seriously affect the ability of SW to maintain compliant drinking water for customers. 8.5.23 Section 7.67 of your Environmental Statement, recognises that changes in land management practices such as cutting can influence the wetness of peat soils and also the potential for sedimentation and increased DOC in surface runoff. From past experience, during and post construction of wind farms, the disturbance of peat can increase the release of DOC and cause serious issues with drinking water supplies. The use of floating roads and spurs rather than circular loops and the type of turbine foundation, will reduce the requirement for cutting into peat which is welcome, however there will still be a risk from these activities and other activities and other mitigations measures have not been detailed to ensure that there is no deterioration in water quality. SW request further assessment and mitigation to be undertaken to ensure that there is no deterioration in water quality and in particular DOC. SW would seek demonstration that the water quality will not deteriorate as a result of the proposal. 8.5.24 SW request that food grade oils are used as lubricants within the turbines that are located within the catchment. 8.5.25 Public Health issues are not specifically addressed in respect of responsibility in the event of a risk identified. This should be addressed within the plans. Draft Pollution Prevention Plan 8.5.26 In section 2.5, it would be more appropriate for the monitoring and progress reports produced by the Principle Contractor to be provided fortnightly rather than monthly to the
Scottish Water Environmental Representative (SWER). SWER should then also report to SW fortnightly. This can be reviewed at a later date. 8.5.27 In general there are no specific mitigation measures detailed such as silt traps, settlement ponds, etc. This information will be required. 8.5.28 In section 3.3, the SEMP should include provision that if there are any water quality issues that materialise post construction, that this can be monitored, investigated and remedied. Possible examples are the impacts of colour and DOC on the ability of our Tolsta WTW to suitably treat water. Provisions should also be made for the ongoing maintenance of the roads, turbines, site, etc. 8.5.29 A contingency fund requires to be put in place to address any impacts on water quality and quantity during and post construction. 8.5.30 Section 4.2 states the main potential incident being in relation to fuel/oil/chemical spills and sediment contaminated run-off, however there is a significant potential impact from colour and DOC which requires to be recognised and addressed. 8.5.31 Section 4.3 details the requirements in relation to reporting and investigating pollution incidents however it does not mention or address the situation of immediate notification to SW in the event of a serious incidents that may impact on the water quality and WTW. This requires to be covered in the PPP and potentially a means of contractors and the SWER being able to determine the serious nature of an incident and the level of notification required to SW. 8.5.32 In section 4.4, the incident response training should include a practical exercise in the use of the spillage equipment and process. 8.5.33 Within Section 4.5.1, SW would request that a spill kit is made available within all vehicles. 8.5.34 Section 4.5.3. The SWEM must contact and liaise with CNES regarding emergency response equipment stored by Briggs Marine at Stornoway. Section 5.2 Water Quality Sampling 8.5.35 To generate baseline water quality information, fortnightly samples will be collected by quality approved sampling officer from the following 3 locations 12 months prior to site works commencing. Weekly samples will be taken during the construction stage and post hand-over for a period agreed with Scottish Water. 8.5.36 Water quality monitoring (sampling) locations requested by Scottish Water are described below: 1 Allt Mhor - NGR NB 5111 4686 2 Scottish Water abstraction point at Loch Ionadagro (adjacent to the dam) - NGR NB 5131 4645 3 Inlet to Loch Gaineamhaich - NGR NB 5103 4766 8.5.37 And potentially one upstream of any works within the catchment as a control. 8.5.38 For the above locations analysis will also include: Apparent colour (non-filtered sample) Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Presumptive coliforms (CFU in 100ml) Presumptive E coli (CFU in 100ml) 8.5.39 All analysis should be conducted by quality assured laboratory (UKAS accreditation) and the results reported to Scottish Water and SWER (Scottish Water Environmental Representative) on a monthly basis.
8.5.40 All subsequent monitoring results will be compared with the baseline data-set to identify any impacts of the development on the surface water quality and to identify the requirement for any appropriate remedial measures. 8.5.41 SW would also like to request that flow gauging is also undertaken to be used along with the sampling results to determine loads. The location of this should be agreed with SW. Section 5.3 Surveillance inspections and site audits 8.5.42 Regular visual inspection of identified vulnerable watercourses during construction and decommissioning stages should be carried out, particularly during periods of high rainfall, in order to establish that levels of suspended solids, organic carbon and colour have not been increased by site activities - outcome of this should be reported to Scottish Water and SWER minimum on a monthly basis. 8.5.43 DLWL will provide an on-site field test kit for water samples to cover all parameters listed in the PPP. Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat 8.5.44 In section 7.10, regarding peat instability. It is stated that there is the potential for ‘significant’ risk of peat instability at turbine 1. Significant risk means further ground investigations and more detailed risk assessment with the main hazard being safe undertaking construction works to protect site workers and construction plant. This turbine is within the catchment and there could be a significant risk to water quality if there was peat slippage. This requires to be taken into account and mitigated 8.5.45 In section 7.123 - 7.126, as is mentioned there is a raw water main within the proposed site boundary. Please see the attached list of precautions to be taken within Appendix 1. Please also note the comment in relation to section 7.94 below. 8.5.46 Section 7.129 states that trigger levels are to be identified to initiate remedial action, it would appear that these still require to be discussed and agreed with SW. 8.5.47 Section 7.70 and Map 7.4. Our preference would be for all turbines to be removed from the catchment to remove the risk to public water supply. If this is not feasible, to reduce the risk of disturbance within the catchment, SW would request that turbines 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and the associated roads are moved further back from the reservoir and tributaries. We would also request that turbines 8, 10 and 14 and their associated roads are relocated out with the catchment. It is stated that 50m buffer strips were applied to watercourses within the SW catchment area, however turbine 11 appears to be in close proximity to a watercourse feeding directly into Loch Ionadagro. 8.5.48 Within sections 7.78 and 7.80, SW would request that there is no storage of fuel, chemicals or hazardous materials within the catchment boundary and that no refuelling takes place within the catchment unless it can be demonstrated to be impracticable for certain vehicles to travel out with the catchment for fuelling. 8.5.49 Section 7.94 states that a contingency plan will also be developed during the design phase of the wind farm to make provision for an alternative water supply in the unlikely event that a significant and uncontained pollution event occurs within the catchment that renders the public water supply un-potable. Please be aware that under some recent investigations there are limited feasible options for an alternative supply and therefore there is a significant risk at this site to maintain supplies to customers if there was a pollution incident. This requires to be investigated as a priority to determine if this is feasible as soon as possible and may impact on the viability of the proposal. Any contingency arrangements must be agreed with and approved by SW to ensure the required water quality can be met at customers’ taps. 8.5.50 Once constructed, site roads should be regularly maintained to ensure minimal erosion and hence pollution, from the road surface. Sites roads should be constructed from inert materials.
8.5.51 We would welcome further discussion with the developers to enable the points above to be satisfactorily addressed and to ensure that sufficient importance is given to protecting water supplies. 8.5.52 Prior to any activities commencing on site, please notify Scottish Water and upon completion. In the event of an emergency, please contact Scottish Water on 0845 600 8855. 8.5.53 I trust that the above is acceptable however, if you have any questions relating to the above do not hesitate to contact me at the above address.’ 8.5.54 PAN 79 states that “the planning authority should be satisfied that proposals would not have an adverse impact on water quality, public health or the environment”.
MOD RESPONSE – 31 OCTOBER 2013 8.6.1 I am writing further to the letter of objection dated the 6th June 2013 to provide the Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar with the updated position. 8.6.2 Following submission of the objection letter, the applicant and their consultant have been in discussions with the Met Office, regarding the objection. At the same time, as you will be aware, the Met Office have been in discussions with Lewis Wind Power Limited in respect of planning permission for the erection of the Stornoway Wind Farm, which contains a condition relating to the Druim-a-Starraig radar. The Scottish Ministers on 7 September 2012 granted to Lewis Wind Power Limited consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and deemed planning permission for the erection of the Stornoway Wind Farm 1.5 kilometres west of Stornoway. 8.6.3 The section 36 consent was granted subject to a condition that a Radar Mitigation Scheme be submitted by the operator. The Scheme is to set out the measures to replace the existing Druim-a-Starraig weather radar by installing a radar installation at a suitable alternative location for meteorological radar on the Western Isles, to provide radar coverage which is no worse than that currently provided by the existing radar installation. 8.6.4 The Met Office and Lewis Wind Power Limited are currently progressing the terms of the Radar Mitigation Scheme. The preferred site for the replacement radar is at An Campar Mor, Isle of Lewis (approximate grid reference E153844 N959431). A planning application for the installation of a new radar at Campar Mor was lodged with Comhairle nan Eilean Siar on 16th October 2013. 8.6.5 Further to a meeting with the applicant of the Druim-a-Starraig Leathann proposed wind farm, 2020 Renewables, the Met Office has given particular consideration to the impact of the Druim-a-Starraig Leathann wind farm on the operational effectiveness of the radar at Druim-a-Starraig. The Met Office expects there would be some interference caused by the proposal on the weather radar; however, in this instance due to the compact nature of the wind farm footprint, and the specific location of the turbines within the radar coverage, the degradation caused by interference would not greatly impact the operational services in the area. In light of this the Met Office is, in respect of the Druim- a-Starraig radar, therefore prepared to remove its objection to the scheme. 8.6.6 The Met Office considers every wind farm scheme on an individual basis. A particular consideration is given to the potential impact of any wind farm proposal on the operational effectiveness of the weather radar, and at present the Met Office is undertaking further work to help quantify these impacts. 8.6.7 Please note that the MOD/Met Office will seek to issue a new Met Office radar safeguarding map to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar in respect of the proposed new location at Campar Mor should the recent planning application receive consent. However as a relocation cannot be stated with certainty, and it is impossible to provide any firm commitment at this stage regarding timings of a move, the existing safeguarding provisions in respect of the Drium-a-Starraig radar will continue until such time as the radar at this location is decommissioned.
8.6.8 For the avoidance of any doubt, the MOD does not object to the Druim-a-Starraig Leathann wind farm proposal (ref. 13/00215/PPDM). The MOD assessment has been carried out on the basis that there will be 14 turbines, 126.50 metres in height from ground level to blade tip and located at the grid references below as stated in the planning application or provided by the developer: Turbine 100km Square letter Easting Northing 1 NB 51725 48484 2 NB 52024 48324 3NB 52173 48003 4NB 51263 47789 5NB 51737 47854 6NB 52005 47543 7NB 51127 47331 8NB 51562 47432 NB 51273 47008 NB 51742 47077 NB 51362 46661 NB 51800 46725 NB 51649 46357 NB 52162 48844 8.6.9 The MOD requests that all perimeter turbines be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point. 8.6.10 MOD Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified about the progress of planning applications and submissions relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence interests. 8.6.11 I trust the above provides sufficient information. Please let me know if you require further information. HIAL RESPONSES Response Dated 13 November 2013 8.7 (Email from HIAL) I believe that we have reached a point with the developers which will enable Highlands and Islands Airports Limited to remove its objection to this development. This will be subject to approval by the CAA Safety and Airspace Regulation Group. The process for approval is underway and early signs are that it likely to be acceptable.
Response Dated 28 May 2013 8.7.1 ‘Part of this development falls inside the safeguarded areas for Stornoway Airport (as defined in CAP 764 - CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines and CAP 670 - Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements) and some of the turbines could present physical infringements to these areas. 8.7.2 The turbines could possibly impact on the Instrument Flight Procedures and/or the performance of electronic aeronautical systems for the airport. HIAL would not wish to see a degradation of any of these services. 8.7.3 Details are awaited from the Civil Aviation Authority's Directorate of Airspace Policy on the potential impact of this development on Stornoway Airport's operation. 8.7.4 Therefore HIAL would respectfully request that its comments relating to this development can be delayed until the above details are received, and any potential issues are resolved.’
NATS 8.8 ‘The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
8.8.1 If any changes are proposed to the information supplied to NERL in regard to this application which become the basis of a revised, amended or further application for approval, then as a statutory consultee NERL requires that it be further consulted on any such changes prior to any planning permission or any consent being granted.’ ATKINS GLOBAL 8.9 ‘The above application has now been examined in relation to UHF Radio Scanning Telemetry communications used by our Client in that region and we are happy to inform you that we have NO OBJECTION to your proposal.
8.9.1 Please note that this is not in relation to any Microwave Links operated by Scottish Water. Atkins Limited is responsible for providing Wind Farm/Turbine support services to TAUWI.’
OFCOM - SCOTTISH RADIO NETWORKS 8.10 ‘The above application has now been examined in relation to UHF Radio Scanning Telemetry communications used by our Client in that region and we are happy to inform you that we have NO OBJECTION to your proposal. 8.10.1. Please note that this is not in relation to any Microwave Links operated by Scottish Water 8.10.2. Atkins Limited is responsible for providing Wind Farm/Turbine support services to TAUWI.’ OFCOM - JOINT RADIO COMPANY 8.11 ‘Cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by:- Scottish Hydro (Scottish & Southern Energy) and Scotia Gas Networks 8.11.1. JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry and the Water Industry in north-west England. This is to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements. 8.11.2. In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data you have provided. However, if any details of the wind farm change, particularly the disposition or scale of any turbine(s), it will be necessary to re-evaluate the proposal. 8.11.3. In making this judgement, JRC has used its best endeavours with the available data, although we recognise that there may be effects which are as yet unknown or inadequately predicted. JRC cannot therefore be held liable if subsequently problems arise that we have not predicted. 8.11.4. It should be noted that this clearance pertains only to the date of its issue. As the use of the spectrum is dynamic, the use of the band is changing on an ongoing basis and consequently, developers are advised to seek re-coordination prior to considering any design changes. ATKINS - CONNECTED COMMUNITIES 07 NOVEMBER 2013 8.12 No objection raised.
TOLSTA COMMUNITY COUNCIL 8.13 ‘On behalf of North Tolsta Community Council I write to affirm our support of the 14 turbine, Druim Leathann Windfarm. 8.13.1 The Community Council have been kept fully informed by 2020 Renewables and have examined their proposal and have concluded that the detailed Environmental Impact Assessment has identified every aspect which might affect the environment and that they have where possible, minimised and eliminated any negative impacts on the environment. 8.13.2 The Development will provide local jobs during the construction and after construction will require the recruitment of full time staff to maintain the windfarm.
8.13.3 This application will bring significant benefits to the communities of North Tolsta and New Tolsta, through Community Benefit payments of £7,000 per MW initially (£294,000 per year for years 1-12) and £10,000 per MW for years 13-25) which undoubtedly is an important economic consideration. 8.13.4 We as representatives of families resident in the area have after many hours of consultation concluded that the 14 turbine development will have very little effect on the landscape and visual amenity, ecology and water resources and taking into account the importance of the Community Benefits to the up and coming generations would ask you to consider this letter as our unequivocal support of Druim Leathann Windfarm.’ BACK COMMUNITY COUNCIL 8.14 No response received.
NESS COMMUNITY COUNCIL 8.15 No response received.
INTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE ‘Background 9.1 Druim Leathann Wind farm Limited (DLWL) has applied for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct a 14 turbine wind farm (42MW) at Druim Leathann in the north east of Lewis, 16km north east of Stornoway and 2km west of the township of Tolsta. DLWL is a wholly owned subsidiary of Velocita Energy Developments Limited. 2020 Renewables is part of the Velocita Group and will be responsible for project management of the development and its development, construction and operation. 9.1.1 The proposed wind farm comprises: 14 turbines at 126.5m height to blade tip, 8km of new permanent access tracks, 1.1km of upgraded existing tracks, crane hardstandings, connecting cabling, a permanent 80m wind monitoring mast, a substation / control building and two temporary onsite borrow pits. 9.1.2 Turbines will be delivered from Arnish Yard and the site will be accessed from the B895 at two locations.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS Construction Impact 9.1.3 No capital construction cost for the wind farm has been provided by 2020 Renewables. Also, no indication is given whether turbine components are to be fabricated at Arnish Yard, Stornoway. If turbine components fabricated elsewhere are landed at Arnish for onward shipment to the Druim Leathann site, this will have an appreciable impact on the level of local construction employment from this project. 9.1.4 Notwithstanding the above, 2020 Renewables give an undertaking that, “wherever possible, local contractors and employees are used in all aspects of the wind farm development. The major opportunity to do this lies during construction when suitably qualified firms will be able to bid for a significant portion of the construction work on tracks, foundations and buildings. Construction materials will be sourced locally and local transport and plant hire companies will be used wherever possible”. Direct Employment Site Construction 9.1.5 2020 Renewables estimate that an average of 40 employees involved in site construction work at any one time. These employees will be engaged in road building, base construction, cabling, turbine erection, substation construction, turbine commissioning and support / management. 40 employees for 12 months equates to 40 person years of direct employment or 4.0 permanent FTE’s.
9.1.6 When calculating project impact, some assessment should be made of net overall impact to the Outer Hebrides. In this case, it is estimated that, of the 4.0 FTE’s created, 0.6 FTE might be taken up by workers coming into the Outer Hebrides and 0.2 FTE might represent displacement from other sectors in the local economy. It would be reasonable, therefore, to estimate a net overall impact for the Outer Hebrides of 3.2 FTE’s. This is a significant impact as it represents 32 locally sourced personnel on site over the entire construction period. 9.1.7 The developer estimates that local residents will take up 85% of construction jobs but this may be overstated. Given the capacity of the local construction industry, a percentage of 75% may be more appropriate. It is reasonable to assume that 10% of construction jobs will relate to specialisms which are not available in the Outer Hebrides. Indirect and Induced Employment 9.1.8 The most recent set of Regional Accounts for the Outer Hebrides (Aberdeen University, 2005) provide multipliers which can be used to estimate Indirect and Induced Employment from a known level of Direct Employment. Indirect Employment includes jobs created through the procurement of supplies and services by the contractor as they build the Wind Farm. Induced Employment is created when the additional revenue generated by a project translates into increased spend in local shops and facilities. 9.1.9 The following table demonstrates the level of Indirect and Induced Employment anticipated from Direct Employment of 4.0 FTE in the construction of Druim Leathann Windfarm:
DIRECT MULTIPLIER ADDITIONAL TOTAL TOTAL FTE FTE FTE FTE YEARS CONSTRUCTION 3.2 0.35 1.1 4.3 43 TOTALS 3.2 1.1 4.3 43 This level of Indirect and Induced Employment is considered to be of minor positive impact in the island context.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 9.1.10 2020 Renewables estimates that 4.0 FTE’s will be created in the lifetime operation and maintenance of Druim Leathann Windfarm with 80% of this figure (3.2 FTE) drawn from the local labour pool. This work will include operation and maintenance of the turbines, electrical maintenance and site upkeep. In comparison with other, similarly scaled schemes, this seems a reasonable assumption. 9.1.11 Using the Regional Accounts Multiplier, 3.2 FTE’s will yield 1.3 FTE of additional Indirect and Induced Employment. 9.1.12 The total Operational Impact of 4.5 FTE’s is considered reasonable and positively significant in the island context.
COMMUNITY IMPACTS 9.1.13 The Wind Farm owners have a strong track record in delivering Community Benefit from Windfarms across Scotland and 2020 Renewables has engaged well with the local community in negotiation of a mutually acceptable level of Community Benefit from the Druim Leathann scheme. There has been a clear indication from the public consultations that Community Benefit funds from the scheme should be managed and distributed within Tolsta township. 9.1.14 The Financial Model developed by 2020 Renewables proposes a figure of £7,000 per MW for Community Benefit purposes. On the proposed level of MW installed, this equates to £294,000 per annum or £7 million over the 25 year lifetime of the Windfarm. A rate of £7,000 per MW is relatively high in the Scottish context and, if concentrated within Tolsta township, will have a major positive significance in the host community.
9.1.15 A study by Steve Westbrooke into the impact of Community Benefit payments in the Outer Hebrides suggests that 77 FTE (Direct, Indirect and Induced) jobs will be created for every £10 million of Community Benefit funding received by a Development Trust at 2005 prices. Adjusting for inflation revises this figure to 63 FTE jobs at 2013 prices. Application of this generally accepted formula means that £7 million over the 25 year lifetime of Druim Leathann Windfarm will result in the creation of 44 FTE jobs. Since Tolsta Development Limited will not be geared solely to the generation of employment, it may be prudent to apply a factor of 50% to this figure meaning that it would be reasonable to expect 22 FTE jobs to be created over the lifetime of the Druim Leathann Windfarm from the investment of Community Benefit.
CONCLUSIONS 9.1.16 The following impacts from the 42MW Druim Leathann Windfarm are considered reasonable:
DIRECT INDIRECT/INDUCED TOTALS (FTE) CONSTRUCTION 3.2 1.1 4.3 OPERATION 3.2 1.3 4.5 COMMUNITY 22.0 22.0 BENEFIT TOTALS 30.8 9.1.17 Where appropriate, the assumptions of the developer have been validated against accepted external multipliers and formulae and the above table represents a realistic and achievable level of employment generation through the construction, operation and benefit disbursement phases of the Druim Leathann Windfarm. These benefits are considered to be positively significant for the island economy.’ COMHAIRLE TECHNICAL SERVICES – ROADS 9.2 ‘A traffic management plan should be submitted for approval showing the proposed movements of haulage and site traffic. 9.2.1 The additional traffic arising from the construction of these developments can easily be classified as "extraordinary" and it is therefore proposed that an agreement be reached with the respective developers on a range of standard conditions and requirements that would permit the development to go forward.' COMHAIRLE ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE 9.3 ‘The subjects of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage are considered in chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement. The report identifies the range of known cultural heritage assets, the potential for unknown cultural heritage and designated cultural heritage assets within a landscape setting, potentially affected by the wind farm development. The Comhairle Archaeology Service welcomes the inclusion of a dedicated chapter that assesses the impact of the development on the cultural heritage resource. 9.3.1 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) advises relating to the construction and operation of onshore wind farm's state the renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated in a location where the technology is viable and where economic, environmental and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. In order to comply with this the applicant should ensure that the proposal is capable of satisfactorily addressing any significant impacts which may arise in respect of cultural heritage.
9.3.2 Furthermore guidance set out in the SPP, SHEP and PAN2/11 notes that where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, are affected by a proposed development, there should a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in-situ, and a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have significant effect on the setting of visible remains. Whilst preservation of in-situ is preferred, it may also be possible to mitigate impacts to archaeological remains of less than national importance via programs of archaeological excavation and /or watching brief, enabling the preservation by record of archaeological deposits destroyed or damaged by a development. Guidance concerning cultural heritage is reflected in policies contained in the CnES Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan. 9.3.3 The potential for unknown archaeological remains to be present and the difficulty in quantifying this is noted in section12.29 of the ES; unrecorded assets could be present within or below the peat layers and may not exclusively reflect prehistory. Section 12.31 notes that there is no positive evidence to suggest the presence of prehistoric archaeological remains within the site and goes on to state that there is only one example of Neolithic settlement in the Western lsles, however this is misguided. Other sites excavated in the Western Isles have indicated settlement such as Alt Chrysal, Eilean Domhnuill and Udal, with numerous other sites giving strong indications of Neolithic settlement below later archaeological layers. 'Settlement' is only one specific site type; others might include burial and other monumental structures, trackways and field systems. The excavated kerb cairn at Olcote, Calanais is indicative of the potential of buried unknown remains in shallow peat coverage. This site was only discovered during road widening works in 1995. 9.3.4 The potential impacts identified in the ES (Section 12.42) note the predicted impacts, both direct and indirect from the development on any archaeological remains. 9.3.5 The main construction works with potential direct impacts to the cultural heritage resource are mentioned in the report and include: Borrow pits, Access tracks, Drainage and hydrological changes, Transformer bases, Turbine Bases, Temporary hardstandings, Cable trenches, Heavy plant movement, Sub station construction and tree felling. In addition to this peat slippage, landscaping and decommissioning also requires to be considered. 9.3.6 The mitigation strategies presented in section 12.45 -12.48 of the report indicate that an archaeological clerk of works will be appointed for the project prior to the construction of the wind farm. 9.3.7 The initial stage of assessment will be an auger survey in order to inform the potential for archaeological and palaeoenvironmental remains over areas of potential construction impact. It is important that the Archaeology Service CnES and the ACoW agree a project design for the auger survey prior to any work taking place. The information gained from this assessment will further inform any strategies that may be implemented should buried archaeological remains be encountered. A mitigation strategy can be discussed only once the results of the survey are available to be considered. In the event that significant archaeological remains are identified, other appropriate works such as geophysics, evaluation or archaeological monitoring may be recommended. Further mitigation may range from micrositing of elements of the development and preservation in situ of archaeological remains, to full excavation, post excavation analysis and publication. 9.3.8 The development is situated on the eastern edge of an area of extensive peatland; the number of recorded archaeological sites in the wider environs of the development are low. However the very nature of this landscape and the processes which formed it indicate a potential for unrecorded buried archaeological and / or palaeoenvironmental remains to be encountered within the development zone.
9.3.9 Therefore we recommend a limited program of archaeological works (including any new access roads) in order to inform any strategy of mitigation that maybe necessary; this is required to identify any unknown archaeological features that may be present. To address archaeological concerns a range of standard conditions are proposed.’
COMHAIRLE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE RESPONSE DATED 27 AUGUST 2013 9.4 ‘The Scottish Government Planning Advisory Note on “Onshore Wind Turbines” states: 9.4.1 The Report, "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" (Final Report, Sept 1996, DTI), (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. This gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise conditions. 9.4.2 I have assessed the information in the Developers Environmental Assessment in line with this document. Day-Time Noise 9.4.3 ETSU recommends between 35-40 dB(A) or 5dB(A) above background noise levels (which ever is the greater) for day-time noise limits to minimise disturbance. The Comhairle normally applies conditions with a day-time limit of 35dB(A) or 5dB(A) above background (which ever is the greater). This condition had been applied to the adjacent community owned wind energy development. 9.4.4 The developer considers a 38dB(A) limit with a cumulative 40dB(A) limit (which includes noise from the existing community turbine) more appropriate which although within ETSU parameters is 5 dB(A) above levels that we have applied and previously conditioned for other wind farm developments. Extracts of the relevant ETSU-R-97 paragraphs and the Developers reasoning are detailed below:
ETSU-R-97 Developer Number of dwellings in the Given: the low population density of the neighbourhood of the wind farm. area and the relatively few number of The planning process is trying to properties affected by noise; the scale of balance the benefits arising out of the this Windfarm, in addition to the effect that development of renewable energy having a limit at the lower end of this range sources against the local environmental would have on the number of turbines impact. The more dwellings that are in installed, it is justified to set the limit the vicinity of a wind farm the tighter the toward the upper end of the range. limits should be as the total environmental impact will be greater. To support this, it must be recognised that Conversely if only a few dwellings are the power generating capacity of modern affected, then the environmental impact wind turbines has dramatically increased is less and noise limits towards the over that which was typical at the time the upper end of the range may be ETSU-R-97 guidelines were produced. For appropriate. Developers still have to example at the time the guide was consider the interests of individuals as produced, a wind farm site comprising protected under the Environmental around 70 turbines would have been Protection Act 1990. It is our belief required to achieve a similar generating however, in accordance with the report capacity to that of the Windfarm, thus of the Welsh Affairs Committee [23], highlighting the significance of the scheme. that there have been no cases of When also considering the change in complaints of noise at levels similar to background noise levels with wind speeds those caused by wind farms leading to derived from the baseline survey, a fixed a successful prosecution as a statutory limit of 38 dB(A) for day-time periods is nuisance. It should be noted however considered suitable wholly appropriate. that the Welsh Affairs Committee also reports that although the noise may not Furthermore, when considering the be a statutory nuisance it can clearly be cumulative situation, and the increased
a cause for distress and disturbance, generating capacity this represents as well particularly if residents have been as the disproportionate impact on overall promised inaudibility and the noise has generating capacity that trying to a particular quality leading to accommodate a reduced limit with the complaints. contribution of the Tolsta Community Turbine, it is considered appropriate to The effect of noise limits on the increase this day-time fixed lower limit to number of kWh generated. the upper end of the range specified in Similar arguments can be made when ETSU-R-97, or 40 dB(A). The consented considering the effect of noise limits on Tolsta Community turbine is already uptake of wind energy. A single wind predicted to generate levels of turbine causing noise levels of 40dB(A) approximately 35 dB(A) at the nearest at several nearby residences would properties, for a capacity of 1 MW. have less planning merit (noise Achieving reduced cumulative noise levels considerations only) than 30 wind would require a disproportionate turbines also causing the same amount curtailment of power generation for the of noise at several nearby residences. Windfarm.
Duration and level of exposure. The proportion of the time at which background noise levels are low and how low the background noise level gets are both recognised as factors which could affect the setting of an appropriate lower limit. For example, a property which experienced background noise levels below 30dB(A) for a substantial proportion of the time in which the turbines would be operating could be expected to receive tighter noise limits than a property at which the background noise levels soon increased to levels above 35dB(A). This approach is difficult to formulate precisely and a degree of judgement should be exercised.
Night-time Noise 9.4.5 ETSU recommends a level of 43 dB(A) or 5dB(A) above background noise levels (which ever is the greater) for night-time noise. Based on more recent information about noise levels and sleep disturbance the Comhairle applies conditions with a night time limit of 38dB(A) or 5dB(A) above background noise levels (which ever is the greater). 9.4.6 The Developer considers that the 43dB(A) limit should be applied.
Background Noise 9.4.7 The developer has carried out a detailed background noise assessment using equipment at the four properties nearest to the development (see below).
9.4.8 Readings were taken over a period of three weeks and the properties were picked in consultation with Environmental Health. The background readings recorded 16 New Tolsta were generally higher than at the other properties and on the whole the background readings were relatively low.
9.4.9 The size and model of turbine for the development has not been finalised however the developer had acoustic consultants predict noise levels at these premises, based on an indicative turbine model and predictive software. Although permitted if using ETSU guidance, allowing noise levels up to 40dB, when there is low background noise, is likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residents; however it is unlikely noise at this level would be a statutory nuisance.
9.4.10 ETSU-R-97 advises that existing developments should not be included in subsequent background measurements therefore the onus should be on the second developer to ensure that their scheme meets any existing noise conditions, taking account of any existing windfarms.
Druim Leathann Windfarm 9.4.11 Using identified background levels and the indicative turbine levels, the developers have predicted noise at the nearest properties. The proposed development in isolation would on the whole comply with the developers proposed noise limits (38dB(A) and 43dB(A)), however would not comply with the Comhairle’s previously applied limits(35dB(A) and 38dB(A)), in some cases by being 2.9dB(A) above daytime limits. The development would comply in the most part with the Comhairle’s evening limits.
Drium Leathan Windfarm and Tolsta Community Turbine- Cumulative Effect 9.4.12 Again using the background levels identified and the indicative turbine levels, the cumulative noise impact from the proposed development and the previously consented community turbine would comply with the developers proposed noise limits (40dB(A) and 43dB(A)), however would not comply with the Comhairle’s previously applied limits(35dB(A) and 38dB(A)), in some cases by being 3.9dB(A) above daytime limits and 1.5dB(A) above evening limits.
9.4.13 The properties that are most likely to be affected are in the South West part of the village, due to lower recorded background levels and proximity to more turbines.
9.4.14 The developer has stated that these predicted levels are obtained using a model which assumes that the noise sensitive premises is downwind of all wind turbines at the same time. The actual levels which would occur in practice will also be considerably lower in upwind conditions. These cumulative readings are therefore unlikely to occur in practice in most conditions.
9.4.15 The highest predicted levels at the affected properties will be when there is a westerly wind and the wind data from a four month period shows that this is just under 10% of the time (predominant wind direction is South Westerly).
Construction 9.4.16 Construction and blasting noise and vibration from the development will be able to be controlled through appropriate conditions. Potential dust issues will also be controllable through conditions.
Summary 9.4.17 The developers want to utilise the higher limits in ETSU-R-97. The Comhairle has previously applied the 35 dB(A) and 38dB(A) limits in order to award higher protection of amenity (and taking into account background noise levels).
9.4.18 If the Comhairle is minded to allow levels greater than the 35 dB(A) and 38 dB(A) recommended then for every increase above these limits there will be a correlated loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.
9.4.19 Turbines of the size proposed can have noise control technology which allows the sound power output to be reduced across a range of operational wind speeds and wind directions. The Comhairle daytime noise limits are likely only to be breached at certain wind speeds in certain directions which could be controlled.
Further Noise Advice regarding conditions received from CnES Environmental Health on 20 November 2013 Recommendation 9.4.20 It is recommended that the Comhairle apply a limit of 35dB(A) or 5dB(A) above background (whichever is the greater) for daytime and 38dB(A) or 5dB(A) (whichever is the greater) above background be used for the night time limit in line with the following proposed conditions:
Condition 1 At wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s; the wind turbine noise level at any dwelling or other noise sensitive premises shall not exceed: (a) between 23:00 and 07:00 (night-time), 38dB LA90,10min, or the night-time LA90,10min Background Noise Level plus 5dB(A), which ever is the greater; (b) between 07:00 and 23:00 (day-time), 35dB LA90,10min or the day-time LA90,10min Background Noise Level plus 5 dB(A), which ever is the greater. In this condition,
“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 and including the cumulative noise from the Tolsta Community turbine (assuming this turbine produces a maximum noise level of 35dB(A) at the nearest noise sensitive premises). “Background Noise Level” means the background noise level as reported in Appendix 10.1 of the Environmental Statement for the Druim Leathann Windfarm. “wind speeds” means wind speeds measured at the turbine hub height on the wind farm site, using a method to be agreed in writing with the Comhairle, and calculated at a height of 10 metres above ground level using a roughness length of 0.05 (as defined in the Institute of Acoustics Good Practice Guide on the application of ETSU-R-97. “Noise Sensitive Premises” means residential premises, the occupants of which could be exposed to noise from the wind farm and includes hospitals, residential homes, nursing homes, etc., which lawfully exist or had planning permission at the date of this consent. Reason: To protect the amenity at noise sensitive premises.
Condition 2 At the request of the Planning Authority, following a valid complaint to the Planning Authority relating to noise emissions from the wind turbines, the company 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, ETSU 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. Reason: To quantify the loss of amenity at noise sensitive premises resulting from the operation of the windfarm.
Condition 3 Should the noise levels in the foregoing condition be exceeded, the company shall take steps to ensure that noise emissions from the wind farm are reduced to the aforementioned noise levels or less.
Reason: To ensure adequate mitigation is in place to protect amenity at noise sensitive premises.
Construction Noise 9.4.21 There is a potential for noise disturbance from the demolition/construction of this development, and from activities associated with it. The following conditions are recommended. Condition 1 Work to construct the Consented Development, including deliveries to the site and unloading and loading, should be restricted to 08.00 – 19.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays and no working on Sundays, unless agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Emergency works may be carried out at any time provided that the operator retrospectively notifies the Comhairle in writing of the emergency works undertaken within 24 hours. Reason: To protect the amenity at noise sensitive premises. Dust 9.4.22 There is a potential for dust from the construction of this development to cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties. The following condition is recommended.
Condition 1 A method statement should be submitted to the Planning Authority outlining what dust mitigation measures will be put in place for the duration of the construction phase. Should any complaints be received in respect of dust, the developer shall fully investigate these complaints to establish dust levels at any affected property. Reason: To protect the amenity at dust sensitive premises.
Vibration and Air Overpressure 9.4.23 Condition1 No blasting shall be carried out on the site except between the following times 1000 and 1600 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 1000 and 1200 hours on Saturdays. There shall be no blasting or drilling operations on Sundays. The above condition shall not apply in cases of emergency when it is considered necessary to carry out blasting operations in the interests of safety. The planning authority shall be notified in writing immediately of the nature and circumstances of any such event. Reason: In order to safeguard the safety and amenities of people and structures in the area. Condition 2 All blasting operations shall take place only in accordance with the Environmental Statement as approved or with such subsequent amendments as may receive the written approval of the Comhairle as planning authority. Furthermore every blast shall be designed with a 95% confidence level that ground vibration levels recorded at any vibration sensitive property arising from any blast shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of 8mm per second measured in a mutually perpendicular plane. No blast shall exceed a peak particle velocity of 12 mm per second as measured at any vibration sensitive property. Reason: In order to safeguard the safety and amenities of people and structures in the area.
Condition 3 Prior to the commencement of any blasting operations a scheme for the monitoring of blasting including the location of monitoring points and equipment to be used shall be submitted to the Comhairle as planning authority for written approval. All blasting operations shall take place only in accordance with the scheme as approved or with such subsequent amendments as may receive the written approval of the planning authority. Reason: In order to safeguard the safety and amenities of people and structures in the area. REPRESENTATIONS – IN OBJECTION 10.1 Representations, in objection, have been received from the following: Helen Blake, 16a Lemreway, Lochs, Isle of Lewis; Mr and Mrs Andy and Muriel King, A’ Chrioch, 13 New Tolsta, Isle of Lewis; Mr Robin Reid, Conservation Officer, RSPB, The Old Schoolhouse, Drinishader, Isle of Harris. REPRESENTATIONS – IN SUPPORT 10.2 Representations, in support, have been received from the following: Mr Murdo Maciver, 43a North Tolsta; Catriona Maciver, Secretary, North Tolsta Community Council; Mr Murdo Maciver, New Tolsta Grazings Committee; M Croy, Karen Hogg, 72 North Tolsta; J & N Macritchie, 12 Airigh a’ Bhreide, North Tolsta;
D A, G & Annie Morrison, 4 New Tolsta; P & M Maciver, 2 Camach Park, North Tolsta; D A & A Mackenzie, 20 New Tolsta; W Maciver, 18 North Tolsta; Donald J Macritchie, 12 New Tolsta; Mrs C M Adams, 39 North Tolsta; Mrs Minnie & John Love, 7 Lochside, North Tolsta; D Macritchie, 20 North Tolsta; Iain & T Campbell, 83 School Road, North Tolsta; Donald J Murray, 5 Camach Park, North Tolsta; M & M Maciver, 16 New Tolsta; D & B Smith, 2 New Tolsta; Mary A & Torquil Campbell, 5 New Tolsta; Kenneth, Mary & William Macleod, 10 New Tolsta; Murdo Maciver, Tolsta Community Development Ltd; D Murray, 22 North Tolsta; M Murray, Fasgadh, 40 North Tolsta; I Gunn, 70 North Tolsta; Donald & Mary Murray, 9 New Tolsta; Hector & Ishbal Morrison, 31 North Tolsta; Roderick & Jessie Mackay, 18a New Tolsta; A & C Stevenson, 71 North Tolsta; J Bain, 37 North Tolsta; E Macleod, 85 North Tolsta; A & C Macmillan, 32 North Tolsta; A Murray, 13 New Tolsta; M Macleod, 10 Airidh a Bhreide, North Tolsta; M Macritchie, 2 School Road, North Tolsta; M, M & A Maciver, 7 Airidh a Bhreide, North Tolsta; R Macritchie, 3 New Tolsta; A & P Harrison, 2 New Tolsta; Alex Maciver, 28 North Tolsta; C & M Maciver, 45 North Tolsta and 15 New Tolsta; A & A H Maciver, 36 North Tolsta; Ruairidh Ian & Marion Campbell, Dalry House, North Tolsta; J Macleod, 68b North Tolsta; C Murray, 40 North Tolsta; K Smith, 1 School Road, North Tolsta;
A M Henderson, Seaview, North Tolsta; A Smith, 5 North Tolsta; M Macritchie, Windyridge, North Tolsta; Arthur McIntosh, 53 North Tolsta; Mr & Mrs Macaskill, 11 Hill Street, North Tolsta; Mr Maciver, 18 North Tolsta; M Morrison, 46a North Tolsta; Fiona Black, Crosabhat Cottage, North Tolsta; C & A Nicolson, 9 North Tolsta; J Maciver, 16b North Tolsta; S Thomson, 8 North Tolsta.
10.3 The full terms of the Representations can be read on the file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows: Objections ‘This development will compromise the landscape in this important area for tourism and recreation. There will be no jobs created, a piddling amount of compensation to the community who will have to put up with another eyesore, right on their doorsteps. Wind energy is inefficient, unreliable and expensive. These projects only benefit the developer and not the environment or the community. Its all been said before but no doubt the council will rubber stamp the application and have probably done so already.’ ‘Further to our recent visit to your offices, we would like to register our opposition to the proposed Wind Farm in Tolsta. So far as we can see, no benefits would be gained by individual households such as subsidised, or cancelled, electricity charges; which surely should be the first priority to compensate them, in some small way, for the devastation of an unspoilt, silent area of outstanding beauty. Personally, we would be affected greatly by the construction of the site by noise and pollution. Incidentally, we have been unable to ascertain if explosives will be used in the search for rocks! This year we have had a significant increase in the number and variety of birds visiting our garden but we fear this will be short lived if the work goes ahead. We would also point out that for the past 29 years we have very carefully cut peat in this area. This has been a significant part of our lives and, as far as we can see, turbines 1 and 14 will be erected immediately on top of our peat banks!!’ ‘RSPB Scotland objects to the above planning application. Since our last submission (24th May 2013) the ES has been completed incorporating two full years of vantage point work. We therefore remove our previous conditional objection based on the provision of incomplete ornithological data. However, the turbine layout has not been modified to remove or move turbine 14 to a distance greater than 1000m and preferably 1500m from an occupied golden eagle nest site. We therefore maintain our objection on the basis that turbine 14 is within the recognised disturbance distance for breeding golden eagle and is likely to result in the abandonment of this golden eagle territory. RSPB Scotland requests that this turbine is refused consent. Golden eagles are very susceptible to disturbance around their nest site and RSPB Scotland advises that the presence of turbines within 1000 – 1500m of a golden eagle nest site is likely to cause disturbance during the construction and operation of
the wind farm, causing reduced breeding performance or abandonment of the nest site. As there are no alternative nest sites within the Tolsta golden eagle territory due to the smooth nature of the terrain, displacement from this nest site is likely to result in the abandonment of the territory. In addition, turbines 12 and 13 are between 1000m and 1500m of the golden eagle nest site and RSPB Scotland advises that these turbines should also be removed or moved to a distance of 1500m or more from the nest site to further reduce the chance of territory abandonment. The sensitivity of golden eagles at the nest site is well documented and the construction of large wind turbines within 1km of a golden eagle nest in Scotland would be unprecedented. Paragraph 9.57 of the ES states that the turbine layout has been amended to avoid placing turbines in proximity of breeding golden eagles. However, despite advice from both RSPB and SNH since scoping stage regarding the disturbance issues associated and with turbine 14, there has been no attempt to relocate this turbine. The ES (paragraph 9.91) acknowledges that the operation of turbine 14 could result in the loss of the Tolsta golden eagle territory but offers no justification for the necessity of constructing this turbine in this location. Furthermore, paragraph 9.139 considers the cumulative impact of the loss of the Tolsta golden eagle pair to be of moderate significance at the scale of the Western Isles NHZ. We insist that the chance of range abandonment can be significantly reduced by removing turbine 14 and further reduced by removing turbines 12 and 13. Should turbine 14 be consented despite our objection we request that detailed monitoring of the effect of the construction and operation of the wind farm on this pair of golden eagles should be a condition of consent. At scoping stage RSPB Scotland expressed a concern over the potential impacts on red-throated divers breeding on the Lewis Peatlands SPA and in our previous objection letter we recommended that population modelling should be carried out to examine the effects of collision mortality on this species. The ES presents figures used to asses the impacts of the Stornoway wind farm which assume that the age at first breeding is three years or less (9.144) but also states that there is no information on the age of first breeding in the Outer Hebrides (9.146). For the assessment of Viking wind farm in Shetland, age at first breeding was taken to be 5 years. With the lack of data and uncertainty over age at first breeding on the Outer Hebrides, we advise that a precautionary approach should be adopted using five years age at first breeding for the purpose of population modelling. RSPB recommends that population modelling is carried out to asses cumulative impacts on the Lewis Peatlands red- throated diver population assuming 5 years age at first breeding. Due to the proximity of the Tolsta golden eagles and the Loch Groasbhat red- throated divers to the Lewis Peatlands SPA boundary, we recommend that the CnES seeks advice from SNH regarding the degree to which these birds might be (a) functionally linked to the SPA and (b) likely to make a greater contribution to potential SPA recruits, given their location compared to those affected by more distant wind farm proposals. On that basis the displacement of the Tolsta golden eagles and collision mortality for red-throated diver may give rise to a significant effect on the SPA and the CnES would be required to carry out an appropriate assessment. RSPB Scotland notes the commitment made by the developer in the ES to undertake bird monitoring, casualty searches and annual reporting (9.153-9.155) and advise that undertaking this work should be a condition of any consents given. We trust that this will assist the planning department in assessing this application.’
In Support ‘I support this development for 14 turbines at North Tolsta and have examined and understood the supporting documents, I have also attended the public exhibitions held by the developer over the past eighteen months. It is my opinion that this application is considered acceptable within the Tolsta community including the significant revenues to be generated from the rental and community benefits from the 14 turbines during the lifetime of the development, a much needed revenue stream for the benefit of the local community. It is envisaged that local suppliers and businesses will benefit from a range of contracts and also local businesses are expected to be invited to tender to carry out work relating to the development works. Once the turbines are operational it is envisaged that local suppliers/contractors will benefit from contracts relating to ongoing maintenance work.’ ‘On behalf of the New Tolsta Grazing Committee, I write in support of the 14 turbine, Druim Leathann Wind farm. The Committee have had many consultations with 20/20 Renewables and with living in the area have no concerns about the impact the wind farm will have on the landscape and visual amenity. The detailed Environmental Impact assessment carried out by 20/20 Renewables has identified every aspect which might affect the environment and they have where possible, minimised and eliminated any negative impacts on the environment. The development will provide local jobs during the construction and after construction will require the recruitment of full time staff to maintain the windfarm during its 25 year life span, hopefully encouraging a few young people to stay in the area; already in the past few years in the village two new houses have been built by young families, and this would be a further inducement to stay. This application will bring significant benefits to the communities of North Tolsta and New Tolsta, through Community Benefit payments of £7,000 per MW initially (£294,000 per year for years 1-12) and £10,000 per MW for years 13-25 (£420,000 per year for years 13-25) which undoubtedly is an important economic consideration. Again with our knowledge of the vicinity we have no concerns with the effect the 14 turbine wind farm will have on the ecology and water resources of the locale and taking into account the importance of the Community Benefits to the village of New Tolsta we would ask you to consider this letter as our unequivocal support of Druim Leathann Windfarm.’ ‘Unequivocal support, local resident, strongly believe that these turbines will not detract from their surroundings, have attended public exhibitions meetings which I found very informative, delighted by generous community benefit package.’ ‘Support the planning application, Isle of Lewis is a suitable place to build wind farms, development will provide local jobs during construction and full time staff after construction, acceptable in terms of visual and residential amenity issues, 2020 Renewables have highlighted priority to protect local environment, community benefit package.’ ‘Support for development, exhibition days very informative, 2020 Renewables very open to share information, initial comments and concerns addressed, fully satisfied after reading the Non-Technical Summary that development will not cause any negative impact on the environment, ecosystem, landscape or visual amenity, significant benefits to Tolsta.’ ‘Local resident, able to view wind farm driving to and from my property, do not have any issue with the development, significant purpose in providing clean energy for thousands of homes.’ ‘Windfarms are graceful structures, trust wind farm is clean, safe and reliable, certain development will not in any way affect tourism, development will benefit local community due to full-time jobs, provides community benefit package.’
‘Attended all public exhibition days, I have fully assessed and examined the proposal, detailed Environmental Impact Assessment has fully identified all aspects which may affect the environment and have, where possible, minimised and eliminated any negative impacts on the environment, little effect on the landscape and visual amenity, ecology and water resource, providing power to approximately 24,000 homes.’ ‘Should be granted permission to be built, I like the look of wind farms, graceful looking, don’t consider proposal will have any negative effect, will provide clean, green energy, benefit the community benefit scheme.’ ‘Graceful structures, I trust wind energy is clean, safe and reliable, will not affect tourism, will benefit local community.’ ‘On behalf of Tolsta Community Development Ltd, I write to affirm our support of the 14 turbine, Druim Leathann Windfarm. The Directors of Tolsta Community Development Ltd have attended all the public exhibitions and have been kept full informed of the proposed development and have concluded that the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out by 20/20 Renewables has identified every aspect that might affect the environment and that 20/20 Renewables have minimised and eliminated any negative impact which could affect the environment as far as it is possible to do so. Importantly this Development will provide local jobs during the construction and after construction will require the recruitment of full time staff to maintain the wind farm during its 25 year lifespan. This application will bring significant benefits to the communities of North Tolsta and New Tolsta, through Community Benefit payments of £7,000 per MW initially (£294,000 per year for years 1-12) and £10,000 per MW for years 13-25) (£420,000 per year for years 13-25) this undoubtedly is an important economic consideration. The Directors of Tolsta Community Development Ltd, all of whom live within the townships of North Tolsta and New Tolsta consider this application to be of great significance to the area and that the impact of the Community Benefits over the 25 years cannot be stressed enough at this time when the young of the area have to leave the island to find work. The Directors concluded that the 14 turbine development will have very little effect on the landscape and visual amenity, also very little effect on econology and water resources. Taking this into account they would ask you to consider this letter as their clear support of Druim Leathann Windfarm.’ ‘‘Attended all public exhibition days, I have fully assessed and examined the proposal, detailed Environmental Impact Assessment has fully identified all aspects which may affect the environment and have, where possible, minimised and eliminated any negative impacts on the environment, little effect on the landscape and visual amenity, ecology and water resource, providing power to approximately 24,000 homes.’ ‘Please accept my support of the 14 turbine proposal in Tolsta.’ VIEWS OF THE APPLICANT 5 November 2013 11.1 Thank you for your letter of 1 November 2013. 11.1.1 I will be responding separately to the points you raise in the next day or so. However I would like to address the recent correspondence from Scottish Water dated 31 October 2013. 11.1.2 I note that you are writing to Scottish Water “to seek further clarity in relation to compliance with duties under the Water Framework Directive”.
11.1.3 The letter from Scottish Water is clear in its terms that they do not object to the proposal. I have therefore sought advice from Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie on the content of this consultation response and deemed it worthwhile to share their legal view. 11.1.4 As they point out, Scottish Water are the relevant authority in respect of ensuring quality of drinking water supplies. The regulatory body is the Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland appointed under Section 7 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002. It is that body which has responsibility for ensuring that Scottish Water are discharging their duties under the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 2001. The Regulations themselves implement in part the duty under Article 7 of the WFD. It is not the responsibility of CNES to ensure compliance with the Regulations. 11.1.5 I accept of course that impacts on water quality of both public and private supplies is a material consideration which requires to be taken in to account. In this case there is a detailed assessment of those impacts in the Environmental Statement, which concludes that following appropriate mitigation (to be secured by condition) there will be no significant environmental impacts on water quality. 5 November 2013 11.1.6 I am writing in response to your letter of 1 November, in which you request further clarification of our position in relation to noise levels, the potential effects on the community, and compliance with policy. 11.1.7 Firstly, although we consider 38dB(A) to be an appropriate limit for the Druim Leathann Windfarm, for the reasons set out in our previous correspondence and in accordance with ETSU-R-97, we are willing to accept the Comhairle’s recommended daytime limit of 35dB(A). As outlined previously, this reduced noise limit will be met through operation of the turbines at a reduced speed during certain wind conditions, with a corresponding reduction in renewable power output. 11.1.8 In relation to your request for information relating to the 9m/s scenario, I can confirm that the contour maps for this windspeed (and all wind speeds above 8m/s) are identical to those produced for the 8m/s windspeed. I trust this is satisfactory. 11.1.9 In relation to your query with regards to the cumulative noise assessment, as set out in the ES (Chapter 10 and Appendix 10.1), the cumulative assessment has considered an increased fixed lower limit of 40dB for the day-time in accordance with the range permitted in ETSU-R-97. This limit is considered appropriate because of the increased overall generating capacity of the cumulative scenario, as well as the disproportionate impact that a reduced limit on the proposed Windfarm (with a capacity of up to 42MW) would have when considering the existing Tolsta Community Turbine (less than 1MW). The Tolsta Community Turbine is predicted to generate up to approximately 35dB(A), i.e. the maximum permitted noise limit in accordance with Condition 30 of their permission. On this basis, applying a cumulative noise limit of 35dB to Druim Leathann when operating with the Tolsta Community Turbine would effectively preclude any development at Druim Leathann which is considered unreasonable. 11.1.10 In accepting the Comhairle’s recommended 35dB day-time limit for Druim Leathann Windfarm in isolation, the contour maps demonstrate that cumulatively with the Tolsta Community Turbine, noise levels would vary between 35dB and 38dB for a limited number of properties (those nearest to the consented Tolsta Community Turbine). As noted in the ES, this assumes that the dwelling locations would be downwind of all turbines which in reality would rarely occur. The predictions are therefore conservative. 11.1.11 It should be borne in mind that a difference in noise levels of less than 3dB(A) is commonly accepted as not being discernible in a typical context (outside of laboratory conditions). Therefore, the differences between the different limit scenarios considered would correspond to negligible or limited differences in amenity. 11.1.12 On this basis, the predicted noise levels from the Druim Leathann Windfarm in isolation meet with the 35dB(A) limit and also comply with ETSU-R-97. Furthermore, the cumulative noise levels of 38dB(A) also comply with ETSU-R-97, on the basis of the site- specific criteria detailed in the ES.
11.1.13 In terms of compliance with policy, my letter of 21st October noted that Appendix 2 to the Supplementary Guidance provides good practice advice on large scale commercial wind farm development. In terms of noise assessment, this makes it clear that this should comply with ETSU-R-97 guidance. The advice also states that noise assessment should be ‘to the satisfaction of the Comhairle’, although it does not refer to any specific limits1. The specific limit of 35dB(A) is only mentioned in relation to Micro Generation On-shore Wind Turbines (such as the Tolsta community Windfarm). 11.1.14 We have demonstrated within the ES and in subsequent correspondence that the Druim Leathann Windfarm does comply with the ETSU Guidance, with a 38dB(A) limit. To satisfy the Comhairle, we have accepted a reduction in the limit to 35dB(A), which gives rise to a maximum cumulative noise level of 38dB(A). There can be no question, therefore, that the noise impact of the Druim Leathann Windfarm fully conforms to policy with regards to providing the necessary protection of residential amenity at noise- sensitive residential properties. 11.1.15 I also accept that in some circumstances it would be open to a planning authority to conclude that the environmental impacts of a proposed development were unacceptable notwithstanding the fact that the relevant consultee or licensing authority was satisfied that the proposal was acceptable. However as noted in paragraph 43 of PAN51, those circumstances will be rare. There would have to be land-use considerations which justified such a view being reached. 11.1.16 I would suggest that in this case, where Scottish Water have not objected, and there are no significant environmental effects predicted on the quality of public or private water supplies, there would be no basis for concluding that the development should be refused on the grounds of the impacts on public or private water supplies. 11.1.17 I trust this provides sufficient further clarity on the matter. If necessary a conference call can be easily arranged with our advisors who can expand on these matters and answer any remaining concerns. 21 October 2013 11.1.18 Thank you very much for meeting …on the 3rd October to discuss the Druim Leathann Windfarm. Following the meeting, I thought it would be useful to provide further explanation as to why we are promoting the 38dB daytime limit and expand on the implications for potential loss of amenity and energy yield losses. 11.1.19 Environmental Statement (ES) was prepared following an Environmental Impact Assessment scoping exercise which included CnES. Our Scoping Report indicated that we would use the ETSU-R-97 criteria to assess noise impacts. Your response to the scoping exercise supported this approach, indicating that you would wish to agree the noise monitoring locations (an agreement which subsequently took place). 11.1.20 On the basis of identified background noise levels and indicative turbine noise levels, the ES reports the outcome of the noise modelling undertaken and reports the noise prediction levels at the nearest properties. The report states that the predicted noise levels, in isolation, would comply with proposed noise limits of 38dB(A) (daytime) and 43dB(A) (night time). It also states that the cumulative impact of the proposed windfarm, and the previously consented Tolsta community wind farm, would comply with proposed noise limits of 40dB(A) (daytime) and 43 dB(A) (night time). 11.1.21 The assessment is based on a worst case scenario in terms of wind direction. The highest predicted levels at the few affected properties will be when there is a westerly wind; the wind data from a four month period indicates that this is likely to be less than 10% of the time (the predominant wind direction is south westerly). 11.1.22 The ES therefore concludes that: ‘ predicted cumulative noise levels from the proposed wind farm and Tolsta Community Turbine operating in an unconstrained mode do not exceed the applicable ETSU-R-97 criteria. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts are considered to be acceptable and not significant’. 11.1.23 I note from your draft internal consultation response that you take a slightly different view of the proposed noise limits and hence the acceptability of the proposed scheme. You
are recommending a daytime noise limit of 35dB(A) and a night time limit of 38dB(A), which are different from those set out in ETSU-R-97. You referred to these in a recent email as ‘Western Isles Policy Thresholds for Noise’. 11.1.24 In this letter, I outline the implications of conforming to the limits you have recommended, in terms of the potential energy output of the scheme. In the light of this, the current planning policy context and the ETSU-R-97 criteria a summary of the reasons we consider that the limits we have proposed are more appropriate are provided. Implications of lower noise limits 11.1.25 As discussed contour plots showing the 35dB(A), 36dB(A), 37dB(A) and the 38dB(A) limits respectively are attached. 11.1.26 2020 Renewables has also commissioned a report from Prevailing Analysis which shows that we can reduce the night time limits to 38dB (A) as proposed but in order to achieve a 35dB(A) daytime limit under the worst case scenario, we would need to curtail the operation of the turbines, resulting in a 5% energy yield loss over a 25 year period. 11.1.27 Our view is that this curtailment of power output over 25 years is disproportionate to the impact on amenity, which the ES deems as acceptable, taking account of the ETSU-R- 97 criteria and the current planning policy context (as outlined below). Current planning policy context 11.1.28 The principal planning policy test with regard to wind farms is Policy 19 ‘Energy Resources’ of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan. This states that (my emphasis in bold): 11.1.29 The Comhairle will support proposals that contribute to meeting the targets and objectives of the National Planning Framework 2, the Climate Change Act, and the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan in relation to electricity grid reinforcement, infrastructure and renewable energy generation. Proposals for onshore renewable energy projects and oil and gas operations (including extensions to existing or proposed developments and land based infrastructure associated with offshore projects) will be assessed against the details below and be required to demonstrate all the following: i. appropriate location, siting and design including the technical rationale for the choice of site; ii. no unacceptable adverse impact (including cumulative) on: landscape, townscape and visual aspects, natural, built and cultural heritage resources; the water environment; peatlands; aviation, defence and telecommunications transmitting and receiving systems e.g. broadband; public health and safety, and amenity (including noise and shadow flicker as appropriate); neighbouring land uses, transport management and core paths; iii. acceptable decommissioning and site reinstatement arrangements; iv. phasing arrangements, where appropriate; v. the contribution towards meeting national energy supply targets and local economic impact; vi. Supplementary Guidance will be prepared for Wind Energy Development. 11.1.30 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan is supported by Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development, which is dated April 2013 and is intended to deliver Local Development Plan Policy 19. 11.1.31 In terms of the categories set out in the Supplementary Guidance, the Druim Leathann wind farm is clearly a ‘large scale commercial wind farm development’, as its output capacity would be over 20MW capacity. As such it will be determined in accordance with Supplementary Guidance Development Criteria Policies (DC1 - 9), as well as Local Development Plan Policy 19. 11.1.32 Policy DC3, which deals with Community Amenity, indicates that (my emphasis in bold): 11.1.33 ‘Planning applications must be accompanied by evidence that the proposals have been assessed and found to have no unacceptable significant adverse impact on community amenity in relation to the following:
shadow flicker; noise; electromagnetic interference; commissioning and decommissioning; phasing; ancillary developments and infrastructure; public access; cumulative impacts of the above.’
11.1.34 Appendix 2 to the Supplementary Guidance provides additional advice good practice about large scale commercial wind farm development. In terms of noise assessment, this makes clear that this should comply with the ETSU Guidance: 11.1.35 ‘The noise generated from a proposed wind turbine / wind farm must be assessed to ensure compliance with the Department of Trade and Industry publication ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, Sept 1996 (or subsequent amendments)’ and to the satisfaction of the Comhairle. Advice on noise is given in SODD Circular 10/1999, PAN 56 and in on-line renewables planning advice.’ 11.1.36 We note that Supplementary Guidance Appendix 3 provides further advice, but this is only in relation to Micro Generation On-shore Wind Turbines1. This indicates that: Wind energy proposals where the output is less than 50kw capacity, turbines have a hub-height not exceeding 20m and not exceeding 3 in number. 11.1.37 The expected noise levels due to the operation of the turbine are compared with a notional background noise levels extrapolated from various surveys in the Outer Hebrides. The calculated noise level is deemed acceptable, during daytime, if it does not exceed 35dBA L90 (10 min) or 5dB above background whichever is greater and during night time 38dBA L90 (10 min) or 5dBA above background whichever is greater. Summary and conclusion 11.1.38 The above description of the planning context confirms that ETSU-R-97 criteria are material to the application of Policy 19 of the Development Plan and Policy DC3 of the Supplementary Guidance. The strict application of specific limits is confined to micro- generation of on-shore wind turbines, because of the disproportionate noise impacts they can have relative to energy outputs. 11.1.39 Importantly, and as your consultation response points out, the application of the ETSU- R-97 criteria should seek to balance the benefits arising out of a renewable energy source against the local environmental impact. The Guidance indicates that planning judgement is required. It states, for example, that a single wind turbine causing noise levels of 40dB(A) at several nearby residences would have less planning merit than 30 turbines causing the same amount of noise at nearby residences. Also, if only a few dwellings are affected (as in the case of the Druim Leathann wind farm), the environmental impact is less and slightly higher noise limits may be appropriate, provided they fall within ETSU limits. 11.1.40 It is clear that the noise emitted from the wind farm will not exceed the noise limits set out in ETSU-R-97. As there will be no unacceptable significant adverse impact on community amenity, the development will therefore comply with Policy 19 of the Development Plan and Policy DC3 of the Supplementary Guidance. To impose planning conditions that impose lower noise limits, and thereby force a significant curtailment of energy output, would be unjustified and unreasonable in planning terms. 11.1.41 We therefore suggest that the use of conditions restricting both daytime and night-time limit to 38dB(A)is an acceptable compromise in terms of balancing amenity issues without disproportionate losses in energy production.] ASSESSMENT OF EIA 12.1 The EIA process is intended to improve environmental protection. It informs the decision making processes by which public bodies, referred to as ‘competent authorities’,
determine whether certain projects should go ahead. It provides these bodies with a written statement about the project’s effects on the environment that are likely to be significant (the environmental statement or ‘ES’), together with the comments of the public and statutory environmental organisations. The Competent Authority has a statutory duty to consult the consultation bodies and to publicise every Environmental Statement. The consultation bodies should respond in every case.
12.2 The Comhairle as ‘Competent Authority’ is responsible for evaluating the Environmental Statement to ensure it addresses all of the relevant environmental issues and that the information is presented accurately, clearly and systematically. If it believes that key issues are not fully addressed, or not addressed at all, it must request further information. The authority has to ensure that it has in its possession all relevant environmental information about the likely significant environmental effects of the project before it makes its decision whether to grant permission.
12.3 The Competent Authority may also:- a) seek and take the advice or representations of bodies other than the statutory consultees; b) require the proposer to submit further environmental information; c) refuse the application; d) grant consent subject to conditions or limitations over and above those set out in the Environmental Statement and the application.
12.4 Section 11 of the Report sets out in summary the evaluation of each of the relevant chapters of the Environmental Statement, including a summary of the key issues in the chapter, the advice of consultation bodies in relation to the issues and comment by the Planning Service. ES – Chapter 3: Need & Alternatives Key issues 12.5 The EIA Regulations, Schedule 4 – Part 1 state there is a requirement for developers to provide an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of main reasons for his choice taking into account environmental effects.
12.6 Chapter 3 of the ES outlines the site selection strategy undertaken by the developer prior to bringing forward the proposal.
12.7 Druim Leathann was identified by the developer as a potentially suitable wind farm site through site search activities undertaken within the administrative boundary of the Comhairle. The specific attributes which indicated the sites potential included: Good wind resource; Located partly within the ‘broad area of search’ for windfarm development identified in the Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development 2013; Ability to accommodate turbines and associated infrastructure outwith sites designated for their natural assets. 12.8 The chapter outlines the design and layout strategy undertaken once the proposal site itself had been identified. The initial aims of this process were to: Develop a layout that seeks to assimilate the perceived scale of the turbines, and the scale of the windfarm with that of the landscape; To avoid locating windfarm infrastructure within the Lewis Peatlands SPA, SAC and Ramsar site; To develop a layout which minimises the impact on Tolsta village; To maximise wind yield.
12.9 Following environmental surveys on the proposal site further objectives were identified: To minimise turbines within the Scottish Water public water supply catchment;
To avoid the deeper areas of peat; To keep a minimum of 100m from the Scottish Water public water bodies and tributaries and 50m from any other watercourses.
12.10 An initial layout was designed in February 2011 which comprised 31 turbines with a tip height of 126.5m which reflected local topographical conditions and the Comhairle’s Broad Area of Search. This layout was designed to avoid European designated areas to the west and north and proximity to the village of Tolsta to the east.
12.11 The first iteration to the initial layout was undertaken April 2011 taking account the Comhairle’s Broad Area of Search and reflecting spacing requirements in relation to wind yield as well as again avoiding European designated sites. This layout comprised 23 turbines.
12.12 A second iteration was made to the layout in June 2011 informed by the early findings of the 2011 breeding bird surveys. The number of turbines was reduced further to 16 primarily due to the removal of the most northern turbines which were in proximity to nesting Golden Eagles.
12.13 A third iteration took place in July 2012 which formed the basis of the scoping report layout. This iteration took account of feedback which was received from consultation with the local community and consideration of the European designations, the proximity of Tolsta Village, findings of 2011 breeding bird surveys and a preliminary hydrological walkover. This layout comprised 14 turbines each at 126.5m to tip.
12.14 A fourth iteration took place in December 2012 which also comprised 14 turbines, 126.5m to tip. This iteration took account of emerging findings from environmental surveys, feedback from public consultation as well as re-siting of turbines to avoid emergency services telecommunication links buffers, re-siting turbines outwith Scottish Waters 100m buffer and re-siting turbines to avoid deeper areas of peat.
12.15 The fifth and final iteration (current application layout) took place in order to take account of Hydrology issues i.e. to avoid 25m buffer from water bodies as well as the re-siting of turbines in order to achieve a better balance in terms of Landscape and Visual Amenity.
12.16 An iteration process was also applied to infrastructure design and layout within the site which aimed to; Minimise the length of new access track within the site Selection of appropriate accesses Reduction in the need for watercourse crossings
Planning Service comment 12.17 Following design iterations the final site layout is such that just under 20% of the site is now located within the ‘Broad area of Search’ (Ref Figure 3.1 of the ES) as identified within the Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development.
12.18 Further, the site while not within any designated site is bordered on its western side by the Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a Special Protection Area (SPA) and a Ramsar site. It is bordered on its eastern side by the B896 Stornoway-New Tolsta Road and the townships of New Tolsta and North Tolsta.
12.19 The ES does not illustrate a scoping exercise for alternative sites within the ‘Broad Areas of Search’ identified in the Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development 2013. However given that the SGWE directs developers to these locations, this approach is accepted.
12.20 In relation to the selected Broad Area of Search, however the iterative design process, in terms of the turbine numbers, layout and siting as well as other infrastructure within the selected site, has been adequately demonstrated.
ES – Chapter 6: Landscape and Visual Amenity Key issues 12.21 Chapter 6 of the ES considers the potential impact of the proposed development on landscape character and resources and also on visual amenity.
12.22 Impacts on the landscape may result from direct physical changes to the fabric of the landscape, as well as changes in landscape character and value, while visual impacts relate to changes in views and the resulting impacts on visual amenity.
12.23 The ES includes an assessment of the impact of the proposed windfarm on: Landscape character Impact on views from representative viewpoints and settlements Impacts on views from residential properties in Tolsta (a ‘residential visual amenity assessment’) supported by Appendix 6.1 Cumulative landscape & visual impact (including combined, successive and sequential visual impacts).
12.24 Landscape character – The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) within the ES was modelled to 35km for turbine tips and turbine hubs. The ZTV describes the area over which a development can theoretically be seen. However landscape assessment was focused within 10km of the outermost turbines, ‘the study area’, as beyond this ‘significant impacts’ on landscape character will not occur.
12.25 Visual impact on settlements was considered within 15km to capture any potentially significant impacts. The study area for the assessment of impacts on residential visual amenity extended to 1.5km from the outermost turbines. The ES stated that this was considered to include those properties where a potential impact on residential visual amenity could materially affect living conditions.
12.26 In terms of the cumulative assessment the study area extended to 35km to encompass all potential developments that could interact with the Druim Leathann turbines.
12.27 Landscape character - the site is located in the north-east of Lewis adjacent to the crofting settlements of North Tolsta and New Tolsta. The site lies mostly within the Boggy Moor landscape type (as set out in the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment published by SNH, 1998). This is a landscape of large scale, gently undulating peat moorlands, indented with numerous lochs. The north of the site extends into an area of Rocky Moor landscape type where there is a more irregular topography of rocky knolls interlocked with peaty moorland vegetation and occasional small lochans. Tràigh Mhor beach is located to the east of the site and is known to be popular with visitors. A heritage trail follows the coast northwards from the beach.
12.28 The B895 between Stornoway and New Tolsta runs to the east of the site, passing through the crofting settlements of North Tolsta and New Tolsta. To the west of the B895, properties tend to be in irregular shaped plots while to the east strongly linear field patterns run down to the coast. The nearest property to a turbine is approximately 1km. A number of rough tracks run from the western edge of North Tolsta and New Tolsta into the site providing access for the current land use of grazing and peat cutting.
12.29 Views and Visual Amenity - The ZTV indicates that there will be visibility of the turbines from across the Boggy Moor landscape with visibility becoming more fragmented with distance. Much of the area surrounding Tolsta is uninhabited and there are few roads, therefore visual receptors are few and far between within this LCT. There will be virtually no visibility from the A857 and settlements along the north-west coast. However, the ZTV
indicates that there will potentially be views from the B895 and settlements between Stornoway and the windfarm site, as well as from the Eye Peninsula across the sea. Potential visual receptors include: residents of Tolsta adjacent to the site, as well as residents of more distant settlements along the B895 between Stornoway and Tolsta, and between Stornoway and Tiumpan Head (including the Eye Peninsula); travellers on the B895 between Stornoway and Tolsta, the A857 between Stornoway and Barvas, and the A866 between Stornoway and Tiumpan Head; recreational users of Tràigh Mhor beach, the heritage trail north of Tolsta, and walkers across the Boggy Moor (including visitors to Muirneag).
12.30 Table 6.27 of the ES summarises significant impacts of the windfarm on landscape and visual receptors. The table summarises impacts during construction and during the operational phase of the development on landscape character, visual amenity, viewpoints, settlements, and properties within Tolsta. The significance of impact on all these receptors ranges from moderate to major. The major, long-term impacts can be summarised as follows: Major long-term operational impact on residential views of 8 properties within 4 property groups Major long-term operational impact on the landscape character of the site; Major long-term operational impact on viewpoint from Tolsta Village Hall; Major long-term operational impact on viewpoint from Heritage Trail, New Tolsta; Major long-term operational impact on the settlement of Tolsta.
12.31 The assessment in Table 6.27 also identifies moderate to major residual impacts during construction and during the operational phase of the development on landscape character, visual amenity, viewpoints, settlements, and properties within Tolsta. The major, long-term residual impacts match those major impacts identified above.
Consultation advice 12.32 The advice of SNH was sought and states that the proposal would generate fairly major landscape and visual impacts in the vicinity of North Tolsta, but that the proposal will not impinge on landscape interests that are nationally significant or scarce.
12.33 SNH goes on to advise that aspects of the local landscape and coastal character will be acutely affected, as these will be exposed to significant influence from the turbines on adjacent higher moorland. SNH state that in particular, the rural character of North Tolsta's crofting landscapes and the intimacy, enclosure and perceived scale of coastal areas in the vicinity of the village will be adversely affected, but concludes that overall, the landscape of the development site and the moorland to the west provides capacity for the proposed development.
12.34 However, the development's proximity to settlement and coastal areas of sensitive rural character means that the windfarm has the potential to detract from valued landscape characteristics of Tolsta and its environs. The turbines would become a dominant new focus, adversely affecting the rural character of the settlement and the sense of intimacy, enclosure and perceived scale in the predominantly coastal areas to the east.
12.35 In terms of wider effects on landscape character, SNH consider that the ES accurately assesses the likely impacts of the proposal. The turbines are distant from designated landscape interests and positioned in a location that provides an acceptable degree of separation between the proposed turbines and notable focal points in the landscape, such as Muirneag.
12.36 SNH concludes that overall the impact of the proposal on valued landscape interests across the study area, comprising much of north Lewis, is not considered to be of national interest.
12.37 SNH considers that the assessment does not emphasise the significance of landscape impacts that will affect the character of settlements and coastal areas within approximately 5km of the development site. It further contends that there are likely to be significant visual impacts experienced when travelling northbound on the B895. These are represented through the photomontage from VP6, at Tong, which is predicted to experience a significant effect. Elsewhere impacts on northbound journeys on the B895 continue, particularly northwards where a 5km stretch of road to the south of Tolsta is affected due to the close proximity and direction of view towards the development. As Tolsta is the final settlement served by the B895, the impact of the development on this final section of the road, in conjunction with the effects on the visual amenity of the settlement itself, are such that the experience of arriving at and visiting/dwelling in Tolsta is likely to be significantly adversely affected by the scale and proximity of the turbines.
12.38 In the wider area the ES makes a suitable assessment of the impacts of the proposed development, which will generate adverse effects when viewed from a number of locations across the Eye Peninsula, due to this area's uninterrupted views of the proposed development and the lateral extent of the development when viewed from this direction.
12.39 SNH considers that the proposal will not produce significant adverse cumulative issues in terms of its contribution to the pattern of consented and proposed commercial wind farms across Lewis.
12.40 While the Tolsta community wind turbine has not been reflected in the cumulative assessments of landscape and visual impact in the ES, SNH have commented that the close proximity of the Tolsta community turbine, which has a tip height approximately 50m below that of the turbines proposed at Druim Leathann, will not be visually complementary, particularly as contrasting speeds of rotation will limit perceptions that the turbines form a unified cluster. From some perspectives, such as those experienced from the B895, there will be separation between the developments, with the community turbine appearing outlying and distinct from the larger wind farm. However, from other locations, such as the Eye Peninsula, the community turbine will be in the foreground of the larger development and the contrasting scale and rotation speeds may generate adverse impacts due to the contrasting scene.’ Planning Service comment 12.41 It is important to note that Landscape and visual impact while linked are different but intrinsically related:
Landscape impact can be defined as physical effects on fabric, character and distinctiveness as a result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors and is therefore a more objective aspect of landscape assessment
Visual impact relates to the effects of change and development on the views available to people and their visual amenity; it is concerned with changes in views as a result of the loss of existing elements of the landscape and/or introduction of new elements and as it is based on people’s perceptions it is a more subjective assessment.
12.42 In terms of the siting of the development within the wider landscape, it is agreed that the development has the ability to be absorbed within the wider landscape but that the introduction of moving structures in the westward moorland is highly likely to adversely affect the visual composition of the settlement's setting. SNH Commissioned Report No. 042, Landscape capacity study for onshore wind energy development in the Western Isles for commercial wind energy developments Boggy Moor 1, Boggy Moor 2 and Rocky Moor, show this as a landscape of medium capacity.
12.43 The Tolsta community wind turbine has not been reflected in the cumulative assessments of landscape and visual impact and while there is potential for subjectivity,
it is agreed that the significance of landscape impacts that will affect the character of settlements and coastal areas within approximately 5km of the development site is perhaps not recognised to the degree that one might expect in the ES.
12.44 The planning assessment supports SNH’s comments on the visual and amenity impact of the development on the settlement of Tolsta itself, as likely to be significantly adversely affected due to the scale and proximity of the turbines to the village; as close as 1km in places. The turbines have a hub height of 80m, a 90m blade diameter and resultant tip height of 126m.
12.45 The settlement of Tolsta is discreet (at the end of the B895) and the turbines will dominate both arrival at the village and views from within the settlement and views from certain groups of properties.
12.46 In summary the ES recognizes a large number of long-term moderate and major landscape and visual amenity impacts, which are accentuated and compounded by the close proximity of the wind farm to the settlement of Tolsta.
12.47 While the ES sets out a competent assessment of impacts of the proposal on properties within 1.5km distance of the site, there are viewpoints from within the village inside 2km that will also experience long term moderate and or potentially major visual impacts by virtue of their more elevated albeit distant views of the windfarm.
12.48 The topography of the settled part of Tolsta village and the route of the road mean that the scale and complexity of the visual amenity impacts is not so readily understood on paper. It is therefore considered that a site visit to key viewpoints - both those represented in the ES and other key points within the village e.g. the residential ‘streets’ in North Tolsta e.g. around Cnoc na Buaile - and reference to existing vertical structures in the landscape e.g. Tolsta Community wind turbine at maximum height of 81m and the existing meteorological mast 80m is recommended in order that the decision maker can better appreciate the scale and potential complexity of impact on landscape and visual amenity. ES Chapter 7: Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat; Key Points 12.49 Chapter 7 of the ES considers the potential impacts of the proposed wind farm on the geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and peat of the site and the surrounding study area.
12.50 The assessment for the ES was undertaken by URS, and detailed existing baseline situation in terms of geological, hydrological, hydro-geological and peat conditions and in turn presents an assessment of potential impacts of the wind farm.
12.51 For the purpose of the assessment the study area extends 250m around the site boundary for surface water features, 500m around the site boundary for groundwater features, and 1000m for public and private water supplies. For geology and peat assessments the study area is delineated by the site boundary.
12.52 The proposed wind farm site lies within an area of gently undulating blanket bog, has peat deposits typically range from 1.5m to 2.5m in thickness with localised areas of thicker peat up to a depth of 4.8m. The site covers an area of 2.6km sq and ground surface elevation ranging between 80m and 115m AOD, the lowest point in Glen Tolsta at the southern extent of the site boundary and the highest point at the cairn on Cnoc Mor Diridean towards the north of the site. The geology of the site comprises peat overlying bedrock.
12.53 A series of interconnected lochs are located within and immediately adjacent to the site boundary and the site is crossed by a number of watercourses.
12.54 The majority of the site drains south to the Glen Tolsta Burn, which has a total catchment area of 10.3km sq. The catchment upstream of Glen Tolsta is characterised by a chain of lochs situated along the main channel which, from downstream to upstream are; Loch Ionadagro, Loch Gaineamhaich, Loch Lingeabhat Mòr, Loch na Cloich and Loch Diridean.
12.55 Loch Ionadagro, adjacent to the western site boundary and draining to Glen Tolsta Burn, is a Scottish Water (SW) Reservoir which serves as a Public Water Supply (PWS) to Tolsta, Gress, Back, Vatisker and Coll.
12.56 The following impacts were scoped out: Geology - A review of the SNHi GIS datasets online indicates that no geological related designations are present within the site boundary. Peat Stability: A Stage 1 Peat Stability Assessment indicated that there was an insignificant risk of peat instability across the vast majority of the site; however, the potential for ‘significant’ risk of peat instability was noted relative to certain turbine locations. Private Water Supplies: two identified - Tolsta Community Shop and at Hillcrest but distance and likelihood of impact determined that these would not be significant. Flood Risk and the requirement for a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was scoped out in agreement with SEPA and CnES. Designated sites (covered elsewhere in ES) Operational impacts, from fuel and oils, erosion and sedimentation, drainage and surface water flows hydro-geology and surface water flows and Operational impact on the Public Water Supply Cumulative impacts with the existing Tolsta community turbine.
12.57 A desktop assessment to establish existing (baseline) conditions within and adjacent to the site was undertaken followed by field Surveys including a hydrology field survey, a site geological field survey and peat coring at the 14 turbine locations.
12.58 In terms of assessing significance the ES states that both a qualitative and quantitative (where possible) assessment of potential and residual impacts has been carried out. Paragraphs 7.20 to 7.24 of the ES set out the methodology adopted.
12.59 In terms of mitigation of significant impacts, the ES states that mitigation measures to be employed to off set potential environmental impacts are intended to supplement established measures incorporated as part of the standard wind farm design and construction process. Extra allowance / buffers were added adjacent to PWS and watercourses within the DWPA catchment. In addition to the standard good practice measures and additional buffers, the SW Catchment will be subject to strict conditions governing the construction and operation of the wind farm to protect the quality of the public water supply.
12.60 Sections 7.29 – 7.64 of the ES identifies existing conditions at the site while the sensitivity of identified receptors is identified at within the ES and set out in Table below, which summarises the receptors and their degree of sensitivity below.
RECEPTOR SENSITIVITY JUSTIFICATION AND COMMENTS
Hydrology / Waterbodies Glen Tolsta Burn including Very High Drinking water protection zone and channels connecting lochs PWS (reaches upstream of SW on main river branch. reservoir). Salmonid (trout species) waters (downstream of SW reservoir). Loch Ionadagro (Public Very High Drinking water protection zone and Water Supply Reservoir) PWS. Drinking Water Abstraction source with Classification DW1 or DW2.
Other Lochs associated with Very High Drinking water protection zone and Glen Tolsta Burn including PWS. Loch Gaineamhaich, Loch Lingeabhat Mor and Loch Diridean Allt na Muilne and Medium Ordinary watercourse <5m wide channels connecting Lochs Lochs of Allt n Muilne Medium Possibly contain trout, not used for catchment including Loch water supply. Tanabhat, Loch Grosabhat, Loch Gormag Mor, Loch na Muilne and Loch Lingeabhat Beag. Geology And Peat Superficial deposits (loss of Low The soils not in use for agricultural agricultural soil) purposes. The MLURI Land Capability for Agriculture Map records the site to be underlain by soils capable of use as rough grazing, with low grazing values. Superficial Deposits of Peat High Discussions with the Consultant Ecologist indicate that the peatlands at the site have been assessed to be relatively extensive and in good condition from a habitat point of view. They are not assigned a SSSI status and considered ‘regionally’ important. Superficial / solid geology Low Peat deposits are recorded as non- across main wind farm site aquifers. Peat is relatively thick across (contaminated land) the majority of the main wind farm site and is therefore considered likely to be low. Superficial / solid geology High Although peat deposits are considered at borrow pits (contaminated non-aquifers, rock was observed to be land) High exposed at surface in the borrow pit areas. Where peat is present, it is expected to be thin and therefore not provide a substantial barrier to further reduce the sensitivity. Hydrogeology Groundwater Medium Groundwater of Low to Very Low productivity and is of Vulnerability Class 4-5. Aquifer underlying the site is a drinking water protection zone, which covers a large area of Scotland. Water Resources Public Water Supplies Very High Public Safety Abstractions Very High Public Safety
12.61 The ES identifies that there is potential for pollution and sediment from construction activities and construction of wind farm infrastructure that may impact surface and groundwater flows to Loch Ionadagro (the Public Water Supply reservoir). The ES also identifies the potential for the raw water main running from the reservoir to the Tolsta Water Treatment Plant to be damaged during construction and tree felling, thereby interrupting the supply of raw water to the plant. The Scottish Water owned raw water main runs adjacent to the associated tree felling area and approximately 50m from the hardstanding for Turbine 13.
12.62 The ES also highlights that Construction activities such as excavation, site preparation and levelling and grading operations result in the disturbance of peat and areas of exposed soil that are highly susceptible to erosion during rainfall events, partly due to loosening of soil and due to increased runoff rates. Surface runoff from such areas can be laden with sediment which may eventually be transported to watercourses. Sedimentation of watercourses can have a detrimental impact on flood storage, due to alteration of the river morphology, and water quality.
12.63 The ES states that reduced water quality may have an adverse impact on the Public Water Supply and aquatic fauna and flora. Increased area of less permeable areas may also cause higher peak flows in channels which could contribute to increased erosion and sedimentation of watercourse bed and banks. Small amounts of erosion and sedimentation are also likely to occur immediately post construction around the new and upgraded watercourse crossings. Despite good practice measures limiting impacts on the bed and banks, a small amount of disturbance to these will take place.
12.64 The ES states that good practice measures in relation to pollution control, sediment management and runoff rates and volumes will be adhered to during the construction and operation of the proposed wind farm, and that these measures are in accordance with guidelines on Good Practice During Wind farm Construction (Scottish Renewables et al., 2010), SEPA guidance including the PPGs and CAR. Good practice measures are incorporated as part of the standard wind farm design and construction process and as such, the assessment assumes these measures will be in place.
12.65 Particular measures are proposed in addition to the above standard good practice measures increased buffer zone extents, and the SW Catchment will be subject to strict conditions governing the construction and operation of the wind farm to protect the quality of the public water supply.
12.66 A draft Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) (AAenviro, 2013), including construction management to prevent pollution of the SW Catchment has been developed to prevent impacts on the Public Water Supply. A contingency plan will also be developed during the design phase of the wind farm to make provision for an alternative water supply in the unlikely event that a significant and uncontained pollution event occurs within the catchment that renders the public water supply un-potable.
12.67 A site Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Peat Management Plan and Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will incorporate good practice and environmental management measures and procedures. These documents will contain sections addressing Risk Assessments and Method Statements (RAMS), Pollution Prevention, Water Management, Peat Management, Monitoring and Construction Management to protect surface water, groundwater and peat during construction and operation of the wind farm.
12.68 Good practice measures to be employed in relation to the protection of hydrology, hydrogeology and peat to reflect potential risks and areas follows are detailed within the ES and broadly comprise: Storage of Potential Contaminants: designated locations for equipment, fuels, chemicals and construction materials Vehicles and Machinery: drip trays to prevent pollution from oil and fuel leaks and measures when refueling vehicles. Cement and Concrete: Concrete will be delivered by lorry from Stornoway. Handling of wet concrete and cement will be undertaken primarily in the construction compounds or in alternative designated areas, outwith the SW Catchment, and above 50m distance from watercourses and site surface water drainage systems. Incident Contingency Planning: incident management plan, spill kits etc
Sustainable Drainage Methods: to mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation caused by increase in runoff rate from less permeable areas. Earthworks: infiltration and cut off trenches, formed at suitable locations to intercept and attenuate surface water. Stockpiled material stored outside watercourse buffer zones; silt fences to remove pathways to watercourses. Trackside drainage: Drainage trenches will be installed adjacent to the tracks to control the flow of water around and across the proposed access tracks running across slope. Drainage systems: SUDS principles will be adopted for managing surface water drainage and quality immediately down gradient of hardstanding. Maintenance of Drainage: Culverts, silt traps, sedimentation tanks, other SUDS and site drainage systems will be inspected and cleared. Cable trenches: where necessary, check dams will be used within cable trenches to prevent preferential flow paths occurring along the trenches. Tree Felling: Forests and Water guidelines (Forestry Commission, 2011) will be followed where tree felling is required to minimise the potential for stream blockage from fallen trees and brash. Watercourse Crossings: Watercourse crossings will be designed to convey a 1:200 year flood flow and likely to bottomless box culverts or half-moon culverts to minimise disruption to the natural watercourse bed materials. the SW Catchment will be subject to strict conditions governing the construction and operation of the wind farm to protect the quality of the public water supply.
12.69 It is anticipated that water for construction will be brought on site via tankers. However, if required and depending on local conditions, some abstractions may be undertaken.
12.70 A Peat Management Plan (PMP) is being developed to manage peat during the construction and operation of the wind farm. The PMP will be a ‘live’ document and will be updated to incorporate any additional ground investigation information and observations made during construction and operation of the wind farm. The PMP will form part of the CEMP and inform the Contractors Method Statements.
12.71 Alterations in surface flow characteristics described above and the presence of less permeable areas (tracks and turbine foundations) have the potential to impact infiltration rates and therefore groundwater recharge rates in turn, potentially impacting hydrogeological receptors. There is potential for pollution and sediment of the Public Water Supply from construction activities, construction of wind farm infrastructure may also impact surface and groundwater flows to Loch Ionadagro (the Public Water Service reservoir).
12.72 The ES predicts that following implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, the residual significance of impact on: the Public Water Supply is considered to be minor; the Scottish Water Public Water Supply Catchment is considered to be negligible; groundwater is considered to be negligible; peat are considered to be negligible.
12.73 The ES states that the Scottish Water Catchment has been identified as being at minor risk from engineering and construction works while acknowledging that the attribute itself is identified of very high sensitivity. In addition to deteriorating raw water quality entering the WTW there is potential for the raw water main running from the reservoir to the Tolsta Water Treatment Plant to be damaged during construction and tree felling, interrupting the supply of raw water to the plant.
12.74 The ES states that detailed water quality monitoring plans will be developed during detailed design and agreed with SEPA, and will be contained within the Water Quality Management Plan of the CEMP.
12.75 The ES concludes that using the sensitivities defined above and the magnitude of impacts detailed above, the significance of the impacts on all sensitive receptors are considered to be negligible with the exception of Public Water Supply of Loch Ionadagro and upstream watercourses and bodies which is considered to be minor.
Consultation advice 12.76 The Scottish Water (SW) submission, dated the 5 July 2013 identified a range of issues which reflected on the ES, and following discussions with the applicant SW submitted further comments on 31 September and again on the 31 October 2013.
12.77 Scottish Water stated that there were pre-existing concerns in relation to Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and the formation of Trihalomethanes at this WTW site and that any activities or processes within the catchment which result in disturbance to peat could affect the ability of Scottish Water to maintain compliant drinking water for customers.
12.78 SW referred to section 7.67 of the ES, identifying that changes in land management practices can influence the wetness of peat soils and also the potential for sedimentation and increased DOC in surface runoff. Scottish Water stated that past experience, during and post construction of wind farms, identified the issues relating to disturbance of peat and while the use of floating roads, spurs and the type of turbine foundation, will reduce the requirement for cutting into peat, which is welcomed, however there will still be a risk from these activities and other activities and other mitigations measures have not been detailed to ensure that there is no deterioration in water quality.
12.79 SW requested further assessment and mitigation to be undertaken to ensure that there is no deterioration in water quality and in particular DOC. SW sought demonstration that the water quality will not deteriorate as a result of the proposal.
12.80 SW identified that Public Health issues were not specifically addressed in the ES in respect of responsibility in the event of a risk identified, but that this should be addressed within the plans.
12.81 In their specific comments on Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat, SW referring Section 7.70 and Map 7.4, of the ES stated that their preference would be for all turbines to be removed from the public water supply catchment to remove the risk to public water supply.
12.82 In the absence of the above being feasible SW requested that turbines 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and the associated roads are moved further back from the reservoir and tributaries, and that turbines 8, 10 and 14 and their associated roads are relocated outwith the catchment. SW also stated that 50m buffer strips were applied to watercourses within the SW catchment area, however turbine 11 shown in the plans included in the ES appears to be in close proximity to a watercourse feeding directly into Loch Ionadagro.
12.83 SW also commented on the ES regarding the preparation of a contingency plan being developed during the design phase of the wind farm for an alternative public water supply in the unlikely event that a significant and uncontained pollution event occurs rendering the public water supply un-potable, to which SW responded “ that under some recent investigations there are limited feasible options for an alternative supply and therefore there is a significant risk at this site to maintain supplies to customers if there was a pollution incident”. SW suggested this requires to be investigated as a priority to determine if contingency is feasible as soon as possible and that may impact on the viability of the proposal. Any contingency arrangements must be agreed with and approved by SW to ensure the required water quality can be met at customers’ taps.
12.84 Scottish Water also provided detailed comment on weaknesses in the Draft Pollution Prevention Plan as submitted.
12.85 Amongst their observations on the Draft PPP was that the CEMP (of which the PPP will form part) should include provision that if there are any water quality issues that materialise post construction, that this can be monitored, investigated and remedied. Possible examples are the impacts of colour and DOC on the ability of our Tolsta WTW to suitably treat water. Provisions should also be made for the ongoing maintenance of the roads, turbines, site, etc. and that a contingency fund requires to be put in place to address any impacts on water quality and quantity during and post construction.
12.86 Regarding Section 4.3 which details the requirements in relation to reporting and investigating pollution incidents, SW identifies that it does not mention or address the situation of immediate notification to SW in the event of a serious incidents that may impact on the water quality and WTW. SW believes this requires to be covered in the PPP and potentially a means that the Contractors and the SWER (Scottish Water Environmental Representative) being able to determine the serious nature of an incident and the level of notification required to SW.
12.87 In their later response, Scottish Water advised that the developer will require to provide assurances that the wind farm and associated activities will not result in water quality from the site deteriorating. They therefore advised that an assessment of the risk to the treatment envelope is to be included within the PPP. In addition, any water quality issues occurring following construction will need to be monitored, investigated and remedied. 12.88 SEPA in commenting upon pollution prevention and peat management requested that a condition is attached to the consent requiring the submission of a site specific Pollution Prevention Plan incorporating detailed pollution prevention and mitigation measures for all construction elements (including borrow pits) potentially capable of giving rise to pollution during all phases of construction, reinstatement after construction and final site decommissioning.
12.89 They further requested that a condition is applied requiring all watercourse crossings to be bottomless or half moon culverts and noted that it is best practice for the Pollution Prevention Plan to include items such as the Peat Management Plan, groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystem (GWDTE) mitigation and forestry removal proposals.
12.90 SNH advises that the proposal is adjacent to the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA), designated for its breeding diver, raptor and wader interests, and the Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its blanket bog habitat amongst other interests.
12.91 In their initial response SNH highlighted their concerns that the impact from peat slide and its potential to cause loss or damage to the blanket bog feature of the Lewis Peatlands SAC and SPA had not been assessed.
12.92 Peat Stability was scoped out of the ES on the basis that a Stage 1 Peat Stability Assessment indicated that there was a insignificant risk of peat instability across the vast majority of the site; however, SNH noted the potential for ‘significant’ risk of peat instability was noted relative to certain Turbine locations and advised that the Peat Stability should be scoped back into the ES (Section 7.10.) given that the Peat Stability Assessment concluded that there were areas with the potential for significant risk of peat instability. SNH’s view was that there was insufficient information to determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of these sites.
12.93 In response, further assessment work was carried out by consultants on behalf of the applicant regarding peat-slide risk adjacent to the SAC and SNH subsequently advised that it was content with the information provided and the conclusion that the risk is not significant in relation to maintaining the integrity of the adjacent SAC.
Planning Service Comment 12.94 During the EIA Scoping Opinion process SEPA provided the following scoping comment: “We advise that the applicant should, through the EIA process systematically identify all aspects of site work that might impact upon the environment, potential pollution risks associated with the proposals and identify the principles of preventative measures and mitigation. This will establish a robust environmental management process for the development. A draft Schedule of Mitigation should be produced as part of this process. This should cover all the environmental sensitivities (including, for example the public water supply at Loch Ionadagro which will need specific consideration), pollution prevention and mitigation measures identified to avoid or minimise environmental effects”.
12.95 Loch Ionadagro is the public water supply reservoir for Tolsta, Gress, Back, Vatisker and Coll. The approximate total number of households served from this DWPA in Tolsta are 206 (circa 500 people), and beyond Tolsta approximately 503 households (1270 people).
12.96 The public water supply reservoir is fed by a series of streams and burns but the catchment that feeds that whole system is wider in that water is held within the wider peatland/moorland that makes up the water catchment.
12.97 A map of the Drinking Water Protected Area (DWPA) for this area was laid before the Scottish Parliament in March 2013 and while the DWPA is referred to in the Draft Pollution Prevention Plan, its mapped extent is not detailed in the ES. The extent of the DWPA has therefore been mapped by the Planning Authority for reference in Appendix 2 to this Report.
12.98 Consideration of pollution impacts are largely focused on the Public Water Reservoir and water courses feeding this reservoir rather than consideration being given to the impacts on the wider drinking water catchment area / designated Drinking Water Protected Area as a whole.
12.99 Nine of the fourteen turbines are sited within the Drinking Water Protected Area. Two turbines are sited in relatively close proximity Loch Ionadagro and while there is a buffer between the proposed turbines and the waterbody Scottish Water has not retracted its ‘concerns’ letter and has stated that the developer will require to provide assurances that the wind farm and associated activities will not result in water quality from the site deteriorating. They therefore advised that an assessment of the risk to the treatment envelope is to be included within the PPP. In addition, they state that any water quality issues occurring following construction will need to be monitored, investigated and remedied.
12.100 A number of the turbines, crane hardstanding areas and roads are also in close proximity to the raw water intake and Loch Ionadagro.
12.101 The siting of the turbines in close proximity to the raw water intake and Loch Ionadagro has been raised by SW as requiring further risk assessment (and assurances sought from the developer that there will be no deterioration in water quality).
12.102 A further issue and key influence on DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon) releases relates to the drainage subsequent to installation of turbine and crane hardstanding areas and impact on local water table.
12.103 SW identified this issue in their communication, dated 30/08/13. This drainage of peatlands and lowering of the water table can result in the subsequent oxidation of the peat which can be the key contributing factor to the release of carbon. This requires management measures during construction and post construction monitoring.
12.104 SNH in their response advised that there is likely to be a change towards a drier form of the habitat changes; this arising from changes to the water table and subsequent oxidation of peat which equates to a loss of quality of the blanket bog. This observation confirms the increased likelihood from increased oxidation of drier surface peat and increased peat being removed by runoff into streams and rivers and contributing to the raw water quality serving the WTW at Tolsta. SNH Guidance (2009) on EIA states the ‘baseline environmental information’ should be relevant, accurate, complete and up-to- date and competently gathered, analysed and presented. A prediction of how the baseline conditions are likely to change in the absence of the project should be recorded, taking account, for example, of climate change and the effects of other projects with consent. 12.105 The importance of the attribute which is the ‘drinking water supply’ is correctly identified as of “Very High Sensitivity” within the ES. The ES also highlights that “Construction activities such as excavation, site preparation and levelling and grading operations result in the disturbance of peat, and that this exposed soil is identified as ‘highly susceptible to erosion during rainfall events, partly due to loosening of soil and potentially due to increased runoff rates, and that this sedimentation can have a detrimental impact water quality, and states that “reduced water quality may have an adverse impact on the Public Water Supply and aquatic fauna and flora”. Notwithstanding the above statements in the ES and a requirement for further risk assessment, the conclusion that the magnitude of the potential impact on the ‘Public Water Supply’, identified as “Very High Sensitivity”, is concluded to be minor in the ES. 12.106 The conclusion in the ES that the impact is of minor significance is therefore perhaps understated; This assertion is supported by the fact that GOMMMS referred to in the ES document identifies that a loss of an attribute such as pollution of potable source of abstraction would lead to an impact magnitude of ‘Major’. 12.107 However, Scottish water as statutory consultee have not raised an objection and advise that they would be agreeable to risk assessment on the engineering activities to be contained within the Pollution Prevention Plan, a copy of which is included in an early draft format within the ES. 12.108 In relation to the Peat Management Plan SEPA raised two queries which they advised should be included in the finalised Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP). Clarification is sought on what is proposed re 22456 m3 of catotelmic peat displaced for hard-standings. They advise that this information will need to be included in the finalised PPP as well as habitat creation requirements for peat proposed for borrow pit restoration. SEPA advised that they would be happy to discuss any draft restoration proposals prior to formal submission of the finalised PPP to ensure it meet the requirements of Waste Management Licence. 12.109 Regarding site restoration, it is also good practice for large scale developments to be subject to conditions requiring the submission of a restoration and aftercare scheme. The restoration principles should be set out within the submission. 12.110 The above approach is considered to provide a useful link between the principles of development that will need to be outlined at the early stages of the project and the method statements which are usually produced following award of contract (just before development commences). 12.111 Peat Stability was scoped out of the ES on the basis that a Stage 1 Peat Stability Assessment indicated that there was a insignificant risk of peat instability across the vast majority of the site; however, the potential for ‘significant’ risk of peat instability was noted relative to certain Turbine locations and it should be noted that SNH advised that the Peat Stability should be scoped back into the ES (Section 7.10.) given that the Peat Stability Assessment concluded that there were areas with the potential for significant risk of peat instability. Following consideration of the Peat Slide Risk Assessment, SNH were satisfied that the peat slide risk would not impact on the SAC.
ES – Chapter 8: Ecology Key issues 12.112 The ecological assessment considered the potential impacts on peatland habitats, otters, freshwater fish and bats. The study area covers the site plus a wider area including some undisturbed ground to the west and areas managed for peat cutting to the east. The Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is located to the west and south of the site, however the site is not considered hydrologically connected to the SAC. For consideration of statutory nature conservation designations, an area extending to 5km beyond the study area has been taken into account.
12.113 The survey area within the ES which considers habitats (birds are considered in Chapter 9 of the ES) covers the site plus a buffer of average width of approximately 75m. The Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is located to the west and south of the site.
12.114 The habitat survey area is moorland, used as common grazings. The additional buffer area includes some of the relatively less disturbed ground within the Lewis Peatlands SAC to the west and some of the areas currently managed for peat cuttings to the east, closer to the village of Tolsta. Detailed assessment of impacts on the Lewis Peatlands SAC were scoped out of this assessment due to it not being hydrologically connected to the site.
12.115 Baseline field surveys were undertaken for the entire survey area. For consideration of statutory nature conservation designations, an area extending to five kilometres beyond the site has been taken into account.
12.116 The following topic areas have been assessed in full: potential impacts on peatland habitats due to habitat loss and/or disturbance; direct and indirect potential impacts on groundwater dependant wetlands; potential impacts on locally important plant species; potential impacts on otters due to disturbance; potential impacts on bats; potential indirect impacts on freshwater fish due to changes in water quality.
12.117 All identified ecological impacts are not considered significant, apart from loss of habitat which is delineated as significant both regionally and residually.
12.118 The impacts assessed in the ES relating to habitat loss are considered to be certain to occur, permanent and irreversible. These impacts are predicted to affect 12.4 hectares, which is 2.4% of the total blanket mire macrotope (estimated as being 520ha in extent). Loss of this scale represents an impact on the integrity of the receptor. These losses are thus considered to be a significant impact on a receptor of regional conservation importance. The ES also considers that the indirect impacts on blanket bog and related habitats through hydrological disruption is likely to represent a significant impact on a receptor of regional importance for nature conservation.
Consultation Advice 12.119 SNH are satisfied that the Hazard Ranking assessment is transparent. SNH is also satisfied that should a peat slide occur, it is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.
12.120 SNH advises that the developer undertake the construction methodologies and mitigation measures outlined in Section 7.2 of the ES; microsite any of Turbines 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14 no closer to the boundary of the SAC than currently indicated; undertake detailed ground investigation works prior to construction; adopt appropriate monitoring and control measures during construction; and develop contingency plans for dealing with a peat slide should one occur.
Planning Service comment 12.121 The Comhairle accepts the findings of this chapter of the ES and finds that the research methods employed and the conclusions are founded. The Comhairle accepts that the loss of peatland habitat and related habitats through hydrological disruption represents an irreversible and significant impact. However, it is considered that impacts on the Lewis Peatlands SAC are unlikely given the fact that the SAC is not hydrologically connected to the site and therefore of low risk of habitat loss or disruption, provided care is taken to avoid peat slide, as per SNH’s guidance on the matter. It is considered that the identified ecological impacts of habitat loss and indirect impacts on blanket bog and related habitats through hydrological disruption are acceptable given the location and scale of the development.
ES Chapter 9 – Ornithology Key issues 12.122 Chapter 9 of the ES considers the potential impact of the development on ornithology. The site itself occupies a total area of approximately 261ha and is situated west of the settlement of Tolsta, on the Isle of Lewis. The current land use of the site is predominantly open moorland and bog used for livestock grazing and peat cutting.
12.123 The Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA) is located to the north and west of the proposed site. The SPA is designated for supporting nationally important populations of five Annex 1 species identified as of special priority for conservation.
12.124 In terms of the potential impacts of the proposed wind farm, assessment is required at the scale of the Lewis Peatlands SPA for breeding red-throated divers, black-throated divers, golden eagles, merlins, golden plover, dunlin and greenshank.
12.125 The Environmental Statement identifies the predicted ornithological impacts during the construction and operation of the wind farm based on a semi-quantitative assessment of bird numbers. These impacts cover loss of habitat, displacement of nesting or feeding birds, risk of collision with turbines, and cumulative impacts arising in combination with the operation of other windfarms. A study area extending to approximately 2km from the site boundary was surveyed for all breeding birds. The potential impacts focus on bird species with moderate or high ornithological value.
12.126 The Environmental Statement details a Summary of Impacts table at 9.7. The bird species detailed in this analysis include red-throated divers, black-throated divers, golden eagles, merlins, golden plover, dunlin, greenshank, arctic skua, and pink-footed goose. The predicted impacts are listed, followed by the significance of the impact, any proposed mitigation, and the significance of residual impacts. The significance of impacts on all surveyed bird species, except for golden eagles, carry a negligible or none status.
12.127 The potential impacts on golden eagles include the disruption of one breeding pair for up to two breeding seasons, the loss of up to 5.2% of one breeding range, and the potential loss of 0.46 golden eagles to collision over 25 years. The developer has categorised the significance of these impacts as minor. In order to mitigate disturbance to the breeding pair of golden eagles within 1km of Turbine 14 and borrow pit 2, the developer proposes that construction of infrastructure in proximity to the eagle nest will occur outwith the breeding season. The developer contends that if breeding is abandoned by golden eagles at the nearby nest site for one season, the magnitude and significance of any impacts resulting from construction-generated disturbance are likely to be low and minor. Turbine 14 would be visible from the golden eagle nesting crag in this range. The developer asserts that given the fact that the turbine is closer than the recommended disturbance free distance of 1km, operation of Turbine 14 may, in a maximum case scenario, render the nest site unattractive to breeding golden eagles. In this case and in the absence of any other suitable breeding crag, this golden eagle range could effectively be lost.
12.128 The ES states that cumulative impacts arising from all wind farm developments in the Outer Hebrides are predicted to result in the loss of up to three golden eagle breeding ranges and up to 22 golden eagles through collision mortality; although these predicted impacts are significant, the population of golden eagles breeding in the Outer Hebrides should maintain favourable conservation status.
12.129 The ES states that cumulative impacts arising from all wind farm developments in the Outer Hebrides are predicted to result in the loss of up to 25-30 red-throated divers through collision mortality. Up to 25 of these potential fatalities are predicted to impact the breeding population of red-throated divers within the Lewis Peatlands SPA; although these predicted impacts are significant the population of red-throated divers breeding in the Outer Hebrides and in the Lewis Peatlands SPA should maintain favourable conservation status.
Consultation advice 12.130 SNH had originally objected to the wind farm given a lack of survey work for breeding red-throated divers and golden eagles to inform a full assessment of these species within the SPA. The developer submitted this further survey work in September of 2013.
12.131 SNH agree with the revised findings of the ES that the potential loss of 2 red-throated divers from the SPA to collision over 25 years does not constitute an adverse effect on site integrity. In terms of the wider countryside, SNH is of the view that the potential loss of 7.25 birds over 25 years to collision is sustainable based on population modelling.
12.132 SNH also highlighted that Turbine 14 is sited within 1km of a golden eagle nesting crag. They advise that given the proximity of Turbine 14 to the golden eagle nesting site, the development may cause the nest site to be abandoned due to disturbance. As there are no other known nest sites for this pair, this could effectively lead to range abandonment.
12.133 SNH states that there is no mitigation proposed to prevent an offence under schedule 1A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). SNH does not consider the mitigation cited in the ES (table 9.7) for golden eagles to be sufficient to prevent potential disturbance. SNH recommends omission of Turbine 14 to minimise the risk of range abandonment which could impact on the golden eagle population of the Western Isles NHZ.
12.134 SNH agree with the ES that a collision risk of 0.46 golden eagles over the lifetime of the development does not constitute a risk to the viability of the population at the scale of the NHZ.
12.135 SNH details the fact that the ES identifies a total residual cumulative loss of three golden eagle ranges within the Outer Hebrides Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) as of moderate significance. SNH state that the statistical margins used in predicted collision risk and range abandonment for golden eagle at the NHZ scale are close to the limit of what the population could sustain and should be taken into consideration given the limitations of modelling a highly complex situation.
Planning Service comment 12.136 The findings of this revised chapter of the ES are agreed the research methods employed and the conclusions are founded; namely, no significant impacts are predicted on birds due to construction disturbance or habitat loss during the operational phase of the wind farm. Collision risk calculations do not indicate any significant impacts for any of the bird species, for the wind farm in isolation and cumulatively with other relevant wind farms.
12.137 However, there is agreement with SNH in terms of potential impacts on the golden eagle nesting site located within 1km of Turbine 14. The significance of the impact of this potential golden eagle range abandonment is difficult to measure, and the developer
requires to remove or re-site Turbine 14 and borrow pit 2 to ensure that wind farm infrastructure is at least 1km from the nest site.
12.138 The ES contends that provided the nest site is abandoned for one season, the magnitude and significance of any impacts resulting from construction are likely to be low. The ES also states that the potential loss of this particular golden eagle range is not significant.
12.139 However, the ES continues to allege that if this golden eagle range is abandoned, in culmination with a further two ranges from other consented wind farm developments, this would have a moderate significance. Given the potential abandonment of this golden eagle range, combined with the potential for abandonment of a further two ranges due to residual impacts, the absence of mitigation to prevent an offence under schedule 1A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which protects Golden eagles from intentional harassment where repeated disturbance i.e. the building of wind turbines over a 12 month period, can be considered harassment., the developer is required to mitigate potential impacts upon the golden eagle nest site in Tolsta beyond the measures highlighted within the ES. Having taken into account the advice of SNH, that all wind farm infrastructure is at least 1km from the nest site, removal of Turbine 14 as the only realistic mitigation of this impact.
ES Chapter 10 – Noise Key issues 12.140 This chapter presents an assessment of the potential construction and operational noise impacts of the proposed wind farm on the residents of nearby dwellings. An assessment of the potential cumulative impact of the proposed wind farm with other nearby windfarms is also included. The assessment has been undertaken by Hoare Lea Acoustics and this chapter represents a summary of the findings of that report.
12.141 The following impacts have been ‘scoped out’: Vibration impacts: on the basis that the nature of works and distances involved in the construction of a wind farm are such that the risk of significant impacts relating to ground borne vibration are very low. This is true for general construction activities as well as piling works. Occasional momentary vibration can arise when heavy vehicles pass dwellings at very short separation distances, but this is not sufficient to constitute a risk of significant impacts. Mitigation of potential vibration impacts associated with blasting is best achieved through onsite testing processes carried out in consultation with the Local Authorities. Accordingly, vibration impacts do not warrant detailed assessment and have not been considered further as part of this chapter. Cumulative construction impacts: it is considered unlikely that there will be any cumulative impacts from the construction phase as the nearby Tolsta Community Turbine will already be operational prior to construction of the proposed wind farm and no other developments are proposed within the vicinity of the wind farm. Therefore cumulative construction noise impacts are not considered further as part of this chapter. 12.142 A total of four noise monitoring locations were determined as being representative of the background noise environment around the site in agreement with the CnES Environmental Health Officer. The background noise monitoring exercise was conducted from 25th October 2012 to 15th November 2012, a period of over three weeks. A minimum of 14 to 21 days of concurrent noise and wind speed measurements were also obtained at each of the four survey locations during this period. In some instances, the results obtained from the survey positions have been used to represent the background environment expected to occur at other nearby assessment locations. For clarity, there were no wind turbines operational within the vicinity of the baseline noise survey locations during the survey period.
12.143 The measured hub height wind speed has been expressed at 10m height as required in ETSUR- 97, to provide a suitable reference to determine the prevailing background noise level during the quiet daytime and night-time periods. 12.144 The layout of the wind farm has been iteratively designed so as to seek an acceptable noise impact on local residential amenity, whilst maintaining generation capacity of the Wind farm (in addition to other design considerations). During the early stages of the design process, i.e. prior to background noise monitoring, an approximate 1km buffer distance was applied to residential properties which influenced the early turbine layouts. Construction Noise 12.145 Analysis of construction noise impacts has been undertaken in accordance with the methodologies outlined in this standard, which provides methods for predicting construction noise levels on the basis of reference data for the emissions of typical construction plant and activities. These methods include the calculation of construction traffic along access tracks and haul routes, and construction activities at fixed locations including the bases of turbines, temporary construction compounds, and the substation. The construction noise assessment has been based on indicative data for the types of plant likely to be used during the construction works, as presented in BS 5228-1. 12.146 The assessment is based on the premise that those activities that may give rise to audible noise at the surrounding properties and heavy goods vehicle deliveries to the site would be limited to the working hours stated in Chapter 4 of ES which exclude working during evening periods, Saturday afternoons and Sundays. Turbine and abnormal load deliveries will only take place outside these times with the prior consent from the relevant authorities. 12.147 Activities which are closer to noise sensitive receptors, related to construction of the northern and southern site entrance and access track (approximately 35m from 16 New Tolsta and 120m from East View respectively), have the potential to result in higher noise levels while work is undertaken at the closest location to these properties of up to 70 dB; however, this would be for a relatively short duration. 12.148 Noise levels at these properties will quickly diminish as the section of access track closest to these locations is completed and construction activities move further from this property. Similarly, construction of the temporary site compounds is predicted to generate levels of up to 63 dB LAeq,T, but this would be for a relatively short duration only. The relatively short-term nature of these activities consequently categorises the impacts to be of minor significance overall. 12.149 In addition to onsite activities, construction traffic passing to and from the site will also represent a potential source of noise to surrounding properties. Predicted noise levels at properties which lie relatively close to the site access track but which are relatively isolated properties are of 55 dB LAeq,T or less, corresponding to a negligible impact. Construction traffic movements on the B895 will in some cases represent noticeable relative increases in noise levels for properties which adjoin this road, but overall levels of traffic would remain low, corresponding to noise levels of 50 dB LAeq,T or less and as such considered to be correspond to an impact of negligible significance. 12.150 Noise from blasting (i.e. pressure waves in the human audible range) is not considered in the same way as noise from other construction activities due to the fact that a large proportion of the energy contained within pressure waves generated by a blast is at frequencies that are below the lower frequency threshold of human hearing, and that the portion of energy contained within the audible range is generally of low frequency and of smaller magnitude than the infrasonic pressure variations. The relevant guidance documents advise controlling air overpressure (and hence noise from blasting) through the use of good practices during the setting and detonation of charges as opposed to absolute limits on the levels produced, therefore no absolute limits for air overpressure or noise from blasting will be presented in this assessment. Onsite testing will be undertaken to assess any potential impacts of blasting activities and to provide the necessary control measures required.
Proposed Construction Mitigation Measures 12.151 To reduce the potential impacts of construction noise, in addition to the procedures stated in elsewhere in the ES the following mitigation measures are proposed: all equipment will be maintained in good working order and any associated noise attenuation such as engine casing and exhaust silencers shall remain fitted at all times; where flexibility exists, activities will be separated from residential neighbours by the maximum possible distances; a site traffic management regime will be developed to control the movement of vehicles to and from the site; construction plant capable of generating significant noise levels will be operated in a manner to restrict the duration of the higher magnitude levels; the potential impacts of blasting activities is best achieved through onsite testing processes carried out in consultation with the local council, in line with relevant British Standards and PAN50, Annex D. 12.152 Construction activities are expected to be audible at noise sensitive receptors at various times throughout the construction phase. The predictions for construction noise impacts have, however, already demonstrated that the impacts prior to mitigation are expected to be of negligible to minor significance. With the adoption of the above mitigation measures, the potential noise impacts during construction were predicted to be of negligible to minor significance. Operational Impacts 12.153 The baseline noise environment was typically dominated by ‘natural’ noise sources such as wind disturbed vegetation and birdsong, and occasional road traffic noise was also noted. Therefore the measured baseline noise levels are considered consistent with those that would be expected in a rural environment. 12.154 The acceptable limits for wind turbine operational noise are clearly defined in ETSU-R- 97. Consequently, the test applied to operational noise is whether or not the calculated wind farm noise emission levels at nearby noise sensitive properties lie below the noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97. 12.155 The day time noise limit is derived from background noise data measured during so called ‘quiet periods of the day’, comprising weekday evenings (18:00 to 23:00), Saturday afternoons and evenings (13:00 to 23:00) and all day and evening on Sundays (07:00 to 23:00). 12.156 Predicted noise emission levels (for each ten metre height wind speed from 4m/s to 12m/s inclusive) at each of the five assessment locations and the predicted noise levels have been provided for the proposed wind farm operating alone (assuming a Vestas 3.0 MW candidate turbine, with an 80m hub height and a 46.5m rotor diameter). The predicted noise emission levels at the assessment locations vary between 29 dB (A) at low wind speeds and 38 dB(A) at high wind speeds. 12.157 The assessment demonstrated that the ‘appropriate’ ETSU-R-97 noise limits are predicted to be achieved at all wind speeds and at all assessment locations, with a negligible exception at one property. This is based on conservative predictions which assume primarily simultaneous downwind propagation from all wind turbines at any one time, which will not be the case in practice for most conditions. The assessment of the proposed candidate turbine has, demonstrated that no operational constraints would be required if this turbine was to be installed. The selection of the final turbine and operating modes to be installed at the site will be made on the basis of enabling the relevant ETSU-R-97 noise limits to be achieved at surrounding properties. 12.158 The cumulative operational impacts of the proposed wind farm and the consented Tolsta Community Turbine have been considered.
12.159 Predicted cumulative noise emission levels (for each ten metre height wind speed from 4m/s to 12m/s inclusive) at each of the five assessment locations are detailed. 12.160 When considering the cumulative noise impacts, the following limits were determined to be applicable within the ES: a fixed daytime lower limit of 40 dB(A), or 5 dB above the prevailing background noise level, whichever is the higher; a fixed night time lower limit of 43 dB(A), or 5 dB above the prevailing background noise level, whichever is the higher. 12.161 The cumulative assessment has considered an increased fixed lower limit of 40 dB for the day-time, at the upper end of the range permitted in ETSU-R-97. This is because of the increased overall generating capacity of the cumulative scenario, as well as the disproportionate impact that a reduced limit on the proposed wind farm (with a capacity of up to 42 MW) would have when considering the existing Tolsta Community Turbine (less than 1 MW and predicted to generate up to approximately 35 dB(A) at the nearest properties). The calculations of cumulative noise levels assume that all receptors are downwind of all wind turbines, which would only occur in a limited set of conditions (westerly winds). When a receptor is upwind of a turbine, this results in a reduction in the noise levels experienced in practice. Therefore, for the assessment locations considered, these cumulative predicted noise levels are unlikely to fully occur in practice for most conditions. Planning Service comment 12.162 The number of dwellings in the neighbourhood of the wind farm is very important in seeking to balance the benefits arising out of the development of renewable energy sources against the local environmental impact. The more dwellings that are in the vicinity of a wind farm the tighter the limits should be as the total environmental impact will be greater. Conversely if only a few dwellings are affected, then the environmental impact is less and noise limits towards the upper end of the range may be appropriate. Developers still have to consider the interests of individuals as protected under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is our belief however, in accordance with the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee [23], that there have been no cases of complaints of noise at levels similar to those caused by wind farms leading to a successful prosecution as a statutory nuisance. It should be noted however that the Welsh Affairs Committee also reports that although the noise may not be a statutory nuisance it can clearly be a cause for distress and disturbance, particularly if residents have been promised inaudibility and the noise has a particular quality leading to complaints. 12.163 A single wind turbine causing noise levels at a given level to several nearby residences would be considered to have less planning merit (noise considerations only) than 30 wind turbines causing the same amount of noise at several nearby residences. 12.164 The consideration of background noise levels, the proportion of the time at which are low and how low the background noise level is found to be are both recognised as factors that could affect the setting of an appropriate lower limit under ETSU, which identifies a range of values (35dB to 40dB daytime). For example, a property which experienced background noise levels below 30dB(A) for a substantial proportion of the time and where the turbines are proposed to operate could be expected to receive tighter noise limits than a property at which the background noise levels soon increased to levels above 35dB(A). This approach is difficult to formulate precisely and a degree of judgement should be exercised. Night-time Noise 12.165 ETSU recommends a level of 43 dB(A) or 5dB(A) above background noise levels (which ever is the greater) for night-time noise. Based on more recent information about noise levels and sleep disturbance the Comhairle applies conditions with a night time limit of 38 dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above background noise levels (which ever is the greater). The Developer considers that the 43 dB(A) limit should be applied. 12.166 The developer has carried out a detailed background noise assessment using equipment at the four properties nearest to the development. Readings were taken over a period of
three weeks and the properties were picked in consultation with Environmental Health. The background readings recorded 16 New Tolsta were generally higher than at the other properties and on the whole the background readings were relatively low. 12.167 The size and model of turbine for the development has not been finalised however the developer had acoustic consultants predict noise levels at these premises, based on an indicative turbine model and predictive software. ETSU-R-97 advises that existing developments should not be included in subsequent background measurements therefore the onus should be on the second developer to ensure that their scheme meets any existing noise conditions, taking account of any existing windfarms. 12.168 Using identified background levels and the indicative turbine levels, the developers have predicted noise at the nearest properties. The proposed development in isolation would on the whole comply with the developers proposed noise limits (38 dB(A) and 43 dB(A)), however would not comply with the Comhairle’s previously applied limits (35 dB(A) and 38 dB(A)), in some cases by being 2.9 dB(A) above daytime limits. The development would comply in the most part with the Comhairle’s evening limits. This does not take account of the cumulative noise from the community turbine which ETSU would expect to be included to give cumulative impacts. 12.169 The Cumulative noise impact using the background levels identified, the indicative turbine levels, the cumulative noise impact from the proposed development and the previously consented community turbine would comply with the developers proposed noise limits (40 dB(A) and 43 dB(A)), however would not comply with the Comhairle’s previously applied limits of 35 dB(A) and 38 dB(A), and in some cases Comhairle’s thresholds are exceeded by 3.9 dB(A) above daytime limits and 1.5 dB(A) above evening limits. The properties that are most likely to be affected are in the South West part of the village, due to lower recorded background levels and proximity to more turbines. 12.170 The developer has stated that these predicted levels are obtained using a model which assumes that the noise sensitive premises is downwind of all wind turbines at the same time. The actual levels which would occur in practice will also be considerably lower in upwind conditions. These cumulative readings are therefore unlikely to occur in practice in most conditions. 12.171 The highest predicted levels at the affected properties will be when there is a westerly wind and wind data in the ES is four month period shows that this is only expected to occur 10% of the time based on the predominantly South Westerly wind direction. 12.172 The developers consider that the higher limits of ETSU-R-97 range are appropriate and this they have used in their assessment. The Comhairle has previously applied the 35 dB(A) and 38dB(A) limits in order to award higher protection and amenity to reflect local conditions as directed by ETSU-R-97. 12.173 The developer following advice from the Environmental Health Service has agreed to the noise limits applied by the Comhairle which are more stringent than those set by ETSU as necessary to mitigate against the impacts on noise on amenity of noise sensitive premises.
ES Summary of Chapter 11 Traffic & Transport 12.174 Chapter 11 of the ES considers the potential access and traffic impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed wind farm. Baseline conditions have been established through site visits, a desktop survey and consultation with CnES.
12.175 It is anticipated that the turbine components will be transported from the pier at Arnish Point to the site entrance. This establishes the study area of the assessment which comprises: From the pier at Arnish Point, along the private road to junction with the A859 Head east on the A859 to the A858 then to a roundabout junction at Stornoway At the roundabout junction in Stornoway take the first exit onto the A857 Follow the A857 north until the junction with the B895
Follow the B895 north east to the site access south of Tolsta
12.176 The potential impacts on the proposed route outlined above have been assessed in respect of HGV movements, abnormal load movements with Police escort, delays and disruption to road users during the construction phase. These potential impacts are as follows; Temporary increase in traffic Disruption and driver delay Increased risk of accidents Severance Pedestrian Amenity Dust & dirt Visual impact Safety 12.177 The assessment methodology addressees each of the potential impacts mentioned above under three headings: Sensitivity, Magnitude, Significance of Impact. The baseline, impact assessment, mitigation options and conclusions together with the advice of Comhairle Technical Services- Roads are discussed further below. 12.178 The chapter outlines the methodology uses in assessing potential impacts starting with Sensitivity of roads ranging form High Sensitivity: roads used by sensitive user groups i.e. schools, nursing homes to Low Sensitivity: already busy roads without pedestrian access. The predicted Magnitude of an impact, as it relates to increase in traffic flows, is assessed from being Major: greater than 90% increase (70% where considered sensitive) to Negligible: less than 30% (less than 10% where considered sensitive). Finally the overall Significance of Impact is to be assessed ranging from Major to Negligible depending on the sensitivity of the road and the magnitude of increase in traffic flow. 12.179 Baseline conditions on the route from Arnish Point to the proposal site have been established through a site visit, a drive through survey, a visual survey, aerial photography, a desktop survey as well as advice from the Comhairle. 12.180 The potential trip generation elements of the proposal are identified as being; Construction traffic generation: flatbed Lorries, cranes etc, Abnormal Loads Trip Generation: vehicles in excess of 80 tonnes, vehicles carrying tower sections/turbine blades etc., HGV Trip Generation: delivery of various materials, concrete etc., Construction Personnel: estimated workforce of 40 people during construction phase. 12.181 The chapter then assesses each of the above mentioned elements in terms of their potential impacts; HGV deliveries to the site as well as the arrival/departure of construction personnel are both assessed to have a minor impact on traffic flows in the vicinity. In addition the impact of Abnormal Loads is also assessed as being minor. The impact of HGV movements along the route are assessed against the criteria outlined earlier i.e. Disruption and Driver Delay, Severance, Pedestrian Amenity, Dust and Dirt, Visual Impact, Safety etc. The potential impacts are all assessed as being of minor significance. 12.182 To mitigate against these potential impacts the applicant proposes that a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is implemented which will incorporate a routeing strategy to reduce movement of vehicles at various times such as morning and evening peak traffic hours. It will also incorporate various good practice measures such as wheel washing facilities, toolbox talks on safety etc. A draft TMP will be prepared prior to construction and submitted to CnES for consideration. The chapter states that the implementation of a TMP and routeing agreement will reduce impacts during construction. It states that there will be a minor residual environmental impact in terms of traffic and transport. Consultation Advice 12.183 The response of the Comhairle’s Technical Services Department - Roads states the following;
12.184 A traffic management plan should be submitted for approval showing the proposed movements of haulage and site traffic.
12.185 'The additional traffic arising from the construction of these developments can easily be classified as "extraordinary" and it is therefore proposed that an agreement be reached with the respective developers that:
(i) Pre-start condition surveys be carried out by an independent specialist organisation on all those roads likely to be affected by the developments at the expense of the developers; (ii) similar conditions surveys be carried out by the same independent specialist on a regular basis, at monthly intervals, at the developers' expense for the duration of the development construction; (iii) strengthening, re-alignment and road-widening works be carried out at agreed 'pinch-point' and 'at-risk' locations, including structures, to a specification agreed with the Comhairle to safeguard the integrity of the existing infrastructure for existing traffic as well as enabling the safe passage of construction and component traffic; (iv) the surface and general integrity of all roads used by the respective developers be maintained at their expense during all construction works; (v) the roads affected are resurfaced to an agreed specification along the lengths affected by construction and component traffic; (vi) the delivery of all materials and components for this development should, wherever possible, be routed through the Arnish site and not through Stornoway Town Centre; (vii) any and all other works required by the Comhairle as roads authority to ensure compliance with all relevant statutory and legislative requirements.' (viii) any access that joins a Comhairle road should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed access detail drawing 13/00215 Planning Service comment 12.186 The submission of a Traffic Management Plan will be conditioned on any consent and the developer will also be directed to consult with Technical Services – Roads, prior to construction, on the various issues outlined in the response above. The consensus is that the development is unlikely to result in any significant impact on the environment. The advice of Technical Services – Roads would also require to be reflected in a Planning Obligation Agreement. ES -CHAPTER 12: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE 12.187 Chapter 12 of the ES presents an assessment of the potential direct and indirect effects on the archaeological and cultural heritage resources recorded within the development area. The assessment was undertaken by Headland Archaeology Ltd and formed the basis of consultation with CnES Archeology Service as well as Historic Scotland. The desk based survey identifies three distinct areas of study; 1) Inner Study Area: consisting of development site; 2) Middle Study Area: extending 5km from the site boundary and; 3) Outer Study Area: beyond 5km and up to 15km from the application area boundary. The following impacts have been assessed in full; direct or indirect impacts on the fabric of cultural heritage assets within the Inner Study Area impact on the setting of cultural heritage assets in the Inner and Middle Study Areas 12.188 The chapter then outlines the assessment methodology undertaken which combines studying data sources and guidance i.e. cartographic surveys & aerial photographs as well as a Field Survey carried out 4th & 5th October 2012. The chapter sets out the
relevant legislation and planning policy context, consultation advice and assessment methodology, prior to the baseline assessment, impact assessment approach to mitigation, limitations to study and residual impacts and conclusions. The baseline, impact assessment, mitigation options and conclusions together with the advice of the Comhairle Archaeology Service and Historic Scotland are discussed further below. 12.189 The chapter firstly outlines the methodology to be used in assessing the Significance of Cultural Heritage Assets ranging from ‘High’ i.e. Scheduled Monuments & Category A Listed Buildings to ‘Negligible’ i.e. a badly preserved or extremely common type of archaeological asset. Next, the potential Magnitude of Impacts on cultural assets is quantified ranging from ‘High Beneficial’ i.e. the asset is preserved in situ, where it would be lost if the ‘do nothing’ scenario was played out, to ‘High Adverse’ i.e. key characteristics of the asset’s fabric and or setting are lost. Finally the Significance of Potential Impacts are quantified ranging from ‘Major’ i.e. changes leading to a substantial reduction in the cultural significance of a heritage asset, to ‘Negligible’ i.e. changes which do not result in an appreciable reduction in the cultural significance of a heritage asset. 12.190 The baseline study identifies one non-designated heritage asset (Gearraidh Ionadagro- Shieling Huts) within the Inner Study Area. There are no designated heritage assets identified. The assessment states that there is the potential for currently undiscovered heritage assets within the Inner Study Area although this relates almost exclusively to prehistoric archaeological remains that pre-date the development of blanket peat, and may be deeply buried by peat growth. A lack of evidence at present makes this potential impossible to quantify. 12.191 The assessment identifies ten cultural heritage assets in the Middle Study Area consisting of six Scheduled Monuments and four Listed Buildings. All but one of these designated assets have coastal locations. 12.192 A 20m buffer around known cultural heritage assets was used to inform the preliminary wind farm design. The assessment of impacts on cultural heritage assets is broken into three categories; construction impacts; operational impacts; cumulative impacts. 12.193 The following operations are considered to have the potential to impact on the physical fabric of heritage assets during the construction phase; extraction of stone from borrow pits, construction of site access tracks, construction of drainage and changes to hydrological conditions, construction of temporary hardstanding, construction of turbine and transformer bases, excavation of trenches for site services, movement of construction traffic, felling and substation construction. The only known asset within the site boundary is a group of Shieling huts and is located more than 200m from any proposed construction works and will therefore be unaffected by direct or indirect impacts. Impacts may occur on unknown heritage assets and therefore proposed mitigation measures include having an Archaeological Clerk of Works present during construction and the carrying out of auger sampling and palaeoenvironmental assessment. It is stated in the assessment that any potential residual impacts are of minor or negligible significance. 12.194 Operational impacts relate largely to impacts on the setting of heritage assets and are primarily a result of visual intrusion. There will be negligible or no impact on the settings of any of the Heritage Assets identified within the assessment, as a result of the wind farm development. Since no operational impacts are identified, no mitigation is proposed. The assessment states that there will be no significant residual impacts resulting from the operational phase of the wind farm. 12.195 The potential for Cumulative Operational Impacts which may result from the construction of more than one wind farm within the setting of a heritage asset is assessed. The other developments included in the cumulative assessment are all existing and proposed windfarms within 35km of the proposed development. The assessment states that the proposed wind farm will not have any impacts on the setting of cultural or heritage assets
therefore no cumulative impacts will occur. Subsequently no mitigation is required and no residual cumulative impacts are identified. Consultation advice 12.196 Historic Scotland has reviewed the findings of this Chapter of the ES submitted by the applicant and concur with the applicant’s assessment as it relates to the identified heritage assets i.e. the impact on said heritage assets is unlikely to be significant and that Historic Scotland therefore has no objection to the application. 12.197 The Comhairle’s Archaeology Service has also reviewed the findings of this Chapter of the applicants ES and state that in addition to the potential direct impacts to the cultural heritage resource identified at the construction phase the applicant should also consider peat slippage as well as landscaping and decommissioning. Furthermore the Archaeology Service refers to the mitigation strategies presented in section 12.45 -12.48 of the ES which indicate that an archaeological clerk of works will be appointed for the project prior to the construction of the wind farm. The initial stage of assessment will be an auger survey in order to inform the potential for archaeological and palaeoenvironmental remains over areas of potential construction impact. They state that it is important that the Archaeology Service and the ACoW agree a project design for the auger survey prior to any work taking place. Therefore the Archaeology Service recommend a limited program of archaeological works in order to inform any strategy of mitigation that maybe necessary; this is required to identify any unknown archaeological features that may be present. To this in end the Archaeology Service recommend the following condition is attached to any planning consent; 12.198 Condition: No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (“the Scheme”) which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority. The Scheme shall specify the appointed archaeological contracting company, their staffing and qualifications, and set out measures for the preservation, interpretation and recording of archaeological remains on the application site and, as a minimum shall make provision for the following: I. Sampling and palaeoenvironmental assessment to be carried out in all areas within the scheme including cabling, access tracks, borrow pits, crane hardstandings, turbine bases, sub-stations and any other ground disturbance work. II. Dependent on the results of the assessment the scope of any further archaeological works will need to be determined to inform any further mitigation. Potential archaeological works are to be discussed and agreed prior to construction works with the Comhairle Archaeology Service. III. Provision for the excavation of identified sites, or preservation in situ and appropriate re-routing/relocation of elements of the development as appropriate; IV. The Auger recording of archaeological remains which are not to remain in situ and the disposal of finds via the Scottish Archaeological Finds Allocation Panel as required by law; V. Appropriate arrangements for the publication of results of the archaeological work. 12.199 The written scheme of investigation should be submitted by the applicant at least 14 days prior to the proposed commencement date and approved in writing by the Comhairle Archaeologist. The approved scheme of investigation shall be implemented subject to any variations agreed in writing by the local planning authority 12.200 These conditions enable the maintenance of the archaeological record in the Western Isles.
12.201 Reason: In order to mitigate the impacts of the development on the archaeological resource of the area, in accordance with Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, Policy 34. Planning Service comment 12.202 The consensus is that the development is unlikely to result in any significant impact on the environment. There is however a request from the Archaeology Service CnES that a condition be attached to any planning consent in order to mitigate against potential impacts against unknown heritage assets within the site.
ES Chapter 13: Socio Economic Impacts 12.203 The study area for the assessment comprises the site and immediate surrounding area in relation to potential direct impacts on recreation and land use, and the wider Outer Hebrides area in relation to potential social and economic impacts, including impacts on tourism. 12.204 The following impacts were assessed in full: employment generation during construction and operation of the windfarm; indirect economic impacts from the proposed scheme (e.g. opportunities for local supply businesses); impacts on tourism in the wider area; direct impacts on existing recreation activities (including access) and indirect impacts of noise, dust, and traffic movements on users of the site and surrounding area. 12.205 The following data sources were used to inform the assessment: Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan; Visit Scotland Tourism statistics; NOMIS official labour market statistics; Outer Hebrides Core Path Plan 2010; Office of National Statistics – Census 2011.
12.206 No field survey was undertaken specifically to inform the assessment.
12.207 Consideration of the significance of the impact criteria is based on the following ‘Significance of impact’ categories, Major, Moderate, Minor, and Negligible, with Major and Moderate impacts considered significant in the context of EIA.
12.208 The ES predicts the socio-economic impacts are split between those identified for construction and those identified for operation and are summarised as follows:
Construction Impacts 12.209 During the construction stage it is anticipated that a temporary workforce, averaging 40 personnel on site at any one time will be employed during the construction phase. It is standard practice in economic appraisals to convert temporary employment levels into full-time equivalents (FTEs). To do this, it is considered that 10 person years is the equivalent to one FTE job. Therefore, 40 employees for 12 months and this equates to 40 years of direct employment, or 4 permanent FTEs.
12.210 It is estimated that the local population will be likely to take up to 85% of the direct construction jobs. The remaining 15% are likely to be specialised construction jobs, requiring skills not currently available within the local economy. The relatively low leakage factor is a reflection of: anecdotal views expressed during previous construction projects on the island; the increased rate of unemployment amongst people with construction sector experience; and the islands’ workforce preparing itself in terms of construction skills to benefit from the wind farm projects which will begin construction once the interconnector is confirmed.
12.211 Displacement of existing employees between sectors can occur where individual projects (such as construction) require a large supply of temporary employment. Individuals may
use this opportunity to secure higher paid employment for a defined period, or to redirect their career. This impact is deducted from the gross employment generated as the movement of employees does not necessarily result in their old job being made available to the local economy. This impact is estimated to account for 5% of the construction employment secured by local residents moving from their current job. Once leakage and displacement figures have been accounted for it is estimated that there will be 3.2 directly employed FTEs being generated by the construction of the wind farm. As such, it is considered that the construction of the wind farm will have an impact of minor positive significance on the local economy. 12.212 Induced employment arises from the expenditure of wages and salaries earned by the direct and indirect employees. The impact of the creation of 1.1 additional indirect plus induced FTEs through the multiplier is considered to be of minor positive significance for the local economy. 12.213 The wind farm site is not currently used for any formal public recreation activities and there are no known Rights of Way, core paths or wider network paths crossing the site. Core paths and wider network paths which have been identified in the Existing Conditions section will not be directly affected during construction. Public access throughout the construction phase will be restricted and managed by the appointed Contractor for health and safety reasons in line with requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) (CDM) Regulations 2007. It is therefore considered that the construction of the wind farm will have a negligible impact on public access and recreation. 12.214 During construction there will be some disruption to the main activities on site, i.e. grazing and peat cutting is likely to be temporarily disrupted. As such, it is considered that construction of the wind farm will have an impact of minor negative significance on land use of the site for a limited period of time. 12.215 It is considered that construction of the wind farm will have no impact on tourism within or surrounding the site as there is no specific visitor attraction that would be affected by construction activity. Tràigh Mhòr beach is located approximately 650m north-east of the wind farm and it is considered that there will be no impact on the beach due to its distance from the site and the construction traffic route. As such, it is considered that construction of the wind farm will have a negligible impact on tourism. Operational Impacts 12.216 Due to their remote operational control and limited need for servicing, windfarms do not create large numbers of jobs during the operational stage. It is expected that four to five FTE staff will be employed to operate the wind farm and undertake routine maintenance work during the lifetime of the scheme (25 years). 12.217 It is assumed that 80% of these jobs could be filled by local residents (giving a leakage factor of 20%). Thus, the operational phase of the wind farm will directly generate 3.2 FTE employees. This is considered to be an impact of minor positive significance for the local economy. 12.218 Based on the level of employment likely to be generated from operation of the windfarm, the potential for indirect employment opportunities is limited. The 2003 Regional Accounts for the Outer Hebrides suggest the appropriate indirect plus induced employment multiplier to apply to the operational direct employment would be 0.4. 12.219 The ES identifies the Directors of DLWL as having a strong track record in delivering Community Benefit on wind farm projects throughout Scotland. 2020 Renewables is experienced in structuring benefit mechanisms such as trusts or forums that suit the needs of particular communities. There has been a clear indication from the public exhibitions to date that the majority of the community benefit funds should be managed and distributed within Tolsta and DLWL will continue to work on this premise. DLWL will work with the Council and community leaders to establish suitable distribution mechanisms and ensure that the application process for the community benefit funds is accountable and understood.
12.220 Based on DLWL’s site specific financial model, a figure of £7,000/MW has been proposed for community benefit fund purposes. This equates on current MW terms to £294,000 per annum and in excess of £7,000,000 over the 25 year lifetime of the wind farm. Given the financial value of the community benefit fund and the likelihood of significant major expenditure in Tolsta over a 25 year period, the impact is considered to be of major positive significance.
12.221 Tourism and Visual amenity impacts - Predicted impacts on viewpoints of relevance to recreation and/or tourism, either as tourist attractions or potential stopping points along popular recreation walking or driving routes, are as follows: Viewpoint 2 Tràigh Mhòr: this viewpoint represents views of recreational users using the beach at sea level and the significance of the impact is considered to be negligible. Viewpoint 3 Heritage Trail, North Tolsta: this viewpoint represents views of recreational users using the heritage trail footpath on the elevated ground between Tolsta and Ness/Butt of Lewis. The visual impact is considered to be major. Viewpoint 5 Tiumpan Head: this viewpoint represents views recreational users will have from the picnic site and the Tiumpan Head circuit. The visual impact is considered to be moderate. Viewpoint 7 A857, Stornoway – Barvas: this viewpoint represents views of motorists travelling across Lewis on the main A-road between Stornoway and Barvas. The visual impact is considered to be minor. Viewpoint 8 Lewis War Memorial: this viewpoint represents views of visitors to the memorial and the significance of the impact is considered to be minor. Viewpoint 11 Muirneag: this viewpoint represents views of recreational users from the top of this hill and the significance of the impact is considered to be moderate.
12.222 Once operational, the wind farm will provide a form of rural diversification in the area through income generated from the turbines. The rental payments for the wind farm will go directly to the local community (over and above the community benefit payments outlined above) as the wind farm is located within a Common Grazings. Furthermore, once the wind farm is operational, grazing and peat cutting can continue. On this basis, it is considered that operation of the wind farm will have an impact of minor positive significance on the land use of the site.
12.223 There are no mitigations proposed as no significant impacts are predicted. Following implementation of the mitigation measures (during construction), the predicted residual impacts during operation of the proposed wind farm are as follows: Direct employment is considered to be minor positive; Indirect employment is considered to be minor positive; Induced employment is considered to be minor positive; Community benefit is considered to be major positive; Tourism is considered to be negligible.
12.224 The direct and indirect employment generation associated with the construction and operation of the wind farm will give rise to minor positive benefits.
Consultation Advice 12.225 The Economic Development Services of the Development Department of the Comhairle has confirmed much of the data contained in the socio-economic chapter of the ES.
12.226 The observation that “in the absence of the proposed wind farm, land use activities are likely to remain unchanged and economic activity within the Outer Hebrides is likely to continue in accordance with the trends identified” is not entirely consistent with a later statement within the ES, “When combined with the employment generation from the consented and proposed other windfarms in the Outer Hebrides, this will give a strong boost to the currently fragile economy of the Outer Hebrides”.
12.227 There are consents elsewhere that will lead to change in the local economy, and future change cannot be said to be dependent on this development alone and this is acknowledged in the ES. The ES is therefore not consistent in the content highlighted above.
Planning Service Comment 12.228 It is considered that the weighting of positive and negative impacts is acceptable given the methodology and rationale highlighted within this Chapter
12.229 The economic benefits secured by the planning process amount to those jobs created through direct and induced construction and operational activities. These are 3.2 directly employed FTEs from construction of the wind farm plus 1.1 additional indirect plus induced FTEs 3.2 FTE employee directly from the operational phase plus 1.3 induced; a total of 8.8 FTE jobs.
12.230 It should be noted that the community benefits proposed within the for the 25 year operational period will not be secured through the planning process and remains to be secured through other mechanisims.
12.231 With that proviso, it is considered that the findings and assertions within the Socio- economic Chapter are fairly stated as is the methodology and rationale highlighted within the Chapter.
ES Summary of Chapter 14: Other Issues 12.232 Chapter 14 of the EIA assesses the potential impacts of the proposed wind farm in relation to: Aviation and defence, Microwave & UHF Telemetry communications links Shadow flicker Carbon balance
12.233 Radio broadcasting, and construction impacts on same and the above and the cumulative effect with the Tolsta Community Wind Turbine were scoped out as unlikely to have a significant impact.
Aviation and Defence 12.234 Baseline Conditions for Aviation and Defence were identified as being; the wind farm being located 20KM north of Stornoway Airport (6 turbines located within the Outer Horizontal Surface forming part of the Physical Safeguarding Zone for the Airport); 27.8km NATS Consultation Zone and the 24km CAP 764 consultation Zone, approximately 15.3km north of the Met Office radar at Druim Na Starraig.
12.235 The ES identifies the only predicted operational impact of significance, prior to mitigation, as being the 6 turbines that fall within the airport safeguarded area. The mitigation proposed in respect of this significant impact is the lighting of the top of the turbine nacelle of each by low intensity steady red light.
12.236 In terms of other impacts the ES states that NATS radar, en route navigation aids and en-route radio communications are unlikely to be impacted; that Stornoway Airport, Runway 18 is unlikely to be impacted upon and that no response had been received from the MoD that would allow impacts on defence or the Met Office radar to be quantified.
12.237 The MOD has been consulted and has concluded following a review of its initial position that does not object to the Druim Leathann wind farm proposal (ref. 13/00215/PPDM). The MOD assessment has been carried out on the basis that there will be 14 turbines, 126.50 metres in height from ground level to blade tip and located at the grid references
below as stated in the planning application. The MOD requests that all perimeter turbines be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point.
12.238 HIAL has advised that part of the development falls inside the safeguarded areas for Stornoway Airport (as defined in CAP 764 - CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines and CAP 670 - Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements) and while some of the turbines could present physical infringements to these areas, a potential technical solution is identified and therefore the matter can be addressed in a suspensive condition. 12.239 The turbines could possibly impact on the Instrument Flight Procedures and/or the performance of electronic aeronautical systems for the airport. HIAL would not wish to see a degradation of any of these services.
12.240 NATS advise that the proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Planning Service Comment 12.241 In light of the advice of the MoD, NATS and HIAL it is concluded that no significant impacts are likely to remain after implementation of lighting requirements requested previously by HIAL and the MoD. It is proposed that these mitigations can be managed by way of condition.
Telecommunications Microwave & UHF Telemetry communications links 12.242 In relation to Telecommunications, the baseline assessment identifies two existing Mobile Phone masts, one to the south and one to the east. Other telecommunications links identified following consultation with Ofcom include 2 by Airwave initially with potential for Impact and 2 for BT and 1 for HIE (ConCom) with no potential for impact. In terms of predicted impacts the ES states that consultation with mobile phone operators confirm that there will be no impact on their services, and that consultation with JRC, BT and Atkins on behalf of HIE confirmed that the proposal will not impact on their or their clients links. Following re-siting of Turbines 12 and 13, the ES states that R4 Telecom on behalf of Airways also confirmed the layout of the submitted turbine will not pose problems to Airwave’s microwave radio links. The impacts are therefore stated as not significant.
12.243 Atkins Global advise that the application has been examined in relation to UHF Radio Scanning Telemetry communications used Scottish Water in that region and have no objection to the proposal.
12.244 JRC advises that the proposal was assessed and cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by:- Scottish Hydro (Scottish & Southern Energy) and Scotia Gas Networks and they do not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.
Planning Service Comment 12.245 It is therefore concluded that the assessment of these impacts is founded.
Television 12.246 The baseline confirms that the wind farm site is located in the STV North TV Region and television transmission for homes in the vicinity are likely to be provided by Eitshal transmitter located 26km south west of the nearest turbine.
12.247 In terms of predicted impacts, the ES acknowledges that interference to digital television signals from wind turbines is possible and that the likelihood of interference to reception depends on the respective signals received from the transmitter (carrier signal) and the wind turbines. It states that where the ‘carrier to interference ratio is low there is a high chance of interference’.
12.248 The ES states that based on assessment Tolsta is located in an area where interference is possible and therefore in the absence of mitigation a significant impact is predicted.
12.249 In terms of mitigation the ES identifies proposals to employ the following remedial actions. In terms of further survey work the ES identifies that a TV reception survey will be carried out prior to the construction of the wind farm to calculate the interference currently experienced in the vicinity of the wind farm. 12.250 In terms of Residual impacts the ES states that in the event that interference to TV Reception is experienced, a technical solution would be employed and affected residents would not be left without TV Signal or picture quality lesser than that pre-construction.
Planning Service Comment 12.251 This matter could be covered by condition to ensure the mitigations proposed, to reduce significance of impact, are implemented.
Shadow Flicker 12.252 The ES states that potential shadow flicker impacts were modeled and the conclusion of the modelling was that no properties are located within 10 rotor diameters and no properties will therefore experience shadow flicker. The rotor diameter is 90m which suggests no shadow flicker will occur beyond 900m.
Planning Service Comment 12.253 While on that basis no significant impacts are predicted, and no mitigation is proposed, it should be noted that the turbines will lie to the west of the settlement where the winter sun will sit low in the sky and some effect from turbines is possible albeit unlikely to be significant. Environmental Health raise no issues in respect of shadow flicker. The Planning Service accords with the findings of the ES and concludes that no significant impact is likely to arise.
Carbon Balance 12.254 The ES states that the aim of the carbon balance calculation is to quantify the sources of carbon emissions associated with the wind farm (from turbine manufacture and operation as well as losses of forestry and peat) and quantify and compare with the carbon emissions that will be saved by the wind farm. 12.255 The ES states that peat depth probing data was used to inform the carbon balance assessment which was undertaken using the Scottish Government’s Carbon calculator. The factors taken into account in the calculation are set out in both carbon losses and carbon savings are set out in paragraphs 14.12, 14.13 and 14.14 of the ES. The full range of inputs used in the carbon balance calculations is presented in Appendix 14.1 to the ES. The results of the annual carbon savings are presented as equivalent to the tonnes of carbon dioxide per year saving relative to a range of other forms of generation including coal fired, fossil fuel and mixed energy. The biggest carbon savings and payback are achieved against coal fired and fossil fuel generation. 12.256 In terms of baseline conditions, the ES identifies that the majority of the site is located on peatland with one turbine located within forestry which will involve felling of trees. It notes that due to the presence of forestry and peat on site, the site currently operates as a ‘carbon sink’ – absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. 12.257 In terms of predicted impacts the ES states that using the carbon calculator the predicted payback time is expected to be 1.4 years and significantly less than the 25 year operational lifetime of the wind farm. The ES concludes that the wind farm will have a significant positive impact in terms of carbon balance and therefore no additional
mitigation, other than working methods and proposals contained in the draft Peat Management Plan is proposed. Planning Service Comment 12.258 In light of the carbon calculations and payback period the Planning Service accords with the findings of the ES and conclude no significant impact arising.
THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 13.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises a Local Development Plan supported by Supplementary Guidance. An assessment against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material considerations, prior to a conclusion and recommendation as to the determination.
Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 13.2 Policy 1 – Development Strategy DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTWITH SETTLEMENT AREAS WILL BE ASSESSED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: a) a clearly justified and demonstrated need for the proposed development; b) the capacity of the surrounding landscape to accommodate the development; c) sensitive siting, scale and design to minimise impact on the open and rural character of the landscape, avoiding raised or high level locations to minimise visual impact; d) the design, materials and finish of the access and parking is appropriate to the rural setting and hard-landscaping is kept to a minimum;
e) the overall layout and design respects and, where possible, retains any archaeological, heritage or landscape features of the site.
Development proposals in Remote areas will be limited. New residential uses will not be permitted and other uses will need to be clearly justified. Careful planning and design will be required to minimise environmental impacts. Only applications for detailed planning permission will be considered. Details of measures to maintain or enhance the area’s landscape attributes, including any wild land qualities will be required. Supplementary guidance will be prepared in relation to both wind energy and fish farm proposals. Proposals for development will only be acceptable where at least one of the following is met: a) the development is required for reasons of over-riding public interest (including those of an economic or social nature); b) a locational need has been demonstrated; c) it is for, or associated with, the sustainable development of a natural resource; d) it is for, or associated with, the sustainable development of fish farming in marine or freshwater environments. Where any of the conditions above can be satisfied, proposals will be required to meet all the following criteria: e) sensitive siting, design and scale of development to minimise impact on the open and rural character of the landscape and its qualities of remoteness; f) no unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape character, (including any wild land attributes), or natural heritage resource will result from the proposal.
13.3 Wind farms in excess of 20MW due to their scale and nature are through the Development Plan, directed to Remote areas. Remote Areas are spatially mapped and correspond with the areas beyond the 1.5km buffer around settlements. 13.4 This application site sits partly within the 1.5km settlement buffer and partly outwith and therefore in terms of the Development Strategy the application site straddles both an area defined as ‘outwith settlement’ and the ‘Remote Area’. 13.5 Developments ‘outwith settlements’ require to be supported by a clearly justified and demonstrated need for the proposed development (to be located within an ‘outwith settlement’ location). Large Scale wind farms can raise amenity issues when located close to settlements; and the Development Plan does not lend support to their location outwith settlement but rather the Remote Area where a 1.5km buffer will afford protention of amenity in settlements. 13.6 The Development Strategy criteria for ‘Remote areas’ states that Supplementary guidance will be prepared in relation to wind energy proposals. The Comhairle has prepared Supplementary Planning Guidance for Wind Energy to guide large scale wind farm developments to where they will have least impact on sensitive environments, which include residential communities. 13.7 In terms of the Development Strategy, a proposal for a large scale wind farm being associated with the exploitation of a natural resource (wind) and wholly located in a Remote Area would accord with the tests of ‘a clearly justified need’ for location in a Remote Area. However this proposal is not wholly within a Remote Area and a need for it to be within an ‘outwith settlement’ area (with resultant amenity impacts) is not justified. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for Wind Energy delivers further refinement of appropriate areas for siting for wind farms in excess of 20MW by identifying ‘Broad Areas of Search’ (See Appendix 2). Approximately only 20% of the application site is located within an identified Broad Area of Search; further it is located within an Area of Potential constraint (Spatial Policy SP2) of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for Wind Energy which presumes against developments of this scale within 1.5km of settlements. The proposal is also considered under the detailed Development Criteria, DC1 to DC9 as directed by this policy. The proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy 1 – Development Strategy. 13.8 Policy 2 – Assessment of Development Underpinning each of the policies in the Plan is a requirement to demonstrate that development proposals: a) will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests and, where possible, result in an enhancement of these interests. (The online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit should be consulted for general advice and good practice on habitats and species, and the NBN Gateway for site specific biodiversity data); b) will not result in pollution or discharges outwith prescribed limits to the air, land, freshwater or sea; c) have been designed to take account of the requirements of safeguarding zones notified by the Health and Safety Executive, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services, Ministry of Defence, Marine Consultation Areas, relevant Harbour Authorities and Marine Protected Areas. All development will be assessed for its impacts individually, incrementally and cumulatively to ensure no significant detrimental effects arise… The Comhairle may negotiate with developers a fair and reasonable contribution towards infrastructure and/or services required as a consequence of the proposed development. The contributions will be proportionate to the scale and nature of the development (including cumulative) and will be addressed through planning conditions or through a legal agreement if appropriate.
13.9 The key impacts will be on crofting landscapes and blanket bog. Although there will be significant impact on a large area of blanket bog, early reinstatement and limiting peat disturbance wherever possible will assist the accommodation of the development. SNH has not raised any issues regarding potential loss of blanket bog and SEPA will contribute to an appropriate peat management plan for the site. In addition SEPA manages and consents engineering activities through the CAR Regulations through which consideration will be given to aspects relating to Ground Water Dependent Ecosystems (GWDE). SEPA has raised no objection to the development unless conditions proposed by them are not attached to any consent. See Policy 9 on Water below. 13.10 SNH highlight that there is a real possibility that the development could result in disturbance to a breeding golden eagle pair and could result in a contravention under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The advice of SNH is that the disturbance could lead to potential range abandonment of this Golden Eagle range. The developer could mitigate this impact, as per SNH’s recommendation, through the removal of Turbine 14 from the scheme. Given the latter, it is considered that the only mitigation option that would bring the proposal into compliance with criterion a) of Policy 2 is the removal of Turbine 14 from the scheme.
13.11 Further risk assessment work is to be carried out regarding Scottish Water Assets and potential impacts on raw water quality feeding the Public Water Treatment Works and providing potable water supply that remains within prescribed thresholds and meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. Scottish Water have not objected to the proposal as they are satisfied that additional risk assessment work on the development proposals can resolve any currently outstanding issues. See Policy 9 on Water below.
13.12 The proposal complies with criteria b) and c) because SEPA has required conditions and will manage through further consenting peat management and engineering activities within the wetland ecosystem. The proposal complies with criterion d) because the site is not contaminated.
13.13 Highlands and Islands Airports have indicated that their early objection is likely to be lifted following additional work carried out regarding safeguarding zone and flight approaches to Stornoway Airport. MOD has ‘No objection’ to possible impact on the Meteorological Radar at Druim a Starraig. Conditions will be required to ensure any lighting or other matters relating to Aviation or MoD requirements will be attached to any consent. Six Turbines at the southern end of the proposed development that breach the airports safeguarding surfaces. It is proposed that each of these turbines is lit by a low intensity steady red light fitted to the top of the turbine nacelle.
13.14 The proposal as existing does not comply with Policy 2 given the potential for an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However the proposal could be brought into compliance if Turbine 14 were omitted from the scheme.
13.15 Policy 5 – Landscape Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. The Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (WI-LCA) will be taken into account in determining applications and developers should refer to Appendix 1 of this plan for a summary of this guidance. 13.16 The site lies mostly within the Boggy Moor landscape type 2 (as set out in the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment published by SNH, 1998). This is a landscape of large scale, gently undulating peat moorlands, indented with numerous lochs. The north of the site extends into an area of Rocky Moor landscape type where there is a more
irregular topography of rocky knolls interlocked with peaty moorland vegetation and occasional small lochans. Tràigh Mhor beach is located to the east of the site and is known to be popular with visitors. A heritage trail follows the coast northwards from the beach.
13.17 In relation to landscape impact the Rocky Moor landscape type is identified in the Landscape Capacity of 2004 as Medium to High sensitivity for large scale wind farms (overall capacity – medium). Sub-Type Boggy Moor 2 is identified where lochans are numerous creating a strong patterning, an interplay of land and water. The landscape study indicated that the necessary access tracks along with other elements and turbines that would create a significant landscape change. This landscape Character Type is identified as having medium landscape capacity also.
13.18 The B895 between Stornoway and New Tolsta runs to the east of the site, passing through the crofting settlements of North Tolsta and New Tolsta. To the west of the B895, properties tend to be in irregular shaped plots while to the east more strongly linear field patterns run down to the coast. A number of rough tracks run from the western edge of North Tolsta and New Tolsta into the site providing access for the current land use of grazing and peat cutting.
13.19 SNH confirms that the development site is predominantly located in the Boggy Moor 2 landscape character type (LCT), with a lesser proportion located in the Rocky Moor LCT. Proposed access to the site is from the B895, which serves as the primary route to the village of North Tolsta, a settlement which is comprised of Crofting 1 and Crofting 2 LCTs. Crofting 2, which is considered to be of medium-high sensitivity to wind energy development, is located closer to the development site than Crofting 1, which is of medium sensitivity. To the east of the settlement is Tolsta Head, with its associated bay and beach. This area is classified within the Machair LCT, which is of medium-high sensitivity.
13.20 The development is not wholly sited within a Remote Area; therefore potential impacts on special qualities of ‘wild land character’ are considered to be negligible.
13.21 In terms of wider effects on landscape character, the turbines are distant from designated landscape interests and positioned in a location that provides an acceptable degree of separation between the proposed turbines and notable focal points in the landscape, such as Muirneag. Overall, the landscape of the development site and the moorland to the west provides capacity for the proposed development.
13.22 However, the development's proximity to settlement and coastal areas of sensitive rural character means that the wind farm will detract from landscape characteristics of Tolsta and its environs. The turbines will become a dominant new focus, adversely affecting the rural character of the setting of the settlement and sense of intimacy, enclosure and perceived scale within the predominantly coastal areas to the east. The ES does not adequately emphasise the significance of overall landscape setting and character of the settlements and coastal areas lying within approximately 5km of the development site.
13.23 The planning service is of the view that the assessment in the ES would have benefitted from the Tolsta community wind turbine being included in its cumulative assessments particularly relating to the approaches to Tolsta from the south.
13.24 The planning service considers that landscape impacts will affect the character of settlements and coastal areas within approximately 5km of the development site. These landscape impacts produce major long-term landscape impacts, the complexity of which has not been fully appraised in the ES. The proximity of the wind farm to the settlement of Tolsta greatly accentuates and compounds these likely landscape impacts. The developer has limited their assessment on Tolsta village properties to those within 1.5km from the turbines, irrespective of the fact that many other properties within the village may have more open view of the development than say a number of groupings to the
north of the village. While the assessment seeks to estimate the perceived views from properties and their gardens based on building orientation and dominant views the conclusion remains that there will be significant visual impacts on the village of Tolsta, that will be long-term in nature.
13.25 In preparing their case for consideration the applicant has referred to other wind turbines appeals and decisions. Having considered these cases referred to by the developer they are found to be sufficiently different in various respects (height, proximity to residential property, and planning regime, etc) that direct comparison with the Druim Leathann proposal are not considered supportive of the application. The Baillie application, for example although large in scale relates to a number of dispersed houses rather than to a village or settlement, and in addition a number of the properties in that application have a financial interest in the development and in those circumstances will not be classed as ‘noise sensitive premises’. Noise impacts on these properties are therefore not subject to the protection afforded to properties which are classed as ‘noise sensitive’. The Burnthouse decision relates to few smaller scale turbines in relation to few properties and again not a village or settlement.
13.26 Given the matters raised above, it is considered that the development does not relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area and therefore does not comply with Policy 5. The local landscape impact is considered further in relation to development criteria in DC 2 where it is concluded that the impact on valued local landscapes and the visual impact on the amenity on residential properties in the village of Tolsta will be very significant and adverse in nature and is contrary to and also will not meet Policy 1 of the OHLDP.
13.27 Policy 9 – Water Environment Development proposals should avoid adverse impact on the water environment. All proposals involving activities in or adjacent to any water body must be accompanied by sufficient information to enable a full assessment to be made of the likely effects, including environmental effects, of the development. Where a proposal has potential to adversely impact on the water environment then all the following must be demonstrated: a) no deterioration in ecological status/potential will result and, for any water body not currently achieving good ecological status/potential, the development will either seek to improve the water body status or not prevent it from being able to achieve good ecological status in the future; b) it contributes to the objectives and targets within the Scotland River Basin Management Plan and the supplementary West Highland Area Management Plan; c) the creation, enhancement and/or management of existing and new habitats such as the provision of appropriate development buffer strips, natural flood management within flood plains, control of invasive non-native species or improvements to fish passage; d) no significant effect both during construction and after completion on; water quality in adjacent watercourses or areas downstream; water quantity and natural flow patterns and sediment transport processes in all water bodies. Where any water body is located within or bordering a proposed development, a development buffer strip should be incorporated between the water body and the proposed development, which can be accessed and maintained all year round. The requirement for a buffer strip would not apply to development proposals for quays, piers or jetties.
13.28 Of particular relevance to the current proposal is the Loch Ionadagro Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA). A map of showing its extent was laid before Parliament in March 2013 and defined area held by SEPA. A DWPA is an area within which public and private abstractions from surface waters and groundwaters must be protected. Approximately 75 percent of the development site is within the defined Loch Ionadagro DWPA, and 11 of the 14 turbines also lie within the DWPA as defined by SEPA and laid before Parliament in March 2013. This Drinking Water Protected Area serves a number of the communities with their drinking water, namely Tolsta, Bac, Griais, Bhatasgeir and Col. The WTW serves 709 households and a total population of 1771. Of these 206 households are in Tolsta with its population of 501.
13.29 Scottish Ministers require Scottish Water to ensure the safety of drinking water supplies through the use of a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach that encompasses all steps in water supply from catchment to consumer. The EC Water Framework Directive is being implemented in Scotland through the Water Environment and Water Services Act 2003 (WEWS) and associated secondary legislation. Scottish Ministers are responsible for the implementation of the requirements and provided the framework for the regulatory systems and river basin management planning in the WEWS Act. SEPA has been identified as the lead authority, alongside a number of Responsible Authorities who must contribute to the objectives of the WFD, including Scottish Water. The Comhairle is also a responsible Authority.
13.30 Scottish Ministers require Scottish Water to ensure the safety of drinking water supplies through the use of a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach that encompasses all steps in water supply from catchment to consumer. Such an approach is set out in the World Health Organisation's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality and is termed a Water Safety Plan approach. Such an approach is set out in the World Health Organisation's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality and is termed a Water Safety Plan approach.
13.31 River Basin Management Planning has been identified as the key framework through which this Water Safety Plan approach will be brought forward to ensure that the management of water catchments result in no greater requirements for treatment, indeed less treatment is a key objective of the WFD. Glen Tolsta is identified as the Water Priority area and its current status is identified as moderate.
13.32 The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (CAR) regulate all discharges into the water environment, including groundwater, through a system of licences, registrations and general binding rules administered by SEPA. These regulations provide SEPA with powers to take enforcement action when infrastructure is not appropriately maintained and environmental pollution occurs.
13.33 At the time that the Development Plan was prepared the Comhairle had not been notified on Drinking Water Protected Areas within the Western Isles. In March 2013 Drinking Water Protection Areas were laid before Scottish Parliament and this is a deliverable for the Scottish Government in relation to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Drinking water protected areas have to comply with the requirements of Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). They have to be protected with the aim of avoiding deterioration in their quality which would compromise a relevant abstraction of water intended for human consumption. Drinking Water Protection Area maps are held by SEPA.
13.34 PAN 79 states that “the planning authority should be satisfied that proposals would not have an adverse impact on water quality, public health or the environment”. Scottish Water have raised no objection to the development within its DWPA. The Scottish Government has identified SEPA as being responsible to assess the pressures and impacts upon the water environment, and identify water bodies at risk of failing the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, including those of Drinking Water Protected Areas. SEPA and SW will work together to develop an assessment of the risk
to drinking water sources through the consideration of Drinking Water Protected Areas and development of Water Safety Plans.
13.35 A supply intended for human consumption would be compromised if, as a result of deterioration in the quality of water in a drinking water protected area (Drinking Water Protected Areas, UKTAG Review, Working Paper Final, March 2009): an abstraction (or planned abstraction) of water intended for human consumption has to be abandoned and an alternative used to provide the supply; water abstracted (or planned to be abstracted) has to be blended with water abstracted from another source; additional purification treatment has to be applied; or the operating demand on the existing purification treatment system has to be significantly increased.
13.36 The submission from Scottish Water initially raised concerns regarding risk to the protected water supply and requested additional risk assessment to gauge the impact of engineering works being carried out with the catchment area and raw water quality entering Loch Ionadagro. While they have stated that the proposal will impact on the WFD they are now satisfied that this risk assessment can be undertaken post-decision but in advance of work starting. The Comhairle, in view of its responsibilities under the WFD and as an identified competent authorities under the WEWS (Scotland) 2003 has sought clarification from Scottish Water on whether the development would lead to a failure under Article 7 of the WFD. No clarification has been forthcoming and therefore following Comhairle legal advice it is concluded that as Scottish Water have not raised an objection to the development then the Comhairle is satisfied that the development (suitably mitigated) will not lead to a failure in relation to article 7 of the WFD. Scottish Water has requested that a few items remain to be addressed, and that it is acceptable for these to be addressed at a later date within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Risk Assessments (RA), Method Statements (MS), Pollution Prevention Plans (PPP) and the Peat Management Plan (PMP), which has been agreed will be submitted to Scottish Water for approval prior to any activities commencing on site. It has also been agreed to assess the potential to incorporate additional mitigation measures (once known) within the CEMP. 13.37 SEPA’s submission reflects the potential impacts form engineering activities on the wetland/peatland environment and they have required a number of conditions to be applied to the development, which without they would object. These required conditions are included in their submission in Section 8. SEPA has deferred to Scottish Water to advise on whether the engineering activities would lead to a deterioration in the raw water required for their WTW.
13.38 The proposed wind farm borders but will not be within the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. Hydrological survey carried out has concluded that the development site is not hydrologically linked with these internationally important peatlands. Further Peat slide assessment work requested and carried out has also shown that there is no risk to the integrity of the SAC.
13.39 Policy 19 – Energy Resources The Comhairle will support proposals that contribute to meeting the targets and objectives of the National Planning Framework 2, the Climate Change Act, and the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan in relation to electricity grid reinforcement, infrastructure and renewable energy generation. Proposals for onshore renewable energy projects and oil and gas operations (including extensions to existing or proposed developments and land based infrastructure associated with offshore projects) will be assessed against the details below and be required to demonstrate all the following:
a) appropriate location, siting and design including the technical rationale for the choice of site; b) no unacceptable adverse impact (including cumulative) on: landscape, townscape and visual aspects, natural, built and cultural heritage resources; the water environment; peatlands; aviation, defence and telecommunications transmitting and receiving systems e.g. broadband; public health and safety, and amenity (including noise and shadow flicker as appropriate); neighbouring land uses, transport management and core paths; c) acceptable decommissioning and site reinstatement arrangements;
13.40 Consideration of Policy 19 is covered in detail under the development criteria (DC1-DC9) in the section on Supplementary Guidance. However following detailed consideration of criteria DC1-DC9, it is not considered to meet criteria (a) and (b) above.
13.41 Policy 28 – Natural Heritage Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site and is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of that site will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment by the Comhairle. Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site will only be permitted where: an Appropriate Assessment has demonstrated that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or there are no alternative solutions, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. Development that affects a National Scenic Area (NSA), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserve (NNR) will only be permitted where: it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. All Ramsar wetland sites are also Natura sites and/or Sites of Special Scientific Interest and are included in the statutory requirements noted above. Where there is good reason to suggest that a protected species is present on site, or may be affected by a proposed development, the Comhairle will require any such presence to be established and, if necessary, a mitigation plan provided to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts on the species, prior to determining the application. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a European protected species unless the Comhairle is satisfied that: there is no satisfactory alternative, and the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 unless the development is required for preserving public health or public safety. For
development affecting a species of bird protected under the 1981 Act there must also be no other satisfactory solution. Applicants should submit supporting evidence for any development meeting these tests, demonstrating both the need for the development and that a full range of possible alternative courses of action have been properly examined and none found to acceptably meet the need identified. Development affecting the Loch Stiapavat, Local Nature Reserve (LNR) should aim to enhance the site and will not be permitted if it will have an unacceptable impact on the features of interest of the sit e. In addition to the conditions listed above, developers are encouraged to assess the impacts of their proposed development on UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species. Developers should refer to the Scottish Biodiversity List* for a full list of animals, plants and habitats considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland (this list includes all UK priority species). *http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/biodiversity-scotland/Scottish-biodiversity-list/
13.42 The proposal is adjacent to the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA), designated for its breeding diver, raptor, and water interests. The SPA is designated for supporting nationally important populations of five Annex 1 species identified as of special priority for conservation. The proposal is also adjacent to the Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its blanket bog habitat amongst other interests.
13.43 The Comhairle is entitled to place due weight on the specialist advice of SNH. SNH is of the view that the projected bird collision rates over operational period of the wind farm are acceptable. Therefore, SNH is of the view that the wind farm does not affect the site integrity or qualifying features of the SPA.
13.44 SNH has raised concerns regarding the potential for peat slide. SNH agrees with the findings of the ES which states that the Lewis Peatlands SAC is not hydrologically connected to the site. Further peat slide assessment work requested by SNH has been carried out and SNH has is satisfied that should a peat slide occur, it is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.
13.45 The Golden Eagle has protected status under Schedule 1A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In order to mitigate disturbance to a breeding pair of Golden Eagles within 1km of Turbine 14 and Borrow Pit 2, the developer proposes that construction of infrastructure in proximity to the eagle nest will occur outwith the breeding season. Given the proximity of Turbine 14 to the Golden Eagle nesting site, the development may cause the nest site to be abandoned due to disturbance. As there are no other known nest sites for this pair, this could effectively lead to range abandonment.
13.46 SNH has stated that there is not sufficient mitigation proposed for Golden Eagles to prevent the potential for disturbance. SNH recommends the removal of Turbine 14 to minimise the risk of range abandonment which could impact on the Golden Eagle population of the Western Isles Natural Heritage Zone.
13.47 Although it is considered that the development does not undermine the integrity or qualifying features of the Lewis Peatlands SPA or the Lewis Peatlands SAC. It is however, considered that the potential impact of Golden Eagle range abandonment is difficult to determine, and the developer should remove or re-site Turbine 14 to ensure that wind farm infrastructure is at least 1km from the nest site. Given the potential abandonment of this golden eagle range, combined with the potential for abandonment of a further two ranges due to residual impacts, the developer should seek to mitigate potential impacts upon the golden eagle nest site in Tolsta beyond the measures highlighted within the ES.
13.48 Planning permission should not be granted for development that would be likely to result in an offence or have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In the absence of the removal of Turbine 14 (or significant re-siting) from the proposed development, the application will not be in compliance with Policy 28. In order to secure this mitigation, the developer would require to submit an amended plan and agree an amendment to the proposed scheme or there is potential to address the matter by way of a condition.
13.49 Policy 34 –Archaeology
Proposals that seek to protect, enhance and interpret nationally important monuments and other archaeological sites will generally be supported in line with the policy criteria. Development proposals adversely affecting nationally important remains and their settings will not normally be permitted. Proposals affecting regionally important sites/landscapes the importance and integrity of the remains, including the potential for amenity, tourism and education purposes, will be weighed against the benefits of the proposed development, on the advice of the Regional Archaeologist. Where development is acceptable, in addition to the excavation and recording arrangements set out below, long term management, access and interpretation of the site may be required as a planning condition or through a planning agreement. There is a presumption in favour of the preservation in situ of important monuments and their settings. Where the proposal will negatively affect regionally important archaeological remains applicants will be required to undertake a desk-based archaeological assessment, a walkover survey and where appropriate a field evaluation of the archaeological remains. This information should be submitted with the planning application to inform determination of the application and any mitigation required through the use of conditions. In order to secure the preservation of important archaeological features and their setting in situ, the Comhairle may use planning conditions or require a planning agreement to secure a modification. Planning applications must include a mitigation strategy to indicate how preservation in situ will be secured. Where the Comhairle determines that preservation in situ is not justified, and the site can be preserved by record, recording should be carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation submitted by the applicant and approved by the Comhairle. Such schemes must include proposals for the publication of any findings. In some cases a planning agreement may be required to secure mitigation. In all cases the developer will be required to provide adequate provision for access and observation and recording by a professional archaeologist of any finds and other evidence which may be revealed during any ground works. Developers are required to allow adequate time for records to be made by the archaeologist. Within the Stornoway Archaeologically Sensitive Area, as shown on the Development Strategy map, developers may be required to carry out an archaeological evaluation prior to the planning application if ground disturbance is part of the development. The results of the evaluation will help determine any mitigation required as part of a consent.
13.50 For the purposes of assessing the potential impact on archaeological sites and monuments the applicant has identified three areas of study: 1) Inner Study Area: The Application Site; 2) Middle Study Area: Extending 5km from the site; 3) Outer Study Area: Between 5km and 15km fro the application site.
13.51 In order to assess each area the applicant used a variety of approaches i.e. cartographic surveys and aerial maps. The applicant also carried out a Field Survey. Within the
application site there are no designated archaeology features or scheduled monuments. There is one non designated heritage asset within the site; Gearraidh Ionadagro- Shieling Huts. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not affect nationally important remains or their settings.
13.52 The applicant identifies ten cultural heritage assets in the Middle Study Area consisting of six Scheduled Monuments and four Listed Buildings. Following consultation with the Comhairle Archaeology Service and, notwithstanding the fact that none of the identified monuments/buildings are within the application site, it is considered that the proposed development does not affect regionally important sites/landscapes or the importance and integrity of the remains.
13.53 As per the policy guidance the applicant has submitted a desk-based archaeological assessment and carried out a walkover survey as well as a field evaluation of the archaeological remains.
13.54 The developer will be required to provide adequate provision for access and observation and recording by a professional archaeologist of any finds and other evidence which may be revealed during any ground works. In order to comply with this policy the Planning Authority, following consultation with the Comhairle Archaeology Service, will condition any consent to require the implementation of a programme of archaeological work; this programme shall specify the appointed archaeological contracting company, their staffing and qualifications, and set out measures for the preservation, interpretation and recording of archaeological remains on the application site. It is considered that, provided the aforementioned condition is attached to any consent, the proposal is in compliance with this part of the policy.
13.55 The Policy requires developers, in the preparation of their Environmental Statement (ES), to adequately consider direct and indirect physical impact and detail any potential for cumulative effects on historic environment assets. It is considered that the ES submitted by the applicant adequately addresses the potential impacts by adopting a methodology which: a) categorises historic assets on the basis of their importance; b) identifies and categorises potential impacts on said monuments i.e. construction impacts, operational impacts and cumulative impacts.
13.56 Following consultation with Historic Scotland and the Comhairle’s Archaeology Service it is considered that the potential impacts as assessed by the applicant are unlikely to be significant. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in compliance with this part of the policy. This also brings the proposal in compliance with provisions of the Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development which require the developer to consider direct and indirect physical impact and detail any potential for cumulative effects on historic environment assets, their setting and visual amenity
13.57 The proposal is therefore in compliance with Policy 34: Archaeology of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2012 and the provisions of DC5: Historic Resources as per the Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development.
Supplementary Planning Guidance for Wind Energy Development (OHLDP) 13.58 Policy 1 Large Scale Development All planning applications for large scale wind energy development will be assessed against LDP Policy 19; Spatial Strategy policies (SP1 - SP3) and Development Criteria policies (DC1 - DC9). All elements of the Development Criteria must be satisfied.
For turbines over 50m tip-height, the development will be required to submit a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map to a radius from 20 to 30 km (increasing with turbine height) with visualisations and photomontages. Specific requirements will be advised through the EIA process. 13.59 The Druim Leathann Windfarm at 42MW is a large scale wind farm development and therefore requires to be considered against all the Development Criteria included within the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development April 2013. 13.60 Spatial Strategy Policies
SP1 Spatial Policy Map 1 identifies the primary locations (i.e. broad areas of Broad Areas search) which are more likely to be acceptable, in principle, for large- of Search scale wind energy subject to assessment against the Development Criteria in this guidance; the development plan; and relevant national / international guidance. Areas within the identified broad areas of search which have particular sensitivity to aviation and defence radar operations are highlighted in Spatial Policy Map 1 as aviation and defence consultation zones. Large-scale wind energy developments may be possible in these zones, however developers must enter into consultation with the relevant interests at an early stage as these zones are heavily dependent on line-of-sight issues with regard to the wind farm being visible to radar antenna. Development within these areas may not be supported if aviation and defence resources are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed wind farm.
13.61 SP1 refers to broad areas of search where large scale development wind farms are more likely to be acceptable. Additionally the issue of Aviation and Defence safeguarding is also highlighted in Map 1 of the Supplementary Guidance. For the most part, the Druim Leathann Windfarm sits outside the area identified as a ‘broad area of search’ near Tolsta. It is fully within the MOD Safeguarding Zone relating to Druim A Starraig Meteorological Radar Station and partly within Stornoway Airport Aviation Consultation Zone. Both Druim A Starraig and Stornoway Airport are considered economic assets within the local economy, any negative impacts on these facilities may adversely impact the local economy. HIAL has indicated that a technical solution has been identified to resolve any potential issues regarding flight approaches to Stornoway Airport. The MOD do not object regarding impact on Druim A Starraig Meteorological Radar; providing local and national weather information.
SP2 Areas of potential constraint have been identified in Map 2 and in Areas of recognition of the sensitivity of these resources to wind energy Potential developments over 5MW, the Comhairle recommends that this scale of Constraint development is steered away from these locations unless the proposals are satisfactorily assessed against the following factors in order to enable development to take place: . no detrimental impact on Conservation Areas; Scheduled Ancient Monuments; Listed Buildings; . suitable location in relation to Areas of Low Landscape Capacity (for Onshore Wind Energy Developments); . no detrimental impact on Aviation and MoD Consultation Zones; . proposals lie outwith 1.5km of settlements. Turbines associated with proposals over 5MW should be located at a distance of at least 1.5km from settlements where they are likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. Within this distance, applications of this scale will continue to be judged on a case-by- case basis. Developments over 5MW may be possible but are less likely in these areas. Any application will be subject to assessment against the
Development Criteria in this guidance; the development plan; and relevant national / international guidance. It is likely that such an application would require significant levels of supporting information.
13.62 Policy SP2 identifies on Map 2, ‘Areas of Potential Constraint’, areas considered to be sensitive to energy developments over 5MW. Map 2 includes a buffer zone on 1.5km to all of settlements, and in this instance to the village of Tolsta has also a 1.5 km buffer zone steer developments over 5 MW from communities where they are likely to a prominent feature in an open landscape. Medium Scale developments in Table 1 of the Supplementary Guidance makes clear the distinction between Medium Scale and Large Scale Development to which Druim Leathann belongs, namely output capacity between 50kW and 20MW. DC 2 Criteria also refers to and adds clarity to the issue of scale of development that might be considered under Policy SP2 – “In line with the policy SP2, turbines associated with proposals over 5MW should be located at a distance of at least 1.5km from settlements. For smaller developments applications will be judged on a case-by-case basis”. Policy 2 when referring to proposals above 5MW relies on other content within the Supplementary Guidance to make clear what scale above 5MW might be considered appropriate to be treated on a case by case basis and this issue is covered in DC 2 below. Regarding Policy SP it can be stated that the development is not consistent with Policy SP2.
SP3 In recognition of the strength of protection afforded to them by law and Areas of the sensitivity of these resources to wind farm developments over Significant 5MW, internationally and nationally designated natural heritage Protection resources, as outlined in Map 3, are identified as areas to be afforded significant protection. It is unlikely that wind energy development of capacity greater than 5MW or over 50 metres in height will be acceptable within such areas.
13.63 SP3 refers to the areas highlighted in Map 3 as meriting “Significant Protection” and where developments above 5MW and 50 meters in height are unlikely to be considered acceptable. The Druim Leathann WF does not lie within any areas of significant protection, but does lie adjacent to such areas. SNH have assessed the potential impacts on these sites and have concluded that there will be no adverse impacts on these Areas of Significant Protection. 13.64 Development Criteria Policies DC1 to DC9
DC1 Developers will be expected to demonstrate, through an appropriate Natural assessment, that wind energy proposals (and associated Heritage infrastructure) will not have an adverse effect on the overall integrity of the site of any international designation, unless there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for doing so. These designations are: . Ramsar Sites; . Natura 2000 sites (Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation); Developers will be expected to demonstrate that wind energy proposals (and associated infrastructure) will not compromise the underlying objective and overall integrity of national designations unless it can be evidenced that any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social or economic national benefit that could come from the development. These designations are: . National Scenic Areas*; . Sites of Special Scientific Interest; . National Nature Reserves. In respect of the animals and plants identified in Annex 4 of the Habitats Directive (European Protected Species), developers will be
expected to demonstrate that wind energy proposals (including associated infrastructure) will not have an adverse effect on these species, or that all three tests as detailed in Regulation 44 of the Habitats Regulations can be satisfied. In addition, the Comhairle will give due consideration to the wider natural heritage beyond the confines of designated sites, particularly those listed below, where they are of major importance or contribute to the coherence of the Natura network of European sites: . Areas of habitats listed in Annex 1 and the habitats of species of community interest listed in Annexes 2,4 and 5 of the Habitats Directive; . Areas which support habitats of naturally occurring wild birds, particularly those on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive and migratory species; Proposals likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on species listed in Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) will not be acceptable. *SNH have published Special Qualities Reports for National Scenic Areas that should be referred to where proposals may affect National Scenic Areas
13.65 All the above areas identified as designated sites are identified as areas meriting “Significant Protection”. As with SP3 the Druim Leathann WF does not lie within any areas of significant protection, but does lie adjacent to such areas. SNH have assessed the potential impacts on these sites and have concluded that there will be no adverse impacts on these “Areas of Significant Protection”. Blanket Bog is an Annex 1 habitat under the Habitats Directive, it is not an SSSI and is considered of Regional importance however given the extensive blanket Bog in the area no objection has been raised regarding loss of blanket bog considered within the ES to be in good condition.
13.66 The golden eagle is recognised as a Category 3 Species of European Conservation Concern, indicating that it has an unfavourable conservation status in Europe, and the Birds Directive lists the golden eagle in its Annex 1, identifying it as a species within the European Union for which there should be special conservation measures. In the UK, it is also listed in Schedule 1 (part 1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended meaning it is protected by special penalties. Threats to the golden eagle come from disturbance, inappropriate upland management and loss of habitat, such as through large scale afforestation, and illegal persecution. Disturbance is anticipated through the location of Turbine 14. In the absence of the removal of Turbine 14 (or significant re- siting) from the proposed development, the application will not be in compliance with the requirements of DC1 or Policy 28. In order to secure the necessary mitigation, the developer would either require to submit an amended plan and agree an amendment to the proposed scheme or there is potential to address the matter by way of a condition.
DC2 Developers will be expected to demonstrate that wind energy Landscape proposals and associated infrastructure will not have an unacceptable & Visual significant visual or landscape impact on the character of the Outer Hebrides (including cumulative). Developers should seek to ensure that through good siting and design, landscape and visual impacts are limited. The nature of visibility of the proposal will be assessed their likely impact on: . The special qualities of National Scenic Areas; . residential properties and settlements; . views from popular public viewpoints, transport routes, the core path network and recognised visitor locations,
. the site and setting of SAMs; Listed Buildings; Conservation Areas; and other historic sites as agreed with the Comhairle. In line with the policy SP2, turbines associated with proposals over 5MW should be located at a distance of at least 1.5km from settlements. For smaller developments applications will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Power lines connecting the individual turbines to the on-site sub- station are required to be underground and those connecting the wind farm sub-station to the electricity distribution system will require sensitive treatment. The Landscape Capacity Study for Onshore Wind Energy Development in the Western Isles, 2004 provides detailed information.
13.67 The ES makes clear that there will be significant impacts from Viewpoint 3 (highly sensitive) on the Heritage Trail as of high magnitude; Viewpoint 5 Tiumpan Head (highly sensitive location) as of moderate magnitude; and from Tolsta Village Hall Viewpoint 1 (highly sensitive) as of major magnitude. There will be also be adverse impacts on views from points on the heritage trail that links Sgiogarstaigh with Tolsta.
13.68 Regarding the impact on the village of Tolsta, the developers have sought to demonstrate that wind energy proposals and associated infrastructure will not have an unacceptable significant visual impact on the residential properties that lie within 1.5km of the turbines. Development criteria have been developed to consider the magnitude of the impacts with reference to house orientation, significant outlook and garden location. In total 108 properties were identified within the 1.5km of the nearest turbine. Of these properties 86 were found to be significantly impacted from within the property or garden or both. These properties were identified as experiencing Major or Moderate impacts which under EIA Regulations are considered significant. As such 86 properties within the 1.5km ‘assessment zone’ will experience significant impact on their outlook. It can be reasonably be anticipated that further properties beyond this 1.5km zone will also experience significant impacts but detailed consideration is not included in the ES. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility Maps produced in support of the application and shown detail in Figure 1 shown in Appendix 2, gives the clear extent views to properties beyond the 1.5km within the village and environs. No mitigation has been or could be proposed to mitigate the significant impacts identified within the ES.
13.69 The impact of the development proposal on the localised landscape will be adverse and visual amenity impacts on certain individual and groups of residential properties in the village of Tolsta will be significant and adverse. On that basis, the proposal is considered to be contrary to DC 2 and will not meet Policy 1 of the OHLDP.
DC3 Planning applications must be accompanied by evidence that the Community proposals have been assessed and found to have no unacceptable Amenity significant adverse impact on community amenity in relation to the following: . shadow flicker; . noise; . electromagnetic interference; . commissioning and decommissioning; . phasing; . ancillary developments and infrastructure; . public access; . cumulative impacts of the above. In the consideration of wind energy proposals, the Comhairle will seek to maintain and improve public access and enjoyment, in line
with Local Development Plan Policies 24 and 25 in relation to countryside access and open space provision. With regards to shadow flicker and as per Scottish Government advice, turbines should be located at least a minimum distance equivalent to 10 times the blade diameter from any regularly occupied buildings not associated with the development and at least a minimum distance equivalent to the height of the turbine to blade tip plus 10% from public roads or paths identified in the Outer Hebrides Core Paths Plan. Planning conditions or obligations may set appropriate conditions, such as: noise levels; traffic management plans; commissioning and decommissioning arrangements and correction of any electro- magnetic interference.
13.70 There is no anticipated shadow flicker from the wind farm given the distance from the wind farm. 13.71 The Comhairle’s Environmental Health Service has identified noise thresholds that reflect the ‘ambient’ conditions found on the Western Isles. The thresholds adopted by the Comhairle are for Daytime 35dB or 5dB over the ambient levels and for night time 38dB or 5dB over ambient levels. Initially the developer proposed that the wind farm development should operate to 38dB which cumulatively with the Community Wind Turbine would amount to potentially 40dB, a significant margin over standards applied to other Wind Turbine developments. In recent communications the applicant has advised that they would be happy to constrain their development to 35dB and provide a mitigation plan to support this commitment. This does not however reflect the cumulative impact of noise from the Community Turbine which requires to be considered through ETSU-97. In order for the Druim Leathann limited to meet the Cumulative 35dB level they will require to submit a noise mitigation plan that will constrain turbines closer to the Community Wind Turbine and it is expected to be required under certain wind speeds and direction. At wind speeds of 6m/s through to 9m/s, which are estimated to occur at approximately 18% of the time, is the range at which exceedances to the Comhairle’s adopted noise thresholds in the south end of Tolsta. The wind directions that result in these cumulative exceedances are from the South, SSW, WSW, and West. Modelling anticipated noise emissions relating to the development should allow the preparation of mitigation plan that will meet the Comhairle adopted thresholds. Without limiting the operation of the wind farm then 1 to 3 properties could be exposed to 38dB, 3 to 5 properties exposed to 37dB, and 9 to 10 properties exposed to 36dB cumulative albeit only approximately 18% of the time. The necessary actions from the developer in respect of a technical solution to mitigate noise will be required to be attached as a condition to any consent, and this would include the preparation of a noise mitigation plan to be submitted and approved by the Comhairle prior to the development becoming operational. 13.72 Electromagnetic interference is possible and the applicant is committed to responding with technical solutions as problems are confirmed. A condition will be required to commit the developer to responding with a corrective action to any identified electromagnetic interference. 13.73 Temporary restrictions will be anticipated within the construction site while blasting and engineering activities are being carried out. However, it is expected that access using established tracks will resume once construction works are completed to permit safe access. 13.74 The broad commissioning and reinstatement timescale is identified within the Chapter 4 of the ES document. However this timescale may be likely to change in view of constraints still to be defined and quantified. A detailed site decommissioning plan would be required at a future date and this and a related bond would be the subject of clause(s) within a Planning Obligation Agreement. The preparation of CEMP, PPP, and would also require to be conditioned and attached to any consent. A traffic management plan
would also be required to be prepared as a condition to be attached to any permission and this will follow a road condition survey.
DC4 Proposals for wind energy developments (and associated Water infrastructure) will be required to accord with Local Development Plan Resources Policy 9 relating to water quality for ground water, surface water (including water supply) and aquatic ecosystems. It should be demonstrated that the proposal has been designed to minimise any detrimental impact on the water environment. The carrying out of mitigating work may be the subject of a planning condition or agreement.
13.75 PAN 79 on Water and Drainage states the Planning Authority has responsibility for preparing development plans and determining planning applications. In fulfilling these responsibilities, it needs to be proactive in considering water and drainage issues and to satisfy itself that development proposals can be acceptably implemented. 13.76 The Comhairle is identified as a responsible authority (S.2.2 of WEWS (Scotland) Act 2003) and as such must exercise their designated functions so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The Scottish Government has stated that Scotland is taking a risk assessment approach to the management and protection of public and private drinking water supplies. This is in line with the approach recommended by the World Health Organisation for drinking water quality. The WFD also recognises the need to protect drinking water sources. Although initially raising concerns regarding the potential deterioration of raw water entering the Tolsta WTW particularly given the proximity of engineering works in relation to this inlet for raw water to the WTW. Scottish Water’s more recent correspondence has raised no objection to the development proposal while seeking further risk assessment work to be carried out following any planning consent. While many issues have been addressed some remain outstanding and Scottish Water considers it is acceptable for these to be addressed at a later date within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Risk Assessments (RA) and Method Statements (MS), Pollution Prevention Plans (PPP) and the Peat Management Plan (PMP), which has been agreed will be submitted to Scottish Water for approval prior to any activities commencing on site. It has also been agreed to assess the potential to incorporate additional mitigation measures (once known) within the CEMP. SEPA and SNH are also expected to comment and input to the CEMP, PMP and PPP.
DC5 The implications for archaeological remains, built remains, historic Historic landscapes, the historic character and associations of the wider Resources landscape will be major factors in the consideration of proposals for wind energy developments (and associated infrastructure). The requirements of Local Development Plan Policies 31 Listed Buildings;
32 Conservation Areas; 33 Thatched Buildings and 34 Archaeology will apply. Developers will also be expected to demonstrate that wind energy proposals and associated infrastructure will have no unacceptable significant adverse impact on the site, context and setting of historic environment assets*; including designated and significant undesignated assets and areas. As part of the process of preparing an Environmental Statement developers are required to adequately consider direct and indirect physical impact and detail any potential for cumulative effects on historic environment assets, their setting and visual amenity and the impacts of any secondary developments such as power lines or transmission stations. *Historic environment assets are defined as:
those identified in the Development Plan and /or in national listings, schedules or registers held by Historic Scotland or other competent authorities, including: conservation areas; listed buildings; historic gardens and designed landscapes; thatched buildings; sites and settings of SAMs and other unscheduled assets and areas of archaeological significance.
13.77 The applicant identifies ten cultural heritage assets in the Middle Study Area consisting of six Scheduled Monuments and four Listed Buildings. Following consultation with the Comhairle Archaeology Service and, notwithstanding the fact that none of the identified monuments/buildings are within the application site, it is considered that the proposed development does not affect regionally important sites/landscapes or the importance and integrity of the remains.
13.78 The proposal has been assessed against Policy 34 Archaeology of the LDP above and found to be in compliance. The desk based assessment, walk over survey and field study, the EIA methodology and conclusion and the recommendation of a condition to allow archaeological access for any finds or issues of interest satisfy the requirement on the developer to demonstrate there is no significant adverse impact on historic environmental assets and to consider direct and indirect physical impact and detail any potential for cumulative effects on historic environment assets, their setting and visual amenity and this means the proposal is compliant with provisions of this criteria of the Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development regarding Archaeology.
DC6 Developers will be expected to demonstrate that wind energy Aviation & proposals (and associated infrastructure) will not affect the safe use Defence of: airport, defence or emergency service operation. This includes flight activity; navigation and surveillance systems; and associated infrastructure. Full consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority, Highlands & Islands Airports Limited; the Ministry of Defence; National Air Traffic Services; Her Majesty’s Coast Guard and the Comhairle should take place at the relevant stages.1 When designing and siting proposals developers should pay particular regard to: . MoD ‘Safeguarding Extents Hebrides’; . Health & Safety Executive Safeguarding Zones; . NATS En Route Plc Safeguarding Maps; . Department of Trade and Industry “Wind Energy and Aviation Interest – Interim Guidance”; . CAP 764 - CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines; Civil Aviation Authority July 2011; . CAP 393 – Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations Civil Aviation Authority April 2010; . CAP 670 – Air Traffic Services Requirements Part B Gen 01 Wind farms Civil Aviation Authority February 2010. 1 For all applications in Uist pre-application discussion with the Comhairle Planning Service is advised to identify any potential aviation and/or defence constraint arising in relation to radar. 2 NATS safeguarding maps are available at www.nats.co.uk/windfarms
13.79 In relation to Aviation and Defence the proposals are also considered to meet the development criteria of DC6. HIAL have indicated that their original objection is likely to
be resolved by a technical solution to flight approaches and procedures that meets both the Lewis Wind Farm development and the Druim Leathann development. Requirements regarding changes to flight approaches will be included as a condition (and subject to approval by the Director of Airspace Policy, CAA). In addition, lighting requirements for of Turbines within Safeguarding Zone for Stornoway Airport or MOD facilities will be able to be achieved via a condition to any consent.
13.80 In relation to cumulative impacts on aviation interests, Lewis Wind Farm has worked effectively with 2020 Renewables to identify a mutually beneficial scheme that is expected to be to the satisfaction of HIAL and hopefully the CAA. As such, in relation to cumulative impacts associated with Aviation impacts, both DC6 and DC7 can be seen to be met in terms of Aviation.
DC7 Developers will be expected to demonstrate that proposals will not Cumulative result in unacceptable cumulative impacts. Developers should refer to Impacts SNH’s guidance ‘Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments 2012. As cumulative issues only arise when the siting of a particular development is known, cumulative impact will be fully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Assessment of impacts will take into account a wide range of factors covering the natural and built environment, landscape, the visual amenity of residents and the wider socio- economic impacts. The Comhairle will encourage developers to co-operate over the exchange of information where cumulative assessment has been identified as important and is required in order to make decisions on proposals.
13.81 Cumulative impacts should be assessed where a proposed development involves a new development in combination with one or more existing or approved but unbuilt development. 13.82 In considering the cumulative impacts the study extended to a 35km radius, taking in all consented and/or developed wind turbine development up until March 2013. To establish cumulative impact there has to be clear visibility between one wind energy development and another. The significance of any impact is a matter of judgment. 13.83 There is a cluster of wind farms near Stornoway and the Druim Leathann Wind Farm is some 15km away. The nearest wind turbine consented and operational is the now operational Tolsta Community Wind Turbine. The Druim Leathann Wind Farm is a large scale wind farm development and on the approaches to Tolsta from the south it is considered that the developer could have better considered the cumulative landscape impact of the larger wind farm behind the Community Turbine on the approaches to the village from the south. There are no other wind farms close by to Druim Leathann, however there is a moderately significant cumulative impact on views from Tiumpan Head when taking in views back onto Lewis east coast from Stornoway along the coast. 13.84 A further cumulative effect relates to noise and the additional noise that will result in addition to the Community Turbine which is already operational. The applicant has accepted that the Druim Leathann WF development will operate within the 35dB noise limit while it is acknowledged that this may on occasion take cumulative above the 35dB noise threshold. The applicant has now taken account of the cumulative effect from the existing Community Turbine. In addition the cumulative noise impacts have been used to model anticipated cumulative noise levels as is required by guidance in ETSU-97 which shows that would show cumulative noise impacts from both the Community Turbine in operation. A noise mitigation plan to keep wind farm within the Comhairle’s noise limits will be required as a condition to any consent.
DC8 Proposals will be required to adhere to Local Development Plan Policy Soil 10 relating to soil resources. Resources For developments over 5MW or 30m developers will also be expected to provide geotechnical and hydrological, ecological and peat management information in support of applications, identifying the presence of peat at each site and how the development is designed to avoid the disturbance of peat, including the risk of landslide connected to any development work. (Further guidance is provided in the Scottish Government’s Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment Guide, 2007). The carrying out of mitigating work may be the subject of a planning condition or agreement.
13.85 The proposed wind farm site lies within an area of gently undulating blanket bog, has peat deposits typically range from 1.5m to 2.5m in thickness with however localised areas of thicker peat up to a depth of 4.8m. SEPA have requested a range of conditions to meet the clear issues of working in and managing peat. These conditions are identified in the SEPA submission shown in Section 8. Peat slide assessment was carried out for the ES and further assessment requested by SNH to ascertain potential impact of a peat slide risk on the integrity of the adjacent SAC. Further site investigation and risk assessment work is anticipated prior to finalising the design and preparation of the Construction and Environmental Management Plan. A condition on micrositing of wind farm components will be included as a condition to any consent.
DC9 Both medium and large scale wind energy developments (as a general Planning rule, those with 3 or more turbines each generating greater than 50kw Obligations or a development generating 1MW or more) will normally be subject to a requirement for the completion of an agreement under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to include: . Land restoration during and after completion of the development phase and at any time when any part of the development is modified or becomes redundant and the taking out of a reinstatement bond to ensure acceptable restoration; . Off-site works to roads or other services that reasonably require improvements to accommodate the proposed development. Any safeguarding or remediation works to any off site feature or receptor that may be affected by the proposal. A decommissioning statement will be required to be submitted in support of a planning application, which should be updated at least 1 year before the cessation of generation at the site. This statement should be written in accordance with best practice and in consultation with Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. The statement should provide a detailed account of the necessary works and the method of reinstatement of the site, with the removal of all wind turbines, foundations, tracks (where appropriate), equipment and any ancillary plant associated with the development. Applicants will have to demonstrate to the Comhairle that appropriate funding (must detail whether estimated cost is current or future) is in place to undertake this future work. Details of the mechanisms for the restoration of the site should be made in the case of a planning agreement.
13.86 The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into a Planning Obligations Agreement to cover items such as land restoration and off-site works to roads or other services that reasonably require improvements to accommodate the proposed development. A
Planning Obligations Agreement may require to address other matters of detail in addition to those referred to above. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 13.87 Having reviewed the provisions of the Development Plan as detailed above, the proposal is considered to not accord with the Comhairle’s adopted Development Plan, in that it does not conform to the following policies: Policy 1 - Development Strategy of the OHLDP; Policy 5 - Landscape of the OHLDP; Policy 19 - Energy Resources of the OHLDP; Policy 28 - Natural Heritage of the OHLDP SP 2 of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development (in the absence of removal of Turbine 14); DC1 of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development; DC2 a, b, and c of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development.
13.88 Within Scottish Planning Policy a distance of 2km is recommended between wind farms and a settlement. Recent Draft Planning Policy has suggested that this will be extended to 2.5km to reflect the increased size of turbines that are now available and being commissioned. It is not considered that the distance of 2.5KM should be accorded significant weight due to the draft and consultative stage of the revised SPP. The Scottish Government has rejected a Petition (PE1328, November 2010) which sought a guaranteed minimum separation distance of 2 km. 13.89 The Comhairle has an up to date Local Development Plan and very recently approved Statutory Supplementary Guidance which identifies a large number of Broad Areas of Search in which development might be considered. Based on the policies included in the Development Plan and this up to date guidance to direct large scale wind farm developments to locations that might meet policy objective and avoid policy constraints, the Druim Leathann Wind Farm development does not meet a number of policies within the Development Plan mainly in relation to its location inside the settlement buffer of 1.5km. The Local Development Plan and other Supplementary Guidance seeks to achieve balance between competing priorities.
MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 14.1 Having carried out an assessment against the Development Plan, the Planning Authority requires to identify and consider relevant material considerations, for and against the proposal, and assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the Development Plan. SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY National Planning Framework 14.2 The National Planning Framework (NPF) forms part of the statutory Development Plan framework against which development proposals have to be considered. The current NPF 2 is currently under review and a Main Issues Report has been published and consulted on and the finalised NPF3 will be published summer 2014. 14.3 NPF 2 identifies that a positive sense of place is just as important in rural areas. As the rural economy changes, a high quality environment and a strong cultural identity will be key assets in promoting sustainable growth, economic diversification and community development. 14.4 A key aim of national planning policy is to develop Scotland’s renewable energy potential whilst safeguarding the environment and communities. Energy is identified as having an important part to play in the future of the Highlands and Islands. 14.5 The review of NPF2 of is already underway, and the publication of the Main Issues Report for NPF3 highlighted a number of issues to be brought forward in NPF3. Identified under “Aviation Matters: UK Airspace is important for both civilian and military aviation interests. It is essential that the safety of UK aerodromes, aircraft and airspace is not adversely affected by new wind power infrastructure”. It identifies key issues that
planning authorities should take into account including the MOD, which operates military training areas, military danger zones (offshore Danger and Exercise areas), military explosives storage areas and Tactical Training Areas (TTA). There are also extensive Danger and Exercise Areas across the UK Continental Shelf Area (UKCS) for military firing and highly surveyed routes to support Government shipping that are essential for national defence. The MOD also operates Air Defence radars and Meteorological radars which have wide coverage over the UK (onshore and offshore). It is important that new energy infrastructure does not significantly impede or compromise the safe and effective use of any defence assets.” With regard to this development we are satisfied that there are no concerns for these assets. 14.6 The Government’s Land Use Strategy, published in 2011, sets out key principles for the use and management of Scotland’s land, and reflects its importance as an integral part of our ecosystem. NPF3 will be consistent with these principles, and is expected to inform our review of Scottish Planning Policy. This Strategy will sit alongside other Government plans and strategies – notably the National Planning Framework, strategies for biodiversity, forestry, marine, soils and other resources, and for infrastructure such as transport and waste – all working to support the Government’s purpose. The Land Use Strategy provides a broad context for planning authorities on Government policies relevant to all land use. 14.7 The National Planning Framework carries an action to develop a National Ecological Network. Peatland protection as a carbon sink and restoration of peatlands along with improved land management practices within water catchment areas are key issue for Climate Change and objectives relating to improvement of water quality for nature and for human consumption. However, peatland is also the reserve bank for our water and its conservation contributes to our water supplies an economic asset, as well as wider benefits from good land management incorporating nature. 14.8 Given the balance promoted for within the NPF and the Land Use Strategy for Scotland there is a clear need to achieve balance in protecting natural and built assets, whether they be natural assets such as water resources, soils including peat, and wildlife, or built assets such as airports and public drinking water facilities. The development of the Supplementary Guidance has sought to achieve this balance and other locations identified within this guidance might better achieve the balance. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 14.9 SPP 2010 identifies increasing sustainable economic growth as the overarching priority of the Scottish Government and the fifteen national outcomes explain in more detail how sustainable economic growth will be delivered. Achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using established science responsibly are essential in enabling a strong, healthy and just society and to living within environmental limits. The fundamental principle of sustainable development is that it integrates economic, social and environmental objectives. Through Scottish Planning Policy, the Government promotes the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. 14.10 SPP recommends the development of Supplementary Planning Guidance identifying potential constraints on wind farm development including the likely impacts on communities, including long-term and significant impacts, recommending a separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns and villages is recommended to guide developments to the most appropriate sites and to reduce visual impact, but decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography. Having identified areas requiring significant protection and other potential constraints on wind farm development, planning authorities should identify areas of search where there are no significant constraints on development. SPP makes it clear that even within these areas of search, still sites may be constrained by: other natural heritage interests, including habitats of high nature conservation value; project viability, including wind speed, site access, ground suitability and other environmental factors, and
grid capacity. 14.11 The draft SPP 2013 states that “The planning system should: support infrastructure delivery and innovation in the energy, transport, construction, digital, waste, water and environmental management sectors to support the transition to a low carbon economy”. The draft SPP 2013 also promotes a wider buffer to nearby communities of 2.5km. In preparing the Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development for the Western Isles a lesser margin (of 1.5km) to settlements was adopted because of local circumstances on the islands. However, this margin to protect communities from adverse impacts has been reduced further in the design for this development. OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 14.12 Part 4 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 20091 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') places duties on public bodies relating to climate change. In accordance with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Commencement No. 1) Order 20092, these duties came into force on 1 January 2011. The duties on the face of the Act require that a public body must, in exercising its functions, act: (a) in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the targets set in or under Part 1 of this Act; (b) in the way best calculated to help deliver any programme laid before the Scottish Parliament under section 53; (c) in a way that it considers is most sustainable. In doing so, public bodies must have regard to this guidance. 14.13 The duties require public bodies to contribute to climate change mitigation and to climate change adaptation, and to act sustainably. Mitigation can be defined as the implementation of policies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or, where possible, enhance carbon storage. Adaptation can be defined as the adjustment in economic, social or natural systems in response to actual or expected climatic change, to limit harmful consequences and exploit beneficial opportunities. EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) 14.14 The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (the WEWS Act) transposes the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) into Scottish Law. The WEWS Act states Scottish Ministers, SEPA and public bodies have a general duty to protect the water environment when carrying out their wider functions and an explicit obligation to secure compliance with the aims and principles of the WFD when exercising certain statutory functions. As such the Comhairle also has a duty under the WFD to protect and where possible improve the water environment. 14.15 Scottish Ministers have identified Drinking Water Protection Areas (DWPAs), within which surface and ground waters must be protected, and maps showing these DWPAs were laid before Parliament in March 2013. The Scottish Government in its 2008 Policy document on “Implementing the WEWS Act 2003” states that it supports a risk assessment approach to the management and protection of public and private drinking water supplies and this is in line with the approach recommended by the World Health Organisation for drinking water quality. In setting out their objectives for Scottish Water, Scottish Ministers have required Scottish Water to ensure the safety of drinking water supplies through the use of a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach that encompasses all steps in water supply from catchment to consumer. Scottish Water has raised no objection to the proposals but there remains a number risks assessments to be concluded. 14.16 Water Safety Plans (WSPs) are being developed for public water supplies by Scottish Water, in association with SEPA and Scotland's Drinking Water Quality Regulator (DWQR). At present no Water Protection Plan has been developed for the Loch Ionadagro DWPA however it is thought that they may come through RBMP.
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 14.17 The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 make provision for the implementation in the UK of the EU Habitats Directive. Regulation 3(4) of the Regulations state that ‘..every competent authority in the exercise of any of their functions, shall have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they [the requirements] may be affected by the exercise of those functions.’ 14.18 Members are advised that the Comhairle as competent authority is required to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising their function as a planning authority.
Biodiversity Duty 14.19 All public bodies, including planning authorities, have a duty when exercising their respective functions to further the conservation of biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions. SPP defines the term ‘biodiversity’ as the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic eco-systems and the ecological complexes of which they are part. This includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992).
14.20 In satisfying its duty under Section 1 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) to further the conservation of biodiversity it is necessary for a planning authority in assessing planning applications to make an assessment of any relevant impact on biodiversity, if appropriate to consider proposals for mitigation and if reasonable and necessary, to impose conditions.
Third Party Representations 14.21 Representations made to the planning authority, the content of which raise matters relevant to planning are material planning consideration. However, matters that are not related to planning are classed as ‘non-material’ and therefore will have no bearing on the planning decision. The following matters submitted in representation by third parties are assessed to be material and are commented upon. Those representations which are not considered to raise planning matters are addressed under ‘Other Considerations – Non-material issues’. 14.22 ‘The development will compromise the landscape in this important area for tourism and recreation.
Strategic and also local landscape issues have been considered in the report in detail within OHLDP Policy 5 and Statutory Supplementary Guidance on wind energy – Development Criteria DC 2. It is acknowledged within the Report that there are significant impacts from a development of this scale.
14.23 There will be no jobs created, a piddling amount of compensation to the community who will have to put up with another eyesore, right on their doorsteps..’
It is estimated that 8.8 FTE jobs will created through wind farm construction and wind farm maintenance direct and induced over the lifetime of the development. This issue is discussed under Chapter 13 of the ES – Socio economic impacts.
14.24 Impact of construction of the site in terms of noise and pollution. We have been unable to ascertain if explosives will be used.
The Comhairle’s Environmental Health Service has been consulted and noise, dust, vibration and pollution impacts arising from the construction works wouldl be managed by conditions as necessary.
14.25 This year we have had a significant increase in the number and variety of birds visiting our garden but we fear this will be short lived if the work goes ahead.
It is not anticipated that garden birds will be significantly impacted by the development.
14.26 Turbines 1 and 14 will be erected immediately on top of our peat banks!’
The land on which the development is proposed is on common grazings land, and disturbance to and displacement of existing peat bank is acknowledged as a potential impact of the alternative use now proposed for the land. However, while it is acknowledged that an element of displacement may occur, there are likely to be alternative suitable locations available for extraction of peat for domestic purposes.
14.27 ‘Golden eagles are very susceptible to disturbance around their nest site and the presence of turbines within 1000 – 1500m of a golden eagle nest site is likely to cause disturbance during the construction and operation of the wind farm, causing reduced breeding performance or abandonment of the nest site. As there are no alternative nest sites within the Tolsta golden eagle territory due to the smooth nature of the terrain, displacement from this nest site is likely to result in the abandonment of the territory. The sensitivity of golden eagles at the nest site is well documented and the construction of large wind turbines within 1km of a golden eagle nest in Scotland would be unprecedented. Both the ES and SNH raised the issue of disturbance to Golden Eagle and potential for abandonment of the range. This is considered in the ES Section 9 on ‘Ornithology’ and in response to Policy 28 Natural Heritage. It is considered that in the absence of the removal of Turbine 14 (or significant re-siting), the proposal would fail to comply with Policy 28. 14.28 Jobs created - encouraging a few young people to stay in the area. It is envisaged that local suppliers and businesses will benefit from a range of contracts relating to the development works. Once the turbines are operational it is envisaged that local suppliers/contractors will benefit from contracts relating to ongoing maintenance work.’
The developer, has indicated a commitment that “wherever possible local contractors and employees are used in all aspects of the wind farm development”. Using established methodology, it is estimated that 8.8 FTE jobs (direct and induced) will created through wind farm construction and wind farm maintenance over the lifetime of the development. This issue is discussed under Chapter 13 of the ES – Socio economic impacts.
14.29 We live in the area and have no concerns about the impact the wind farm will have on the landscape and visual amenity.
Visual amenity is a material planning consideration and acknowledged as having a degree of subjectivity; some people will be more receptive than others to changes in the views available to them as a consequence of the development. This matter is discussed in ES –Chapter 6 – Landscape & Visual Impact, and in response to OHLDP Policy 5 and Supplementary Guidance wind energy - Development Criteria DC2.
14.30 The detailed Environmental Impact assessment carried out by 20/20 Renewables has identified every aspect which might affect the environment and they have where possible, minimised and eliminated any negative impacts on the environment.
An assessment of the Environmental Statement is set out in Section 12 of this report.
14.31 With our knowledge of the vicinity we have no concerns with the effect the 14 turbine wind farm will have on the ecology and water resources of the locale.’
Local knowledge is acknowledged as an important element of informing the scoping and baseline conditions of a development site. The ES is the primary means by which a Planning Authority must assess the environmental impacts of the proposal with mitigations identified through that process managed by conditions as required and seek to ensure that necessary detailed plans and risk assessments are carried out to the satisfaction of SEPA, SNH, Scottish Water and the Comhairle.
14.32 The Isle of Lewis is a suitable place to build wind farms.’
The Comhairle has prepared and adopted Statutory Supplementary Guidance which sets out a spatial strategy and identified Broad Areas of Search for large scale windfarms such as this. The windfarm site is sited only partially within one of the broad areas of search identified in the Isle of Lewis.
14.33 Significant purpose in providing clean energy for thousands of homes.’
The green energy benefits are a material planning consideration and given due weight and discussed further below.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS – NON-MATERIAL 15.1 ‘Significant revenues to be generated from the rental and community benefits from the 14 turbines during the lifetime of the development, application will bring significant benefits to the communities of North Tolsta and New Tolsta, through Community Benefit payments of £7,000 per MW initially (£294,000 per year for years 1-12) and £10,000 per MW for years 13-25 (£420,000 per year for years 13-25) which undoubtedly is an important economic consideration. Scottish Planning Policy states at paragraph 186 that community trust funds and like benefits should not be treated as material considerations unless they meet the tests set out in Circular 3/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements. It states that Planning obligations should not be used to extract advantages, benefits or payments from landowners or developers which are not directly related to the proposed development and sets out 5 tests to be met. The obligation requires to specify clearly the purpose for which any contribution is required, including the infrastructure to be provided. The tests include necessity and planning purpose. It is therefore the case that the community trust contributions identified in the ES Chapter on Socio-economic benefits and the resultant economic benefits are not required to serve a planning purpose and therefore any fund so established is not considered a material consideration to be taken into account in assessing this application. 15.2 No benefits would be gained by individual households such as subsidised, or cancelled, electricity charges; which surely should be the first priority to compensate people for the devastation of an unspoilt, silent area of outstanding beauty. The benefits or disbenefits of the proposal to private individuals or individual households is not a material planning consideration. 15.3 ‘Support for development, exhibition days very informative, developer very open to share information, initial comments and concerns addressed, fully satisfied after reading the Non-Technical Summary that development will not cause any negative impact on the environment, ecosystem, landscape or visual amenity, significant benefits to Tolsta.’ Pre-application consultation with communities is welcomed and while a statutory requirement of all developments which are categorised as Major within the Planning Hierarchy, is not a material planning consideration in itself.
CONCLUSION 16.1 An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) application, also categorised a ‘Major development, was submitted on 30 April 2013 on behalf of Druim Leathann Windfarm Ltd (DLWL) for the development of a 42MW Windfarm, consisting of 14 wind turbines and associated infrastructure at Tolsta, Isle of Lewis. Each individual turbine has a hub height of 80m, a rotor diameter of 93m, a blade tip height of 126.5m and a generation capacity of 3MW. The nearest homes in Tolsta are sited at 1km distance from certain turbines. The wind farm will ‘frame’ the western views from the village. 16.2 The proposed development is 42MW and the application site sits largely inside the 1.5Km policy settlement buffer around Tolsta and will be a significant prominent feature in the open boggy moorland landscape. The proposal will have impacts of major significance on the visual amenity of Tolsta village and on a number of its residences. 16.3 Following an assessment of the ES together with assessment of the application against the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development the issues on which the determination rest are twofold: More than half the proposed development site (8 of the 14 turbines) lie inside a 1.5Km buffer around the settlement of Tolsta, contrary to the Comhairle’s policy for locating windfarms of a scale in excess of 20MW. The relevant policy support can be found in Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan OHLDP Policy 1 – Development Strategy and the related Statutory Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development: Spatial Policy SP2- Areas of Potential Constraint. There are impacts assessed to be of major significance on the visual amenity of Tolsta village and on a number of its residences as well as major impacts of a localised nature on landscape. The relevant policy support can be found in Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan OHLDP Policy 5 – Landscape, and the related Statutory Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development: Development Criteria DC2 – Landscape & Visual. 16.4 The Comhairle requires to determine planning applications in accordance with the provisions of its Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. 16.5 In this case the proposal is assessed to be contrary to the provisions of the Local Development Plan as it does not conform to the following policies: Policy 1 - Development Strategy of the OHLDP; Policy 5 - Landscape of the OHLDP; Policy 19 – Energy Resources of the OHLDP; DC1 of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development; DC 2 a, b, and c of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development. 16.6 Material considerations therefore require to be assessed to ascertain if any, individually or cumulatively, carry such weight that they justify setting aside the provisions of the Development Plan. 16.7 The key material considerations that requires to be weighed up are the Development Plan are those relating to climate change and to socio economic benefits. 16.8 The carbon balance calculation in the ES – Chapter 14 indicates significant positive benefits arising from the carbon balance calculation. This material consideration is therefore considered to carry weight. 16.9 The socio-economic benefits of the proposal as set out in the ES – Chapter 13 revised in the context of the guidance containing in the Circular 3/2012 Circular 3/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements – while positive at 8.8 FTE jobs (direct and induced) from construction and operational impacts is not considered significant in the context of the scale of the proposed development.
16.10 On balance, having given the above material considerations due weight it is concluded that on balance they do not individually or collectively, carry such weight that they indicate that the Comhairle’s Development Plan should be set aside. RECOMMENDATION AND REASONS 17.1 It is therefore recommended that the application be refused as it is considered to be contrary to the policies set out below: Policy 1 - Development Strategy of the OHLDP – largely outwith a Remote Area where large scale wind energy proposals are directed; Policy 5 - Landscape of the OHLDP – due to significant adverse impacts on visual amenity of groups of houses and the settlement of Tolsta and adverse localized landscape impacts, neither of which can be mitigated further; Policy 19 – Energy Resources of the OHLDP as the proposal is not considered to be in an appropriate location and will have an adverse impact on amenity; Spatial Strategy Policy 2 – Areas of potential constraint by virtue of the proposal being in excess of 20MW but located within the 1.5km settlement buffer; Development Criteria DC 2 – Landscape & Visual of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development, due significant adverse visual impact on residential properties and the Tolsta settlement and adverse localised impact on landscape. 17.2 It should also be noted that in the absence of the Removal of Turbine 14 from the proposed development, the application would also not be in compliance with Policy 28 – Natural Heritage or DC1 of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development. In order to secure this mitigation, the developer would require to submit an amended plan and agree an amendment to the proposed scheme or alternatively there is potential to address the matter by way of a condition.
APPENDIX 1
SCHEDULE OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL
Reason It is recommended that the application be refused as it is considered to be contrary to the provisions of The Development Plan by virtue of non- compliance with the following policies: Policy 1 - Development Strategy of the OHLDP – largely outwith a Remote Area where large scale wind energy proposals are directed Policy 5 - Landscape of the OHLDP – due to significant adverse impacts on visual amenity of groups of houses and the settlement of Tolsta and adverse localized landscape impacts, neither of which can be mitigated further. Policy 19 – Energy Resources of the OHLDP as the proposal is not considered to be in an appropriate location and will have an adverse impact on amenity. Spatial Strategy Policy 2 – Areas of potential constraint by virtue of the proposal being in excess of 20MW but located within the 1.5km settlement buffer. Development Criteria DC 2 – Landscape & Visual of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development, due significant adverse visual impact on residential properties and the Tolsta settlement and adverse localised impact on landscape. and Policy 28 – Natural Heritage or DC1 of Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development (in the absence of the removal of Turbine 14).
APPENDIX 2