PLANNING APPLICATIONS BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2021 COMHAIRLE 3 FEBRUARY 2021
SECTION 36 APPLICATION: STORNOWAY WIND FARM
Report by Head of Economic Development and Planning
PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of the Report is to determine the Comhairle’s view as ‘principal consultee’ in respect of an application for consent under Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act, following consultation on an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report, submitted in April 2019 to the Scottish Ministers regarding plans for Stornoway Wind Farm. The application also seeks deemed planning permission under Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 19/00242/Consg - Application under Section 36 of The Electricity Act 1989 for Windfarm for up to 35 turbines and associated development on land near Stornoway, Isle of Lewis
2.2 The Scottish Ministers have asked for the view of the Comhairle on a proposed wind farm on land, otherwise known as the ‘Stornoway General’, located to the west of the town of Stornoway, Isle of Lewis. The application submitted to Scottish Ministers, on behalf of Lewis Wind Power Limited (LWP), comprises up to thirty-five wind turbines with a proposed installed capacity of 196MW, plus associated infrastructure. The application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report, as amended by Additional Information (referred to within this Report as Supplementary Environmental Information – SEI and SEI2), which is used to assist consultees in formulating their responses and by Scottish Ministers to inform the determination of the application. The Report before Members summarises the comments received on the application, provides an assessment of the likely effects of the proposal in relation to a number of issues, having regard to the EIA Report (as amended) and the consultation responses received, and offers a conclusion and recommended view to be submitted to Scottish Ministers. Copies of the Non-Technical Summary, the EIA Report, consultation responses, the developer’s Interim Response Report, SEI and SEI2, are available to view on the Planning ‘Public Access’ portal under reference 19/00242/CONSG.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 It is recommended that the Comhairle agrees that the:
(a) Views as set out at paragraph 14.2 of the Report be submitted to the Scottish Ministers;
(b) Head of Economic Development and Planning be authorised to further engage with the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit, the Developer and Statutory Consultees regarding issues raised and, where appropriate, any draft planning conditions/obligations;
(c) Head of Economic Development and Planning be authorised to agree a set of planning conditions with the Scottish Government should Ministers be minded to approve the application;
(d) Chief Executive be authorised to complete a Planning Obligation with Lewis Wind Power and other relevant land interests; and
(e) Comhairle inform Scottish Ministers that there is no public interest in holding a Public Local Inquiry for the Stornoway Wind Farm application.
Contact Officer: Morag Ferguson, Planning Manager (Development Management) Telephone: 01870 604990 Email: [email protected] Anne Napier, Planning Officer Telephone: 01851 822690 Email: [email protected] Appendix 1: Site location and layout Appendix 2: Elevations (Fig 4.2a and 4.2b) Typical Wind Turbine Structure Appendix 3: Plan and Elevation of Substation and Compound - detail to be confirmed (Fig 4.10a) Appendix 4: Consultation responses from Comhairle consultees Appendix 5: Suggested conditions for the deemed planning permission, if approved Background Papers: None
IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The following implications are applicable, for the Comhairle, arising from the terms of the Report.
Resource Implications Implications/None Financial None Legal Requirement to update a Section 75 Planning Agreement Staffing Future resource implications for the pre-commencement discharge and construction phase monitoring of conditions. Assets and Property None Strategic Implications Implications/None Risk None Equalities None Corporate Strategy None Environmental Impact None Consultation None
PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 An application was submitted in June 2011 for a wind farm comprising 36 turbines at the development site. Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission were granted by the Scottish Ministers on 7 September 2012, which required development to commence within 5 years.
5.2 In May 2015, an application was made under the Electricity Act 1989 to amend this consent with regard to the layout, output and size of the wind turbines, with this being granted on 22 March 2016 (Ref 15/00189/CONSG) (the ‘consented development’). The Stornoway Wind Farm currently has a consented maximum generating capacity of 180MW, with each turbine having an output of up to 5MW and up to 145m tip height.
5.3 A request was made by the applicant on 31 March 2017 to seek an extension to the timescale for the implementation of the consent granted in 2012, as the original time period had not been altered by the amended consent referred to above. Consent was subsequently granted by the Scottish Ministers on 16 June 2017, to extend the time period of the commencement of the development for 3 years, with the effect that the development must be begun no later than 6 September 2020.
5.4 A further request was made in February 2020 to extend the time period for commencement of the 2012 consent, from 6 September 2020, for a further 2 year period. Consent was subsequently granted by Scottish Ministers on 28 May 2020, with the effect that the development must now be begun no later than 6 September 2022.
5.5 In May 2019, Stornoway Wind Farm Limited (the ‘applicant’) submitted a new Section 36 application to the Scottish Government for a revised proposal for the Stornoway Wind Farm development (Ref 19/00242/CONSG) (the ‘current application’). The application was submitted with an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) and falls to be considered under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations).
5.6 The applicant originally proposed to build, operate and decommission a thirty-five turbine wind energy development and associated infrastructure at a site to the west of Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis. Additional information was submitted in respect of the proposal in March 2020 and November 2020, part of which included the potential removal of two of the originally proposed turbines (T24 and T34) from the scheme.
5.7 This Report presents the Comhairle’s consultation response to the proposal, taking into account the Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI and SEI2), referred to as Additional Information (AI and AI#2) in the applicant’s submissions, and consultation responses.
5.8 The application is made under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and Scottish Ministers have also been asked to direct that planning permission should be granted for the development under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
6.1 Stornoway Wind Farm Limited is a subsidiary company of Lewis Wind Power Limited (LWP), which is registered in Scotland specifically to develop wind energy projects on Lewis. LWP is a joint venture between AMEC Project Investments Limited, a subsidiary of AMEC plc, and EDF Renewables Ltd, a subsidiary of EDF Energy. LWP is working in partnership with the Stornoway Trust, who own the site, to develop the Stornoway Wind Farm.
6.2 This Report relates to the development of the proposed Stornoway Wind Farm (SWF), which is located approximately 1.5km west of the town of Stornoway. The A859 borders the east and south-eastern boundary of the site, with the Pentland Road crossing the site in an east-west alignment and bordering the western boundary, heading south-west.
6.3 The site boundary encloses an area of approximately 1,700 hectares, although the wind farm infrastructure would occupy only a small part of the overall development site. The Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development 2018 identifies the development site as within an Area of Constraint (with potential in some certain circumstances).
6.4 The application site predominantly consists of open moorland with areas of woodland, and includes a large number of streams and lochs. The Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA) is located to the immediate west and north of the application site. The SPA comprises an extensive area of deep blanket bog, interspersed with bog pool complexes and freshwater lochs, which are important habitat for a range of breeding birds.
6.5 An operational wind farm (Beinn Greidaig) of three turbines is located in the western part of the site, although it is not connected with the development proposal. Directly to the north and north-west of the application site is the six turbine Pentland Road scheme, with the three turbine Arnish Moor wind farm located some 1.2km to the south-east.
6.6 The land is currently primarily used for grazing, forestry, angling and peat cutting. In addition, the Bennadrove landfill and recycling site is located in the northern part of the development site, with a Comhairle depot situated along the northern site access road from the A859. The Marybank Quarry and the Creed Business Park are located approximately 50m to the east of the application site. The location and layout of the proposal are shown in Appendix 1 to this Report. Proposal
6.7 The development originally proposed the erection, 25 year operation and subsequent decommissioning of 35 wind turbines, each with a three-bladed rotor. Originally, twenty five of the turbines would have a blade tip height of up to 180m and a rotor diameter of up to 150m. The other ten would have a blade tip height of up to 156m and a rotor diameter of 136m. The use of two turbine heights is proposed to reflect the surrounding topography and views, with the shorter turbines located to the eastern side of the site, which is closer to Laxdale and the town of Stornoway.
6.8 The SEI2, submitted in November 2020, included the potential removal of two of the turbines from the scheme, namely T24 and T34, together with other relatively small changes to the turbine locations, hard standings and access tracks. The two turbines identified as potentially to be removed from the development comprise one larger and one shorter turbine. The changes made to the location of the turbines are generally within the 50m allowance proposed for micrositing within the submissions.
6.9 The SEI includes a revised Planning Statement and updated and revised Chapters of the EIAR, as set out below. It includes detailed further assessment of the proposal in relation to a number of issues, including the project description and design evolution, ecology and ornithology, roads, transport, aviation and telecommunications.
6.10 The SEI2 was submitted to address particular continuing concerns raised in relation to a number of key issues. As a result, the SEI2 includes a revised assessment of likely peat impacts, as well as potential impacts on ornithology, and a more detailed justification for the use of borrow pits, amongst other matters. Beyond the information included within the SEI2, further revision of the assessment within the EIAR has not been undertaken following these changes.
6.11 Consequently, it is recognised that some of the predicted impacts would overestimate the potential effects of a revised 33 turbine proposal. However, for the reasons set out below, the likely impacts on most other issues were considered acceptable in relation to the 35 turbine proposal, or would not be materially affected by the revisions within the SEI2. Consequently, the absence of a comprehensive review of likely effects on all the issues identified within the EIAR, following the revisions identified in the SEI2, is not considered to undermine the overall findings of the EIAR.
6.12 Chapter 3 of the submitted Additional Information Environmental Impact Assessment Report (AI EIAR) outlines the design process undertaken for the development proposed, including the need to balance technical, land use, environmental, and landscape and visual constraints. Chapter 4 of the AI EIAR provides details of the development proposed.
6.13 The anticipated output for each turbine is 5.6MW with an originally expected combined capacity of 196MW for the development. This would be expected to be revised to 184.8MW following the removal of two turbines as indicated above. Details of the turbines are shown at Appendix 2 to this Report. The specific choice of wind turbine that would be installed would be determined following a competitive tendering exercise.
6.14 In addition to the erection of the turbines, the proposed development comprises associated infrastructure including the construction of site entrances; upgrading and construction of internal tracks and passing bays; establishment and working of up to five borrow pits; construction of temporary site compound(s); construction of a new on-site control building and substation; and the installation of a battery storage system.
6.15 Following further design optimization work, the AI layout submitted as part of the SEI removed the secondary substations and laydown/storage areas from the site. A plan view and elevation (detail to be confirmed) of the substation and satellite compounds is provided at Appendix 3 to this Report (EIAR Figures 4.10a and 4.11b). Construction methods
6.16 It is envisaged that the turbines would be shipped to the Arnish pier, approximately 4km to the south- east of the site, which has previously facilitated wind turbine deliveries for on-shore development and is capable of handling the turbine deliveries for the proposal. The turbines would be transported along the existing Arnish access road to the A859. Any alterations or upgrades to the pier road would be the subject of a separate application and do not form part of the current proposal.
6.17 It is intended that the development would be supported by a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), an overall and individual activity specific Construction Method Statement(s), individual management plans (e.g. for waste, peat, transport, habitat, compensatory planting and water) and detailed mitigation plans.
6.18 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (GI) work has been undertaken to support the design of the foundations and layout of the turbines. Further detailed GI is proposed to support the development of detailed design work, prior to construction. An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), to manage the effects of construction works on the environment, is intended to be appointed prior to construction and employed for the duration of the construction phase of the development, including post- construction restoration works.
6.19 Construction of the proposal is expected to be completed over a period of approximately 30 months, although this may be affected by weather conditions and the need to avoid bird breeding seasons.
6.20 During the construction phase of the development, a number of activities would take place, including identified enabling works, the establishment of borrow pits, and installation of site infrastructure, including the wind turbines. The application seeks consent to enable the re-siting of the turbines to a small degree (‘micrositing’) for environmental, geotechnical, and health and safety reasons. The application proposes an allowance of up to 50m for turbines and 100m for internal tracks and other infrastructure, such as substations and compounds, subject to identified caveats.
Turbine design
6.21 The turbines would be of a typical modern, horizontal axis design with four main components: a rotor (consisting of the hub and three blades); a nacelle (containing the generator and gearbox), to which the rotor is mounted; a tower; and a foundation. The specific choice of turbine would be dependent on final commercial and technical choice by the developer, but would not exceed the physical parameters specified within the application. It is likely that an external kiosk, housing the transformer, would also be required and this has been considered in the EIAR.
6.22 Whilst precise details may vary, an indicative 5.6MW machine has been used to inform the EIA process. The blades would rotate at approximately 5 to 13 revolutions per minute, generating power for all wind speeds between approximately 4m/s (9mph) and 25m/s (56mph). Based on current technology, the turbines would shut down for self-protection at wind speeds greater than 35m/s (78mph).
6.23 The turbines would be painted in light grey, with a semi-matt finish, to minimize visual intrusion. The components for each turbine would be brought to the site separately, with the towers being delivered in three or four sections. The overall assembly process for each turbine would last about two to four days, depending on weather conditions, and would involve a number of different cranes.
6.24 Once in operation, the turbines would be monitored remotely, with routine monthly maintenance visits. Major planned maintenance would be carried out periodically throughout the year.
Other details
6.25 The AI EIAR also provides details of the proposed:
• foundation designs, which would involve either rock anchor/cage foundations or gravity foundations; • crane hardstandings; • internal wind farm tracks, with the use of either floating or excavated and backfilled tracks, depending on peat depth; • water crossings, with 4 single span bridges being anticipated, together with culverts, for the remaining 12 crossings; • electrical connection, to the national grid at 132kV, expected to use buried cable to the Scottish Hydro-Electric Transmission Ltd (SHETL) transmission network and exported to the grid via the proposed Western Isles Radial Interconnector; • battery storage, which would be sited within the substation compound within Borrow Pit A, in a single-storey building of approx. 37m x 10m, that would also house metering, control and other equipment and welfare facilities; • construction compounds, including a temporary site office and a main construction compound, of excavated construction, approximately 150m from the development south site entrance for the duration of the construction phase of the development; • site security and lighting, including of the construction compound; • proposed working hours, with construction hours assumed to be 07.00-19.00 on weekdays, 07.00-13.00 on Saturdays and none on Sundays, and development timescales and programme identified, including concurrent operations where possible and progressive phased restoration as early as possible, with an overall 30 month programme anticipated, subject to mitigation measures required; • development phasing, with civil and electrical construction of the infrastructure in the first phase, and the erection and commissioning of turbines in the second phase; • site quantities, with estimated rock requirements for 35 turbines of 225,400m3 from on-site borrow pits; • concrete batching plants, sourced from local suppliers, with no on-site batching proposed, with the majority of concrete used required for turbine foundations and the volume required for 35 turbines estimated to be 9,226m3 (based on 11 gravity base, 16 rock anchor and 8 rock cage foundations); • transport movement, providing details of the type of vehicles likely to be required; and • off-site development, with a potential requirement for modifications to the Arnish pier road, which would be subject to a separate application.
6.26 Two options are identified as available at the end of the operational lifetime of the proposed development, either re-powering with new machines (which would require a new application and further EIAR), or the removal of the turbines and the reinstatement of the site. It is anticipated that a condition of any consent would require the removal of the turbines after 25 years, with a requirement to prepare a comprehensive plan for the decommissioning, including environmental management practices, and restoration of the site in agreement with the Comhairle.
EIAR
6.27 The EIAR (as amended) also identifies embedded environmental measures, which are mitigation measures inherent and integral to the proposal. This includes all mitigation assumed to be in place during construction, operation and decommissioning, including the Construction Environmental Management Plan, the Construction Method Statement, Peat Management Plan, Transport Management Plan, Water Management Plan, Habitat Management Plan, a Pollution Prevention Plan and Pollution Incident Response Plan, dust and air quality mitigation measures, and a Site Waste Management Plan.
6.28 Accompanying the current application, the applicants have included an EIA Report, supplemented by two separate submissions of Additional Information (Supplementary Environmental Information – SEI and SEI2), which is comprised of:
• Volume 1 Non-Technical Summary; • Volume 2 Environmental Impact Assessment Report; • Volume 3 Figures; • Volume 4a Appendix 1-7; • Volume 4b Appendix 8; • Volume 4c Appendix 9-13; • Volume 4d Appendix Figures 6c, 6d, and 6e; • Pre-Application Consultation Report; • Planning Statement.
6.29 The following table provides clarification of the additional information provided within the Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI):
Topic Section (reference in the SEI) Clarifications and Further Information
EIA Report: Chapter 1 Introduction No change
EIA Chapter 2: Approach No change
EIA Chapter 3: Scheme need, Updated and superseded by Additional Information (AI) Chapter alternatives and iterative design 3
EIA Chapter 4: Project Description Chapter and certain Figures updated and superseded by AI Chapter 4. Figures relate to site layout, gravity foundations, crane hard standing, floating road, excavated road and borrow pits EIA Chapter 5: Legislative and No change Policy Overview
EIA Chapter 6: Landscape and No change Visual
EIA Chapter 7: Historic No change to chapter, but Figure 7.1 has been updated and Environment superseded by AI Figure 7.1 Topic Section (reference in the SEI) Clarifications and Further Information
EIA Chapter 8: Ornithology Chapter and associated appendices have been updated and superseded by AI Chapter 8 and AI Appendices. No change to the baseline, but updated assessment, including bird surveys, collision risk monitoring, population viability analysis and Habitat Regulation Appraisal (HRA) EIA Chapter 9: Ecology Chapter and associated appendices and figures have been updated and superseded by AI Chapter 9, including habitat survey, vegetation sensitivity, habitat loss calculations, peat management plan, outline habitat management plan, and forestry EIA Chapter 10: Chapter and Figure 10.1 updated and superseded by AI Chapter Telecommunications and Aviation 10 and AI Figure 10.1 EIA Chapter 11: Geology, No change to chapter, but Figure 11.2 updated and superseded Hydrology and Hydrogeology by AI Figure 11.2 EIA Chapter 12: Noise No change to chapter, but Figure 12.1 updated and superseded by AI Figure 12.1 EIA Chapter 13: Traffic and Chapter, Figure 13.1 and Appendix 13B have been updated and Transport superseded by AI Chapter 13, AI Figure 13.1 and AI Appendix 13B EIA Chapter 14: Socio-Economics No change
EIA Chapter 15: Shadow Flicker No change
Chapter 16: Summary of Updated and replaced by AI Chapter 16 Summary of Mitigation Mitigation Measures Planning Statement Updated and superseded by a Revised Planning Statement
6.30 Further information provided by the Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI2) includes, amongst other matters:
• Applicant’s response to the consultee comments on the SEI, including the potential removal of two turbines (T24 and T34) to address consultation concerns • Revised site layout plan (AI#2 Figure 4.1a, dated November 2020) – see Appendix 1 • Appendix C Peat Technical Note • Outline Bird Protection Plan and additional information on likely effects on ornithology • Revised Borrow Pit Assessment • Revised visuals and wirelines, to illustrate the potential effects of the removal of turbines T24 and T34 from the development proposal.
6.31 In order to consider all relevant matters this Report is structured as follows:
Section 5 Planning History; Section 6 Background Context and Proposed Development; Section 7 External Consultation Responses Section 8 Internal Consultation Responses Section 9 Representations Section 10 Comments from Applicant; Section 11 Policy Context and Legislative Background; Section 12 Assessment; Section 13 Suggested conditions and planning obligation; Section 14 Conclusion and recommended view.
EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES
7.1 The following is a summary of the comments received by the Scottish Government (and passed on to the Comhairle for information) in response to its consultation process on the EIAR, SEI and SEI2. Copies of all consultation responses received are available to view on the Comhairle’s website using the following link: View application.
7.2 A summary of any additional comments received in response to the SEI and SEI2 is provided after the summary of the initial consultation response.
Consultee Comment Highlands And Islands No objection, subject to a condition requiring steady red omnidirectional Airports Limited [HIAL] aviation warning light.
Response to SEI – the development would impact safeguarding criteria for Stornoway Airport. Lighting would be required on the hub height of the turbines. No objection subject to lighting being conditioned. Any material change to turbine height or location may result in an objection on radar safeguarding grounds.
Response to SEI2 – no change to previous response, which remains valid.
NATS Safeguarding for Objects due to conflicts with NATS safeguarding criteria. The full National Air Traffic Technical and Operational Assessment (TOPA) is provided on the Services [NATS] En Comhairle’s website (link above). Route plc Response to SEI – continues to object due to conflicts with NATS safeguarding criteria. Three different impacts are anticipated, one of which is considered to be acceptable. However, the risks to the operation of the two links between Sandwick and Eitshal are sufficient for NATS to object to the proposed development. The full TOPA is provided on the Comhairle’s website (link above).
Ministry Of Defence No objection, subject to a condition requiring MOD accredited aviation [MOD] safety lighting and notification of construction details prior to commencement.
Response to SEI – no objection, as additional information relates primarily to birds and peat, with no change to location or size of turbines.
Response to SEI2 – no objection, previous comments remain extant. Consultee Comment
Meteorological Office Objects, due to proximity and unacceptable interference to the Druim-a- Starraig weather radar. However, the objection would be withdrawn provided a condition is applied to require the submission and approval of a Radar Mitigation Scheme. The scheme should make provision for an appropriate replacement radar at a suitable alternative location on the Western Isles.
Revised position - no objection subject to appropriate conditions being applied, as it considers a technical solution is possible.
Farrpoint - Connected Objects, due to likely impact on the Connected Communities Network. Communities Network Following clarification of the turbine layout, objection withdrawn.
BT Radio Network Object, due to potential interference with current and presently planned Protection radio networks. Objection will be removed if proposed turbine T7 is re- sited, to provide a 100m minimum clearance from the blade tip to the fixed radio link path.
Response to SEI – no longer object; conclude that the project should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network, provided no micro-siting closer to the radio links occurs.
Response to SEI2 – No objection, previous comments still stand, the project should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network.
Ofcom Response to SEI – no comment.
Joint Radio Company Objects until appropriate mitigation is in place. (JRC) on behalf of UK Energy Industry Transport Scotland No objection, as considered to be no significant traffic or related environmental impacts on the Trunk Road Network.
Response to SEI – no further comment.
Response to SEI2 – no further comment.
Scottish Forestry Objects on the grounds of unacceptable woodland loss. In order to remove its objection, seeks that the compensatory planting of 41.4 ha, an area equal to that of woodland removal, is conditioned to be provided prior to commencement.
Response to SEI – Welcomes the AI and the statement that compensatory planting will be undertaken on and off the development site. Queries the inclusion of felling for infrastructure buffers within the consent, if granted, and requests this is covered by condition. The condition to require the submission and approval of a compensatory planting plan, covering the area of woodland concerned, the design of planting and the timing of delivery.
Consultee Comment Marine Scotland No objection, but advise additional monitoring. Science (MSS) Response to SEI – summary provided where proposed mitigation measures and proposed monitoring of fish, freshwater invertebrates and water quality will be secured by condition. Recommends these monitoring programmes follow MSS guidelines and advice previously provided.
Scottish Water No objection.
Response to SEI – no objection.
Response to SEI2 – no objection.
Scottish Environment Objects until further baseline information is provided on impacts on peat Protection Agency and wetlands. The developer needs to demonstrate how peat (SEPA) excavations and disturbance have been minimised. It is not apparent from the site layout and siting of infrastructure that impacts on peat and sensitive wetland habitats have been avoided in the first instance, or these impacts minimised. This information needs to be provided. The full response from SEPA is available on the Comhairle’s website (link above).
Response to SEI – maintains objection. Whilst scheme may be an improvement on the consented scheme, best practice in terms of avoidance and mitigation measures in relation to projects on peat has moved on since 2012. Expect current project to meet the same standards to which all development proposals are now held. Areas of deep peat have not been fully avoided or minimised. Suggests relocation of 8-10 turbines and 1-3 crane pads. The matter should be addressed prior to determination, through the EIA process.
Subject to the above amendments being adopted, the objection to settlement lagoons would be removed, as these would no longer be required.
Reliance on proposed use of borrow pits could be reduced. Reducing vehicle movements, due to location of existing quarries in close proximity to site, is considered to be of less significance than avoiding on site environmental impacts from borrow pits.
Objection withdrawn to use of alternating cut and floating track over short distances, following the receipt of additional information, and to impacts on highest sensitivity wetland habitats.
Various amendments requested to Peat Management Plan and details of battery storage on site, which could be secured by condition.
Response to SEI2 – Objection withdrawn, subject to the use of the amended site layout plan and conditions relating to peat management, borrow pit restoration, battery storage details, decommissioning and restoration, mitigation measures, micrositing, and a finalised Habitat Management Plan, to provide at least 66ha of off-site improved blanket Consultee Comment bog or wet heath habitat, and the protection of good quality habitat on site.
NatureScot, formerly Objects until further information is provided. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) The qualifying interests of the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA) will not be adversely affected by the proposal. There is not likely to be a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC), nor on any other Natura 2000 site. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required in respect of any other sites.
The proposal could affect nationally important natural heritage interests as there is insufficient information to determine whether the proposal is likely to adversely impact the hen harrier population in the Outer Hebrides. Two years of data from the development site should be provided. Since the amended Stornoway Wind Farm received consent in 2016, the hen harrier population on Lewis has expanded from 1 pair (2015) to at least 7 pairs. All these pairs are in the vicinity of the proposal.
We further recommend that the developer prepares a more informed Habitat Management Plan to consider how mitigation or compensation for impacts on hen harrier might be provided.
Content with assessment of impacts on otter European Protected Species as low, provided mitigation measures embedded within the EIAR are implemented and Otter Protection Plan produced.
Will be impacts on blanket bog and wet heath habitat, which will be significant at site level, but less so regionally, due to the very considerable extent of the resource present on Lewis. The mitigation proposed, such as removal of coniferous plantations, will need careful consideration to tie in with mitigation for hen harrier impacts. The Outline Habitat Management Plan will need refining in light of this, as will the Woodland Removal Policy.
LVIA response – consider that the proposal would not affect landscape interests of national importance.
There would be some significant adverse landscape and visual impacts on the setting of Stornoway and over the island of Lewis, as well as in views from the sea to the south-east of Stornoway.
The proposal would have significant adverse cumulative impacts in combination with existing wind farms, due to the contrast of turbine height and layout.
The proposed turbine lights would appear as a prominent feature, intensifying the visibility of lighting from the surrounding road network and some elevated locations within the Harris-Uig Hills Wild Land Area. The visual effects are considered to be significant, but the effect on the Wild Land qualities are not of a magnitude considered to be significant.
Consultee Comment The use of proximity activity lighting, infra-red lighting or reduced intensity lighting should be explored as potential mitigation, as alternatives to the worst case scenario presented.
Response to SEI2 –
1. Lewis Peatlands SPA
(a) Golden Eagle – the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on this qualifying interest of the site, therefore an Appropriate Assessment (AA) is required. If the proposal is undertaken strictly in accordance with the amendments set out in the AI#2, then the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, having regard to potential displacement of golden eagles from their range within the SPA. The amended layout at AI#2, specifically the removal of turbine positions T24 and T34, brings the range loss figure below what is predicted for the previously- consented and constructed developments.
(b) Red-throated diver - the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on this qualifying interest of the site, therefore an AA is required. If the proposal is undertaken strictly in accordance with the amendments set out in the AI#2, then the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. Turbine position T24 is approximately 280m from a successful breeding site, well within the recommended disturbance distance of 500- 700m. The removal of T24 would address the potential displacement of a breeding pair of divers near the site sufficiently to meet Natura requirements.
2. Lewis Peatlands SAC – the proposal is not considered likely to affect any of the species or habitats which are features of this SAC, therefore an AA is not required.
There is scope to reduce the residual predicted impacts still further through additional layout amendment and the applicant is encouraged to give attention to this.
3. Habitats and species with special protection – recommendations: the appointment of a suitable Environmental Clerk of Works (ECoW); compensation for the permanent loss of 31ha of active peatland habitat by restoring 62ha of peatland habitat off-site, in a specified location, secured by condition; mitigation and embedded measures in relation to otters, as set out in AI#1 Table 9.9, should be secured by condition, to include a species protection plan and pollution prevention plan; the proposed measures to minimise and mitigate impacts on hen harrier included in the Outline Habitat Management Plan to be finalised and secured by condition; detailed post-construction monitoring, should the development be consented, including full breeding bird and year-round Vantage Point survey in years 1-5, 10 and 15, to be secured by condition and included in the Ornithological Monitoring Plan; adherence to the Breeding Bird Protection Plan (as amended by later date ranges) to be secured by condition.
4. Landscape & Visual Impacts – no further comments to previous response on this issue. Consultee Comment
Advice in relation to birds in the wider countryside:
(i) several of the turbines and associated infrastructure are within the 500m identified disturbance distances for nesting sites of red-throated diver, black-throated diver and hen harrier (and a roost site of this species), which could be addressed by reconsidering the location of those turbines. The more detailed Breeding Bird Protection Plan is important, as otherwise the proximity of construction and maintenance activities to nest sites would carry a significant risk of giving rise to an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
(ii) collision risk modelling for white-tailed eagle shows that the population is highly unlikely to decline as a result of the development, nor would the range and population recovery of this re-introduced species be significantly slowed.
(iii) collision risk modelling for golden eagle, in AI#1, indicates that it is unlikely that the regional population would decline at the current cumulative modelling, given the emerging evidence of displacement. The population may not increase to the level predicted, as the Outer Hebrides golden eagle population is probably already close to maximum carrying capacity. The modelling shows that the population could tolerate the relatively high additional mortality that it predicts.
(iv) the development site overlaps a large herring gull colony, which is a species that has undergone significant regional and national declines. Population modelling using additional mortality of 1-3% would better enable NatureScot to understand potential impacts on this species.
Detailed post-construction monitoring is recommended to help understand any ornithological impacts that arise.
Royal Society for the Objects, due to incomplete ornithological survey work, as two full years Protection of Birds of survey is considered necessary. A comparison of the impacts of the (RSPB) Scotland consented development and the current proposal is also requested, as well as population viability modelling on hen harrier at the scale of the Lewis population.
Based on information available, several concerns are raised. If similar or greater impacts are predicted following assessment of two full years of data, it is likely that the objection will be maintained, unless impacts are reduced through modifications of the proposal, especially in relation to predicted impacts on hen harrier.
Response to SEI – objects to proposal on grounds that it is likely to cause unacceptable impacts to several bird species of conservation concern. This would be as a result of: disturbance and displacement to red- throated diver (breeding within and outside Lewis Peatlands SPA) and to breeding and roosting hen harrier; and collision risk to hen harrier, red- throated diver and white-tailed eagle.
Consultee Comment As a result of collision impacts the populations of these species would be 6% lower, 19% lower and 27% lower (respectively) in comparison with the unimpacted population. Therefore, consider that the data presented in the AI EIAR predicts significant negative impacts from the SWF, individually or in combination with other wind farm projects, for these three bird species.
The overall impacts to these species are greater than those predicted for the consented scheme, due to an increased use of the site since the date of the previous surveys (2009-2011) and the differences in turbine layout and specification. This is particularly marked in relation to hen harrier.
Due to potential impacts on red-throated divers, the proposal is considered to have the potential to have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the integrity of the Lewis Peatlands SPA. An Appropriate Assessment should be undertaken by the ECU and if the potential effects cannot be mitigated, and there are likely to be adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA and its qualifying interests, then it is unlikely that consent could be granted, in accordance with the Habitat Regulations requirements.
Seven turbines need to be removed from the proposal initially, then collision risk modelling re-run.
Also have concerns over negative impacts on the local or regional populations of several other species, including golden eagle, common tern, black-throated diver and herring gull.
The measures proposed in the Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP) are insufficient to mitigate the impacts of the proposal on birds of conservation concern. Without prejudice to other comments, a comprehensive HMP should be a condition of any consent granted and agreement should be reached on the minimum financial commitment by the applicant.
Suggest the HMP includes developer commitments to mink control and the undergrounding of high bird collision risk sections of low-voltage overhead lines and the grid connection route.
Whilst RSPB Scotland is supportive of renewable energy development, the current proposal would contribute to mitigating climate change, but at the unnecessary and avoidable expense of species of high conservation concern.
Response to SEI2 – Objection maintained.
The applicant has removed one turbine (T24) out of the seven that were requested should be removed in the previous response. The changes proposed do not go far enough to reduce impacts to an acceptable level, particularly in relation to nationally important populations of hen harrier, red-throated diver and white-tailed eagle using the site.
Therefore it is requested that the remaining six turbines (T7, T10, T15, T17, T18, and T23) are removed (as they are in locations well below the recommended disturbance free distance of breeding sites for hen harrier Consultee Comment and red-throated diver), and that collision risk calculations are then re- run for hen harrier, red-throated diver, golden eagle and white-tailed eagle.
Welcome the removal of two turbines and the resulting reduced displacement risk to the red-throated diver nest site and extent of range loss to a SPA pair of golden eagles.
The AI#2 does not include a revised collision risk assessment for the proposed 33 turbine scheme, so it is not possible to assess to what degree this amendment will affect collision risk to red-throated diver, hen harrier, golden eagle and white-tailed eagle. The predicted collision mortalities for the 35 turbine scheme are very high and would significantly affect the future populations of these species on Lewis or at the scale of the Western Isles Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ). It is thought unlikely that the removal of two turbines would significantly reduce collision risk, but the information must be presented to allow the impacts to be fully considered.
The implementation of a Bird Protection Plan, to limit construction and maintenance activities during the bird breeding season, would reduce disturbance during the construction phase but would have little impact on disturbance and displacement impacts during operation. Not aware of any other proposals in Scotland where such a large number of turbines (6 of the remaining 33) are located within the recommended disturbance free distance of sensitive breeding species. These impacts would be significantly reduced during the operational phase by the removal of the six turbines.
Detailed comments provided within an Annex and reference is made to previous response; the detailed comments in that response remain unchanged.
Disappointed by the lack of engagement from the developer, given the RSPB’s involvement with the proposal over the last 10 years. It is not possible to reconcile the developer’s assertion that the layout of the wind farm has been designed to minimise impacts on birds with the scale of the predicted impacts on multiple bird species of conservation concern and through multiple impacts.
Detailed comments in Annex relate to:
• the Bird Protection Plan (BPP), with a recommendation of extending the period when no construction work can take place from mid-May to 1 June within 750m of known and suitable diver breeding sites and exclusion zones around active breeding sites potentially extended into September; • comprehensive annual monitoring to inform mitigation measures to avoid unlawful disturbance, to be secured by condition; • potential for significant indirect disturbance as a result of recreation on 28km of new access tracks - not addressed in BPP and OHMP, but needs careful consideration and management; • grid connection route and method; Consultee Comment • impact on nationally important hen harrier population, with precautionary approach through further turbine removal recommended, as currently collisions are predicted to reduce the future Lewis hen harrier population by 30%, disturbance impacts would affect four of the nine breeding areas located in 2018 and 2019 and the main roost site could be displaced; • impacts on Lewis Peatlands SPA, including risk of territory abandonment or turbine collisions, which could be reduced by turbine removal, request that the approach taken with T24 is also followed with T17, which is a similar distance from a red-throated diver breeding site, within 2km of the SPA.
Fisheries Management No objection. The proposed development falls within the district of the Scotland (FMS) Western Isles District Salmon Fishery Board, and the catchments relating to the Outer Hebrides Fishery Trust.
Response to SEI2 – as above.
Western Isles District No objection, but comments on assessment of environmental sensitivity, Salmon Fisheries Board consultation with Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust (OHFT), avoidance of (WIDSFB) period for incubation of salmonid eggs, and relocation/rescue of fish species in immediate area of culverts. Expect monitoring programme to be agreed and carried out
Historic Environment No objection. Detailed comments on the impacts on Historic Scotland Environment Scotland’s interests, and the assessment provided, are given on the Comhairle website
Response to SEI – no further comments
Response to SEI2 – no further comments.
Visit Scotland No objection but state that an independent tourism impact assessment should be carried out. This assessment should be geographically sensitive and should consider the potential impact on any tourism offerings in the vicinity.
Scottish Rights of Way Objects, due to proximity to a promoted access route which is also a and Access Society public road. The long distance walking/cycling route the Hebridean Way (Scotways) follows part of the site boundary and crosses the site using the A858 ]Pentland Road].
Response to SEI – concern regarding the proximity of one turbine to the Hebridean Way remains and previous response remains current.
British Horse Society No objection. Walkers, cyclists and horse riders will all benefit from any public access tracks created, especially if the tracks are top dressed in fine material. The BHS feels that the public access opportunities are huge in respect of this project.
Response to SEI – request for provision of multi-use shared paths to be conditioned. This provision would be of significant benefit to the horse riders on the island. The network of off-road paths and tracks would be Consultee Comment very welcome to locals and visitors. Study provided by British Equestrian Trade Association to demonstrate, amongst other matters, that the equestrian economy results in a significant consumer spend within Scotland.
Response to SEI2 – as above.
Ironside Farrar – No objection, but the Peat Slide Risk Assessment (PSRA) requires minor consultants on behalf revisions, as although much of it is sound, there are some key elements of Scottish Government that are considered to be insufficiently robust to support the conclusions. Energy Consents Unit Response to SEI – the further information largely addresses the queries raised previously. Further justification or clarification is required on scoring for receptor type, given the proximity to lochs and more significant water courses.
Crown Estate Response to SEI2 – No response to make as not affected.
INTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES
8.1 The following is a summary of the comments received by the Comhairle in response to the consultation process on both the EIAR, the SEI and the SEI2. A copy of the comments received is attached as Appendix 4 to this Report. A summary of any additional comments received in response to the SEI and SEI2 is provided after the summary of the initial consultation response.
Consultee Comment Economic Development No objection. Given that the number of wind turbines would be reduced under this new application, construction impacts may be lower than previously forecast in terms of site preparation and civils. Many of the new turbines will be considerably larger than those proposed previously, so the fabrication impacts may not differ considerably from earlier projections. Projections for operational impacts remain valid at 19 FTE direct and 8 indirect.
Comments made in relation to proposed Community Benefit Fund (see discussion in report below): The income to the community from this Fund will be in addition to landlord / crofter rentals and a Shared Ownership offer being taken forward by The Stornoway Trust. It is considered that community benefit payments will result in the creation of 8.1 FTE posts in the community.
It is worth noting that Scottish Hydro Electric (Transmission) Limited has made it a condition of Radial Connector construction that Stornoway Wind Farm is successful in its bid to the 2019 Contract for Difference Auction Round.
Archaeology Service No objection, condition required for a programme of archaeological works.
Heritage assets identified within the development boundary range from prehistory through to the modern period. The majority of sites relate to Consultee Comment the medieval and post-medieval period; however the origins of some of these sites maybe earlier.
The potential for undiscovered heritage assets is identified by a small number of known prehistoric sites recorded in the development zone and the situation of the development within a large area of blanket bog.
Additionally the potential of these wetland environments to preserve important information about the development of the Holocene environments is recognised.
Consideration for the direct and indirect impacts on the heritage resource has been appropriately assessed. The suggested mitigation will be sufficient to offset the potential impact of the development on the historic environment resource.
Response to SEI – the updated drawing, Vol 3, Figure 7.1 is acknowledged and the previous response remains unchanged.
Response to SEI2 – the previous response remains unchanged.
Environmental Health No objection, condition required, based on the caveat that noise from all consented windfarms has been included in the cumulative assessment, and that some assessments are predicated on the presumption that other developments (or parts thereof) will not be proceeding.
The noise report states that the predicted cumulative levels are all below the cumulative limits.
A separate noise condition was previously applied in relation to the receptor at Druim Dubh.
The full planning condition which is based on the background noise assessment of Stornoway Wind Farm in 2011 is included in Appendix 4 to this Report.
Response to SEI – does not appear to be any material change, in terms of noise and shadow flicker, from previous submission; therefore no additional comment.
Response to SEI2 – No further comments
Technical Services – No objection, subject to the submission and approval of a traffic Roads, Bridges and management plan and details relating to conditions and structural Street Lighting surveys, localised improvements, repairs, routing, parking provision and access construction.
Response to SEI – as above.
Landscape and Visual The review is based on an examination of the EIAR April 2019 and a visit Impact Assessment to the proposed development site and key viewpoint locations during (LVIA) - Landscape August 2019. Consultant for CNES Consultee Comment The proposed development site lies within the Boggy Moor 1 LCT which is generally of lower sensitivity to large scale wind energy development because of its simple landform, land cover and expansive scale. The development site has been identified as being suitable for a large-scale wind farm development in a Scottish Government commissioned study and an existing consent for 36 turbines, 145m high already applies to the site.
In terms of landscape effects associated with the proposal, a key concern is the proximity of the proposed development to Stornoway and the significant adverse effects likely to arise on the appreciation of the town and its intimately scaled and richly diverse landscape setting from the sea. The proposal will also result in widespread significant adverse effects on views extending to around 14km of the proposed development due to the size of turbines and the openness of the landscape. Views from the Ullapool-Stornoway Ferry, from Gallows Hill in the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL) and from the Lewis War Memorial are of key concern due to their high sensitivity.
The proposal seems unlikely to significantly exacerbate the landscape and visual effects associated with the consented scheme. Both schemes are not optimum in their design layout with noticeable gaps and overlapping of turbines occurring from many key viewpoints and both will incur relatively widespread significant adverse landscape and visual impacts.
Night time lighting will also be a necessary feature of the proposal (but not the consented scheme) and will incur significant adverse effects (effectively increasing the duration of significant adverse visual effects) within approximately 10km of the development site.
It is recommended that Radar Proximity Activated Lighting should be installed to minimise the duration of night time lighting effects. Redesign of the turbine layout and reductions in the height of some turbines to improve the appearance of the wind farm seen from the Lewis War Memorial would also mitigate effects to some degree, although effects on views would remain significant and adverse due to the proximity of the wind farm site to this sensitive viewpoint.
The full response may be viewed in Appendix 4 to this Report.
Environment Officer Response to SEI2 - Turbines on sites 20, 21, 22 and 35 are close to the Pentland Road which is part of the promoted Hebridean Way long distance walking and cycling route. This could lead to a potential problem from “ice throw” from the blades in certain weather conditions.
The distance of the closest turbine to the Hebridean Way is 142m; this distance does not comply with the CNES Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development.
There have been major changes in the populations of birds since the windfarm was originally consented in 2012, increases in bird activity have been seen across the site. White-tailed eagle flight activity has Consultee Comment increased over the site since 2012 and the number of red-throated divers breeding in the areas has also increased. The first recorded population of hen harriers breeding on Lewis has been established on the site and surrounding areas since 2015. Wind Farm surveys in 2019 found eight pairs in the survey areas. Although this is a small population, it is the only known establishing population of hen harriers in Scotland and both the UK and Scottish populations are currently declining with a population of just 460 pairs estimated in Scotland, the Lewis population extends the range of the species to the North and West.
The collision risk predictions by the developer are very high for white- tailed eagle, red-throated diver, golden eagle and hen harrier. The developer has predicted that over the 25 year operational lifetime of the wind farm 16 white-tailed eagles, 12 red-throated divers, 8 golden eagles and 4 hen harriers will be killed through turbine collisions. The developer’s population modelling predicts that this level of collisions will have a significant detrimental impact on the future population of these species at the scale of Lewis or the Western Isles.
The recommended disturbance free distances around the breeding sites of hen harrier and red-throated diver nest sites are 500-750m but these distances have not been met in several cases. Placing turbines close to nest site risks high collision risk, territory abandonment and disturbance potentially resulting in breeding failure. This should be taken into consideration in terms of the siting of the turbines.
Cleansing Response to SEI2 - Question/comment regarding traffic management:
As these turbine components are being taken from Arnish to two access points on the A859, is there specific times of the day and days of the week that these components are to be transported? Cleansing use that stretch of road daily for waste collection, waste disposal at Creed Park and also waste transfers. Prefer to minimise any disruption to service where possible and also mindful that some waste transfers come from the southern isles and are time critical for ferry crossings, so would not want traffic management issues to cause missed connections.
REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 No representations from members of the public have been received by the Comhairle.
9.2 The Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit website indicates that, beyond the consultation responses referred to above, no public representations have been submitted
COMMENTS FROM APPLICANT
10.1 The developer provided the Comhairle with additional comments in the form of an Interim Response Report, dated 16 December 2019, which was drafted prior to the submission of the SEI and is available on the Comhairle’s website, using the following link: View application.
10.2 In addition, the developer has included comments on responses made to the SEI within the Report that accompanied the SEI2, dated 16 November 2020. Subsequent to the submission of the SEI2 and the consultation responses received, the applicant has also provided a response to the comments made by RSPB Scotland, to address a number of the concerns remaining. These additional comments are also available on the Comhairle website.
POLICY CONTEXT AND LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
11.1 This section of the Report aims to discuss, in general terms, current planning and other policy context relevant to the Stornoway Wind Farm development. The section does not however seek to evaluate the proposal against policy.
11.2 The Electricity Act 1989 requires the Scottish Ministers, in considering proposals for consent, to have regard to the desirability of preserving the natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and to do what can reasonably be done to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. In addition, in so far as possible, any injuries to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any waters should be avoided.
11.3 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (the Act) require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. However, notwithstanding that the application also seeks the grant of deemed planning permission, the Courts have held that section 25 of the Act is not engaged for applications submitted pursuant to section 36 of the Electricity Act. The development plan is, nonetheless, considered to be an important material consideration that should be taken into account in the determination of an application.
11.4 Part 1ZA of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 sets out that the purpose of planning is to manage the development and use of land in the long term public interest, and that anything which contributes to sustainable development is to be considered as being in the long term public interest.
National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3)
11.5 The Scottish Government’s central purpose is to create a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.
11.6 The NPF3 advises, in paragraph 3.24, that local and community ownership of renewable energy can build business and community resilience and that collectively the potential benefits are nationally significant. Paragraph 3.23 states: ‘Onshore wind will continue to make a significant contribution to diversification of energy supplies. We do not wish to see wind farm development in our National Parks and National Scenic Areas. Scottish Planning Policy sets out the required approach to spatial frameworks which will guide new wind energy development to appropriate locations, taking into account important features including wild land.’
11.7 Paragraph 4.7 states: ‘We have long sought to protect Scotland’s environment, recognising that it is a dynamic resource rather than a fixed asset. To better reflect this, more proactive and innovative environmental stewardship is required. The pressing challenge of climate change means that our action on the environment must continue to evolve, strengthening our longer-term resilience. A planned approach to development helps to strike the right balance between safeguarding assets which are irreplaceable, and facilitating change in a sustainable way. We must work with, not against, our environment to maintain and further strengthen its contribution to society.’
Scottish Planning Policy and Advice
11.8 The Scottish Government’s key policy document on the operation of the planning system is the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), published in June 2014, revised in December 2020. This document provides a statement of the Scottish Government's policy on nationally important land use planning matters. The SPP introduces a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. The treatment of any large scale renewables application is guided by the framework set out in SPP.
11.9 Paragraph 29 of the SPP states that planning policies and decisions should support sustainable development and sets out principles to guide decision making, including amongst other matters:
• giving due weight to net economic benefit; • responding to economic issues, challenges and opportunities; • supporting the delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water; • supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation; • improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity; • having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy; • protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural and natural heritage, including the historic environment; • considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality.
11.10 NPF3 supports the diversification of the energy sector, to facilitate the transition to a low carbon economy. The SPP sets out how this should be delivered on the ground. SPP provides a positive framework to encourage the development of renewable energy technologies. It sets targets for the production of energy from renewable sources and the requirement for Planning Authorities to provide a spatial framework for onshore wind farms of over 20 megawatts generating capacity.
11.11 With specific reference to wind farm developments, paragraph 169 of the SPP identifies likely main considerations that will need to be taken into account in decision making and recommendations. These include considerations of: net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities; the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets; the effect on greenhouse gas emissions; cumulative impacts; impact on communities and individual dwellings; landscape and visual impacts; effects on natural heritage, including birds; impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator; public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes identified in the NPF; impacts on the historic environment; impacts on tourism and recreation; impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording; impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised; impacts on road traffic; impacts on adjacent trunk roads; effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk; the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments; opportunities for energy storage; and the need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration.
11.12 The Scottish Government has also issued planning advice on ‘Onshore wind turbines’ and ‘Wind farm developments on peat land’. The guidance on onshore wind turbines provides suggested areas of focus for planning authorities and highlights opportunities for planning authorities within the various stages of the planning process. It also provides technical information and guidance on typical issues associated with such proposals, which reflect those included in paragraph 169 of the SPP.
11.13 The SPP (paragraphs 20 and 21) also sets out how the NPF3 aim of building resilience and promoting the protection and sustainable use of our world-class environmental assets should be delivered on the ground, to help us to live within our environmental limits and to pass on healthy ecosystems to future generations.
11.14 SPP paragraph 203 states that planning permission should be refused where the nature or scale of proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. Direct or indirect effects on statutorily protected sites will be an important consideration, but designation does not impose an automatic prohibition on development.
11.15 The Scottish Government advice on wind farm development on peat land reflects paragraph 204 of the SPP and refers to the use of a carbon calculator, for the consideration of carbon savings from wind farm developments on peat lands. This compares the carbon costs of wind farm developments with the carbon (greenhouse gas emissions) savings attributable to the wind farm. The calculation is summarised as the length of time (in years) it will take the carbon savings to amount to the carbon costs; this is referred to as the payback period. The current proposal is supported by such a calculation.
11.16 In paragraph 214, the SPP states that any impacts on protected species must be fully considered prior to the determination of an application. The SPP, in paragraph 218, also refers to the presumption in favour of protecting woodland. It states that removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. It also indicates that compensatory planting will generally be expected.
11.17 Paragraph 299 of the SPP indicates that development should not physically obstruct aerodrome operations, technical sites or existing transmitter/receiver facilities.
11.18 In November 2015, a Chief Planner Letter to All Heads of Planning confirmed that the Scottish Government’s policy continues to support new onshore renewable energy developments. It also confirms that, even where existing targets have been met, there is no cap on the support for such development.
Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2018 and Supplementary Guidance
11.19 Strategic land use policy is set out in the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, adopted in 2018 (OHLDP). The OHLDP provides a framework to develop and sustain the communities of the Outer Hebrides and identifies considerations within its policies relevant to renewable energy developments. The OHLDP policies of particular relevance are considered to be Policy DS1: Development Strategy and EI 8: Energy and Heat Resources.
11.20 There are a number of other policies which are also relevant, including Policies PD2: Car Parking and Roads Layout; PD6: Compatibility of Neighbouring Uses; ED1 Economic Development; ED5: Minerals; EI 1: Flooding; EI 2: Water and Waste Water; EI 3: Water Environment; EI 5: Soils; EI 7: Countryside and Coastal Access; EI 9: Transport Infrastructure; EI 11: Safeguarding; EI 12: Developer Contributions; NBH1: Landscape; NBH2: Natural Heritage; NBH3: Trees and Woodland; NBH4: Built Heritage; NBH5: Archaeology; and NBH6: Historic Areas.
11.21 The issues to be satisfied in respect of these other policies are also considered within the OHLDP Supplementary Guidance: Wind Energy Development, adopted November 2018 (SG). Broadly, the SG is informed and directed by paragraphs 161-163 of SPP and provides guidance on those issues that have been identified as relevant in paragraph 169 of the SPP. For consistency and to avoid repetition, the proposal will be considered within this Report in relation to the issues identified within the SG, together with any additional issues identified in the SPP.
ASSESSMENT
12.1 The assessment will consider the proposal in relation to a number of issues, before weighing those in a planning balance and reaching a conclusion and recommendation. It is necessary to consider the application on its merits. However, the existence of an extant consent is a material consideration which will also need to be taken into account. Where appropriate, this will be done in relation to each issue. An overall consideration of the proposal in comparison to the ‘fall-back’ position of the extant scheme is also included, towards the end of the assessment.
Spatial strategy and principle of development
12.2 The proposal site is located to the west of Stornoway. In terms of OHLDP Policy DS1: Development Strategy, the eastern boundary of the site, including the access points, substation, construction compound, and turbines 6, 7 and 8, lie within an area defined as Outwith Settlement. This states, amongst other matters that, development proposals for non-residential uses on green field sites must demonstrate a clearly justified need for the proposed development in that location, unless directed by the Wind Energy Spatial Strategy.
12.3 The remainder of the site is located within a defined Remote Area. Amongst other matters, Policy DS1 indicates that development will only be acceptable in defined Remote Areas where a locational need has been demonstrated and the development meets at least one of a number of specified criteria. This includes proposals for the sustainable development of a natural resource, including energy resources such as wind, which accord with any relevant Supplementary Guidance and associated spatial strategy.
12.4 The SG provides for the delivery of OHLDP Policy EI 8: Energy and Heat Resources. Amongst other matters, Policy EI 8 states that the Comhairle will support proposals that contribute to meeting the targets and objectives of the National Planning Framework 3 and the Climate Change Act, in relation to renewable energy generation.
12.5 The SG includes the Wind Energy Spatial Strategy. This indicates that the entire application site lies within an Area of Constraint (where wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances). The SG states that the Comhairle will consider windfarm development in such areas, subject to a satisfactory assessment against the policies in the OHLDP and the SG.
12.6 There are strong and consistent national and local planning and other policies in support of renewable energy, including onshore wind development. Consequently, the principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable and, in terms of spatial strategy, the location of the proposed windfarm is considered to accord with Policy DS1, subject to detailed assessment of compliance with the provisions of the SG.
12.7 In addition, the location of the site is comparable to that of the consented scheme, with a broadly similar layout for the turbines. As such, the principle of this type of development in this location has previously been considered to be acceptable. Since that decision was taken, there has been a change in Development Plan, with the adoption of the OHLDP in November 2018. However, in relation to the matters under consideration for this proposal, the current spatial strategy and SG are similar to those of the previous Plan.
12.8 The development area also broadly accords with the only area considered feasible for a large-scale onshore wind farm development in north Lewis, as identified within the sustainability appraisal for the study commissioned by the Scottish Government and undertaken by the Halcrow Group, with the results published in the Economic and Community Benefit Study 2009 (the Halcrow Report).
12.9 Consequently, whilst it remains necessary to assess the details of the current proposal against the provisions of the SG, there are considered to have been no significant changes in circumstances since the previous decision was made that would materially alter the position with regards to the spatial strategy and the principle of development.
Economic Impacts
Policy Context
12.10 The NPF3 and SPP supports sustainable economic activity and growth, which is responsive to the economic environment of rural and island areas. Paragraph 75 of the SPP requires the planning system to encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality.
12.11 Paragraph 83 states that, amongst other matters, in remote rural areas decision making should generally encourage sustainable development that will provide employment, and support and sustain fragile and dispersed communities through provision for appropriate development, especially […] community-owned energy. The SPP, in paragraph 93, also identifies as one of three key principles for planning, the need to give due weight to the net economic benefit of proposed development.
12.12 The LDP Policy ED1 identifies and safeguards the main sites to deliver strategic business needs. However, in recognition of the diverse nature of economic activity within the Outer Hebrides, it states that development sites in other locations will also be considered. The SG requires developers to provide an assessment of net economic benefits and states that the Comhairle will seek to secure positive net economic impacts accruing directly within the Outer Hebrides.
EIAR
12.13 The EIAR Chapter 14 sets out the assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed development, including in relation to the number of jobs considered likely to be created.
12.14 The EIAR identifies that the capital cost of the proposal is estimated to be between £229m and £353m. It is estimated that the proposed development would result in £27.5m - £42.36m (12% of the estimated capital costs) being spent locally and £82.44m - £127.08m (36% of the capital costs) being spent within Scotland. The EIAR considers it reasonable to predict that a large proportion of ‘local’ spend would be in Lewis.
12.15 During the temporary construction phase of the development (of about 30 months), the EIAR considers the effects of this would have the potential to be significant at the local (ward) level, with major positive economic effects, and probably significant at the Comhairle (area) level, with moderate positive economic effects, including for local accommodation providers, although wider effects are not considered to be significant.
12.16 The likely impacts on the local economy from operation and maintenance expenditure, during the operational phase of the development, are considered by the EIAR to be long term positive and significant at the local level. The decommissioning impacts are harder to estimate at this stage, but overall are considered likely to have a minor positive, temporary and not significant (in EIA terms) effect at any level.
12.17 The impact on business rates is considered likely to have a moderate positive effect that would be probably significant at a local level. In addition, compensatory payments to the crofting communities resulting from the proposed development would result in economic benefits, which are considered likely to have a moderate positive effect at local level, which would be potentially significant. The applicant has also committed to making up to 20% of the proposed development available for community ownership. Discussions with the Comhairle and the Stornoway Trust continue in this regard.
12.18 During the temporary construction phase, the EIAR estimates that the proposed development could directly support from 199 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs up to 307 FTE jobs locally and from about 597.6 FTE up to 921.3 FTE jobs across Scotland.
12.19 During its 25-year operational phase, the operation and maintenance of the proposal is estimated as having the potential to directly support up to 208 FTE jobs, of which between 15.5 - 87.7 FTE would be local and between 21.4 - 120.6 FTE in Scotland.
12.20 Other employment is likely to be supported or generated through indirect economic impacts throughout all phases of the development. Overall, the impact of the proposal on employment during the construction phase has been assessed within the EIAR as likely to have a temporary moderate beneficial effect at ward and Comhairle area level, which is considered to be significant for the local level effects.
12.21 The proposal has been assessed within the EIAR as not likely to have a significant effect (in EIA terms) on employment locally, regionally or nationally during the operational or decommissioning phases of the development. It is considered more likely that jobs would be created regionally rather than at local level, although the EIAR does acknowledge a commitment from the developer to active engagement with local suppliers and to placing as much work locally as possible.
Assessment
12.22 There is a material difference between the proposed and the consented scheme, as highlighted by the consultation response from Economic Development, in the number of estimated jobs that would result from the development, with the current proposal estimating much higher totals. The original Environmental Statement (ES) for the consented scheme set out that 196 jobs could be created locally from the wind farm during the construction phase of the development. The current EIAR sets out this could be up to 307 FTE jobs. Similarly, the original ES set out that 792 jobs could be created in Scotland, whereas the current EIAR indicates this could be around 921 FTE jobs.
12.23 The applicants have clarified that this difference stems from a change in how the figures were calculated. In particular, the original ES used HM Treasury’s Green Book for Major Infrastructure (the Green Book) recommendations. The current EIAR uses a combination of the Employment in Renewable Energy in Scotland, by O’Herily (2013), and the BiGGAR Economics Report (2015). Both these documents are specifically relevant to onshore wind farm development, but weren’t available in 2011, whereas the Green Book is not specific to renewable energy development.
12.24 Taking into account the explanation provided, together with the methodology within the EIAR, it is considered that the current estimates are reasonable. In addition, it is recognised that the current estimates of job creation figures are provided as a range, the lower levels of which are not dissimilar to the previous estimates. This provides further reassurance that the figures provided are likely to be relatively robust.
12.25 Consequently, from the details provided within the EIAR and having regard to the consultation response from Economic Development, it is clear that the proposal would be likely to result in important positive benefits to the local economy, both in terms of overall investment and job creation. The likely effects would be particularly significant locally during the construction phase of the project, but would also be materially beneficial during the operational and decommissioning phases.
12.26 As such, the proposal is considered to be consistent with LDP Policy ED1 and the SG in this regard, as well as meeting the aims of the SPP. Given the importance within the SPP of sustainable economic development within rural and island communities, it is considered that these benefits should be accorded considerable weight.
12.27 In addition, it is noted that the proposal would make a positive contribution towards supporting the case for the Radial Connector, as it would ensure that a solid ‘needs case’ is in place. It is understood that a successful bid by the SWF in the Contract for Difference (CfD) Auction Round is considered necessary to meet the requirements for the interconnector to be delivered, as there would need to be a critical mass of generation that would need to connect within a certain time frame. Moreover, whilst the provision of the interconnector would be necessary for the viability and feasibility of this application proposal, it would also have clear wider social and economic benefits for the Outer Hebrides as a whole. This would therefore add further weight to the economic benefits that would result from the proposal.
12.28 Economic Development has also provided a view on the proposed Community Benefit Fund (CBF), which the applicant has committed to providing. The CBF would provide £5,000 (index-linked) per MW on an annual basis over the lifetime of the project, which would result in a substantial financial benefit and an estimated creation of 8.1 FTE posts in the local community. However, the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments makes clear that these benefits are not a material consideration in the determination of the application.
12.29 Reference to the CBF has been included within this Report for completeness. However, the CBF is a voluntary undertaking by the applicant and, for the avoidance of any doubt, should not affect the decision on whether to approve or refuse the application for consent. As such, the benefits resulting from the CBF will not be taken into account in this Report in relation to the consideration of benefits likely to result from the proposal, or in the overall planning balance and recommendation.
Renewable energy targets and greenhouse gas emissions
Policy context
12.30 The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as amended The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, sets a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2045, with an interim target of reducing emissions by at least 56% by 2020, 75% by 2030, 90% by 2040. Annual greenhouse gas emission targets are set in secondary legislation. Section 44 of the Act places a duty on every public body to act:
• in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of emissions targets in the Act; • in the way best calculated to help deliver the Scottish Government’s climate change adaptation programme; and • in a way that it considers is most sustainable.
12.31 In identifying policies and proposals for meeting these targets, the Climate Change Plan 2018 recognizes the continuing role for onshore wind. The Scottish Government’s Onshore Wind Policy Statement 2017 confirms the importance of renewable energy to meeting climate change targets, with an important role for onshore wind identified. Support is encouraged for development in the right places, with an identified need for its contribution to continue to grow, in order that it plays its vital role in meeting Scotland’s energy needs and a material role in growing the economy.
EIAR
12.32 The 35 turbine proposal would have an installed capacity of approximately 196MW. The applicant has predicted that the carbon loss in developing the proposal would be paid back in approximately 1.1 years (4.4% of the 25 year operational life of the development) with potential annual CO2 savings of 352,904 tonnes/year (at 47.8% capacity factor).
12.33 This could result in a total carbon saving of some 8.8 million tonnes over the 25 year operational life of the development, with an annual electricity generation of 820,707 MWh per year, sufficient to supply the equivalent of 229,183 average homes in Scotland. EIAR Appendices F and 9H provide detailed calculations in these respects.
12.34 In comparison to the consented scheme, the 35 turbine proposal would result in an increase in capacity of 16MW, resulting from the notable technological advances in turbine size and power output since the original consent was granted.
12.35 The potential removal of two turbines, as indicated in the SEI2, would reduce the installed capacity of the proposed scheme from approximately 196MW to some 184.8MW, with a potential annual CO2 saving of 345,119 tonnes/year, at 47.8% capacity factor. This is predicted to result in electricity generation of some 773,809 MWh per year, which would be enough to supply the equivalent of 228,061 homes in Scotland, based on average consumption.
12.36 The applicant has explained that the difference in savings of CO2 figures per year would be a reduction of 2.2%, where typically a 5.8% reduction could be expected by dropping the turbine number from 35 to 33. However, it is explained that this is entirely due to a change in the Renewable UK static figure of CO2 savings for every kWh generated (increased from 430g to 446g in this submission compared to the EIA Report).
12.37 Similarly, the drop in the homes equivalent number is even less (0.5% compared to the previous submission). This is because of the change in the Renewable UK static figure noted above, together with a reduction in average annual domestic consumption in Scotland compared to the previous submission (3,393kWh annual domestic consumption in Scotland in 2019, compared to 3,581kWh annual domestic consumption in Scotland in 2017).
12.38 At the time of drafting this Report, it had not been possible for the applicants to access the carbon calculator to recalculate the carbon payback period. However, due to the relatively modest further reduction in peat excavation, (approximately 7% compared to the ‘as submitted’ application in 2019), it is estimated that the change to the carbon payback time would be marginally positive or, at worst, neutral. It is not expected to increase, given the reduction in carbon costs associated with the manufacturing, construction and installation of the turbines, couple with the savings associated with the reduced excavated peat.
Assessment
12.39 There is a clear local and national commitment to renewable energy generation and reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Given the scale and capacity of the proposal, it is considered that it would make a significant contribution to the delivery of renewable energy production and consumption, even with a possible reduction to 33 turbines.
12.40 It would also make a positive contribution to reducing GHG emissions, in line with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, which introduced a legally binding target of net zero GHG emissions by 2045, requiring urgent action.
12.41 These impacts, together with the total carbon saving resulting from the proposal, are considered to be a significant benefit of the scheme. Having regard to the importance given to these matters in local and national planning policy, it is considered that substantial weight should be given to these benefits.
12.42 In addition, in comparison to the consented scheme, the proposal would have significant benefits in terms of electricity generation, GHG emissions and extent of peat loss or disturbance (see paragraphs 12.272 – 12.294 below). This adds further weight in support of the proposal.
Landscape and visual impact
Policy context
12.43 The Scottish Government guidance on Onshore Wind Turbines (the OWT guidance) identifies that wind farm proposals can have a varied impact on the landscape, due to their number, size or layout, their siting, design and colour, land form change, access tracks and ancillary components. The ability of the landscape to absorb development often depends largely on features of landscape character, such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys and vegetation. This can also be influenced by careful siting and design.
12.44 OHLDP Policy NBH1 requires development proposals to relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. It also requires the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) to be taken into account in determining applications. Development proposals should not have an unacceptable significant landscape or visual impact.
12.45 The SG confirms that developers will be expected to demonstrate that proposals will not have an unacceptable significant visual or landscape impact on the character of the Outer Hebrides (including cumulative impacts) and that good siting and design has been utilised to ensure impacts are limited.
12.46 Proposals will be assessed for any likely impacts on: the special qualities of National Scenic Areas (NSA); areas of Low Landscape Capacity (Map 2 of the SG); key characteristics of landscape character types; settlements; views from popular public viewpoints, transport routes, the core path network and recognised visitor locations; the site and setting of Scheduled Monuments, listed buildings, Conservation Areas and other historic sites.
12.47 The SG indicates that wind farms should be located at a distance of at least 2km from settlements. In relation to spatial frameworks, the SPP indicates that areas of significant protection (where wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances) includes those areas identified in respect of community separation for consideration of visual impact. These areas should not exceed 2km around settlements identified on the local development plan with an identified settlement envelope or edge. The OWT guidance confirms that this 2km distance referred to in the SPP is a guide and not a rule.
12.48 The SG also indicates that power lines connecting individual turbines to the substation should be undergrounded, with those from the sub-station to the electricity distribution system requiring sensitive treatment.
12.49 The OHLDP and SG reflect the findings of the Landscape Capacity Study for Onshore Wind Energy Development 2004, which was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) et al. This study concludes that the scale of the large expanses of Boggy Moorland could physically accommodate a large wind farm development.
EIAR
12.50 This issue is considered in Chapter 6 of the EIAR, which confirms that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was undertaken in accordance with nationally recognised guidance. The methodology and extent of the assessment, including the 27 viewpoints selected, were agreed with NatureScot (formerly SNH) and the Comhairle as part of the assessment process.
12.51 The application site is located within the landscape character type of Boggy Moorland within the LCA. This is characterised by largescale, gently undulating peat moorlands, indented with numerous large and small lochs, which are interconnected by narrow, slow moving rivers. Occasional small shallow sided hills rise from these gently undulating surroundings. The Boggy Moorland landscape character type (LCT) is considered capable of accommodating development of this scale.
12.52 The LVIA produced a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTC) for the proposal, which indicates that the primary visibility would be within 14km of the application site. Theoretical visibility is highest within 4km of the application site and generally indicated in all directions. Between 4 and 10km theoretical visibility becomes patchy, particularly to the north, north-west, west and south-west and to the east. Between 10 and 15km, greatest theoretical visibility is indicated to the north-east and east, with fragmented theoretical visibility to the south, south-west and west. Beyond 15km, theoretical visibility becomes very fragmented to the north-east and south-west.
12.53 The LVIA finds that the proposal would have no predicted significant effect on the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist NSA to the south of the site. Significant visual effects have been assessed on ten settlements, seven transport routes, three regional and local recreational routes, and three visitor destinations, all within 14km of the site. Significant effects have also been identified for a number of residential properties, which are considered in paragraphs 12.140 – 12.175 below.
Landscape character
12.54 In terms of the impact of the proposal on the landscape, the EIAR considers that the most notable effects would be within 1km from each turbine and up to 2-3km in the east/southeast, 3km in the north and south and 5km in the west. It considers that there would be localised significant effects on the LCT, but not in the wider context of its presence on Lewis. Therefore, the EIAR considers the effects of the proposal on Boggy Moorland LCT as a whole would not be significant.
12.55 Taking into account the presence of other existing and consented wind farms, the EIAR considers that, overall, there would be significant cumulative effects on landscape character in the local area within 1-5km of the site, over 10-15 years, based on the likely time periods for the development of other currently consented wind farms. It finds that other wider areas of Boggy Moorland LCT would not be significantly affected and that the cumulative effects on the LCT as a whole would not be significant. In addition, small areas of adjacent, different, LCT would also experience localised significant effects, as they would do with the consented scheme.
12.56 Due to their height, the turbines would require aviation warning lighting, which is also referred to in other sections below. As all the turbines would be over 150m in height, in terms of a worst case scenario, they would each require one light on each nacelle, with three lights on each tower. The EIAR recognises that this would have a significant effect on the night time character of the Boggy Moorland LCT. Within 3-5km of the proposal, the adverse impact of this is considered likely to be lessened by the existing lighting within Stornoway, which results in the local landscape having a partly lit character that is distinctly different to the rest of Lewis.
Visual impact
12.57 In terms of visual amenity, it is recognised that the proposal would have a significant visual effect on sensitive receptors up to 6km from the development and on those within 6-14km from the site. This includes a number of residential properties, as well as from parts of the A858, A859, A866, B897, B895, the Pentland Road, and the Stornoway – Ullapool ferry route.
12.58 The proposal would have a significant night time effect on a number of sensitive visual receptors within approximately 10km of the proposal. These would include views from the Lewis War Memorial, the Iolaire memorial, the ferry route and from properties and routes around Stornoway. However, the proposal would be seen in the context of the existing Eitseal transmission mast, existing turbines and lighting in Stornoway.
Cumulative effects
12.59 Table 6.4 of EIAR Chapter 6 identifies the existing and proposed wind farm developments included in the cumulative assessment within the LVIA. In relation to potential cumulative effects, the EIAR considers that the proposal would be seen in the context of existing turbines, but not in the context of other consented schemes that have not yet been constructed (Druim Leathann and Muaitheabhal), due to the separation distances involved. It concludes that there would be a significant cumulative effect on landscape character within 1-5km of the proposal.
12.60 Overall, the EIAR considers that the development would have some significant impacts on landscape character and visual amenity, but the effects of these considered as a whole would not be unacceptable. Moreover, in comparison to the consented scheme, the effects would be broadly similar, with the exception of night time lighting impacts.
SEI2
12.61 The revised impacts of the proposal, in light of the potential removal of two turbines and changes to the layout of the proposed development, is demonstrated in additional visuals and wireframe information submitted as a LVIA Technical Note, as Appendix G of the SEI2. In comparison with the scheme as originally submitted, the revised development would not result in any greater landscape and visual impacts than have been considered within the EIAR. The revised development maintains all the landscape design principles set out within the LVIA in the EIAR.
12.62 The revised development has a slightly reduced geographical footprint than the originally submitted scheme, particularly with the loss of T34, which has increased the distance between the development and the edges of Newmarket and upper Newvalley. Although turbines T23 and T33 will appear as potential outliers in three identified views, the overall horizontal field of view will remain as for the originally proposed development and is not extended from any of the viewpoints.
12.63 The SEI2 LVIA Technical Note identifies that there would be no change to the predicted landscape and visual effects on any of the identified receptors considered in the EIAR LVIA.
Assessment
12.64 The range of the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV), consideration of wild land and cultural heritage sites, recreational routes and viewpoint selection (which includes sites from popular viewpoints, transport routes and visitor locations) appears sufficient. A number of viewpoints were added following comments at the scoping stage of the EIA process and impacts on wild land areas have been assessed accordingly and areas of low landscape capacity discounted.
12.65 The following assessment is largely based on comments received from the Comhairle landscape consultant. These comments have been included in full in Appendix 4. Further consultation was not undertaken in respect of the SEI, as this Additional Information did not change the layout or design of the proposal. However, the landscape and visual impact comments of NatureScot (as SNH) have been taken into account and are considered to align broadly with those of the Comhairle landscape consultant. Further consultation was not undertaken in respect of the SEI2, as the changes to the layout proposed are relatively minor and the potential removal of two turbines from the scheme was not considered to materially alter the findings below.
12.66 The site selection and design has generally resulted in avoidance of direct intrusion on distant but focal views to the north Harris hills from roads and residential areas across Lewis. The shallow basin of the site and the undulating nature of the surrounding landform assists in screening the bases of many turbines in key views, thus reducing, to some degree, their apparent size, although the full vertical extent of turbines is more visible in elevated views from parts of the Eye peninsula.
12.67 While the wind farm appears to have been designed so that smaller height turbines are located closer to particularly sensitive viewpoints (in general closer to Stornoway), the use of multiple turbine heights is only partially successful. This is because 180m high turbines (and the closest 156m high turbines) will still overwhelm the scale of buildings and other features on the fringes of Stornoway. The wind farm, while lying close to minor relatively little-used roads, is sufficiently set back from the A857 to avoid an overly dominating effect on visual receptors. The use of 180m high turbines on the southern edge of the proposed wind farm would however be likely to increase prominence in views from the A859.
12.68 There is a disparate pattern of existing wind turbines with contrasting spacings, layout and height already in the area of the proposed development site which is evident in key views from the surrounding area. While it is considered that it would not be possible to design a proposal of this scale to integrate and/or ameliorate these relatively confined groups of smaller turbines, in some more distant views this proposal, by virtue of the size and extensive spread of turbines, would form a dominant feature and thus deflect from the contrast that presently occurs in terms of size and pattern between turbine groups.
Landscape effects
12.69 In terms of the effects of this proposal on landscape character, it is considered that while there would be significant adverse effects on the receiving landscape of the Boggy Moor 1 LCT, the landscape of the site is less sensitive than the Stornoway Inlet (which should have been defined as a separate landscape character unit in the LVIA). Key concerns are the effects of this proposal on the character of the small-scale and richly diverse landscape/seascape of the Stornoway Inlet.
12.70 While visibility is limited from the town centre and within much of the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL), this proposal will significantly and adversely affect the appreciation of this landscape experienced on the approach to Stornoway from the ferry and from the A866, dominating its intimate scale and richly diverse character as very large wind turbines are seen on low wooded ridgelines which provide the backdrop to the historic tight-knit core of the town, the harbour and Lews Castle and its grounds.
Effects on visual amenity
12.71 The proposal would have an extensive visibility across Lewis and northern Harris due to the openness of the landscape and will be visible from roads, footpaths and from many residential properties. While all wind farms are likely to incur significant adverse effects on views, the location and size of the proposal will result in widespread significant adverse effects with the most severe of these being:
• Views on the approach to Stornoway from the ferry, where the proposal would have an extensive spread on the skyline and would dominate views;
• Views from the A866, where the proposal would be seen on the approach to Stornoway and would form a prominent feature on the long low ridgeline above the town and result in significant adverse effects for road users and local residents;
• Views from Gallows Hill and Lewis War Memorial, where the proposal would form a dominant feature in views to the west and south-west respectively, with a poor layout and relationship to existing wind turbines and infrastructure, particularly in views from the Lewis War Memorial;
• Views from the A859 and A857 and from the less frequented minor roads around the site, where the proposal would form a substantial array of very large turbines, dominating views and would have significant and adverse effects on the experience of travelling on these routes; and
• Although there would be very limited visibility of the proposal from the highly sensitive but more visually contained historic core of Stornoway adjacent to the harbour, the more elevated and/or open parts of the town and outlying settlements will be significantly and adversely affected. This will include Newmarket, Coll and parts of the Eye peninsula, where many residential properties are orientated to face west and south-west towards the proposal.
Night time and visual effects
12.72 The EIAR considers that all of the 35 wind turbines within the originally submitted proposal would require aviation warning lights comprising one medium intensity light affixed to the hub and three low intensity lights at half hub height. Taking into account the views of the Comhairle’s landscape consultant, it is considered that the Night Time Assessment set out in Appendix 6D of the EIAR is well- considered and the judgements made on the likely significance of effects are shared.
12.73 Significant adverse effects would occur on the Boggy Moorland LCT, where although existing wind turbines already feature lighting, this proposal would result in a substantial change to character.
12.74 Significant adverse night time effects would also occur on views from sections of the A859, the A857, the Ullapool-Stornoway ferry, from parts of the Eye peninsula and elevated residential areas around Stornoway and from part of the golf course and Gallows Hill within the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL.
12.75 Some of the night time visualisations display a complex image more akin to oil refinery lighting due to the four lights affixed to each turbine in locations where a greater vertical extent of the turbines is visible (for example, from viewpoints on the A859 and A857).
Cumulative landscape and visual effects
12.76 A number of existing wind energy developments are present within the Boggy Moorland LCT. These vary in the size of turbines and their layout and have a disparate character. There would be significant adverse cumulative effects arising in close views, where this proposal would be seen adjacent to these existing turbines and where their size and layout differences would be obvious.
12.77 In other views, the proposal will be so large and extensive that it would be likely to deflect attention away from these smaller developments. Other existing single and small groups of wind turbines are sited over 16km from the proposed development and significant adverse cumulative effects would therefore not arise.
12.78 Consented wind energy developments considered in the LVIA include the Muaitheabhal wind farm plus its two extensions (a total of 45 turbines 130-150m high) and the Druim Leathann wind farm (14 turbines, 126.5m high). Both these developments lie over 16km from the proposed development and while inter-visibility will occur in some areas, the separation distances would be such that significant cumulative effects would be unlikely to occur.
Comparison of landscape and visual effects of the consented and proposed schemes
12.79 In more distant views the differences between the consented and proposed schemes are likely to be less discernible.
12.80 Observations on visual effects from key close views were provided by the Comhairle landscape consultant. In views from the Ullapool/Stornoway ferry, from Gallows Hill and from the Lewis War Memorial, it is considered that there would be no material difference between the two schemes. In views from the A859 near Leurbost, four of the 180m turbines are likely to be particularly prominent, but this section of the route is generally less sensitive and there would be a slightly improved degree of containment in the proposed scheme.
12.81 Overall, the differences between the consented and proposed schemes are not substantial due mainly to the increased distance of larger turbines from more sensitive viewpoints. There are some minor improvements to turbine layout associated with the proposal when compared with the consented scheme, although the layout of the proposed wind farm is not optimum in many key views. The requirement for night time lighting however comprises a major difference between the consented and proposed schemes on this site.
Conclusions
12.82 In terms of landscape effects associated with the proposal, a key concern is the proximity of the proposed development to Stornoway and the significant adverse effects likely to arise on the appreciation of the town and its intimately scaled and richly diverse landscape setting from the sea.
12.83 The proposal will also result in widespread significant adverse effects on views extending to around 14km of the proposed development due to the size of the turbines and the openness of the landscape. Views from the Ullapool-Stornoway Ferry, from Gallows Hill in the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL and from the Lewis War Memorial are of key concern, due to their high sensitivity.
12.84 The proposal seems unlikely to significantly exacerbate the landscape and visual effects associated with the consented scheme. Both schemes are not optimum in their design layout with noticeable gaps and overlapping of turbines occurring from many key viewpoints and both will incur relatively widespread significant adverse landscape and visual impacts.
12.85 Night time lighting will also be a necessary feature of the proposal (but not the consented scheme) and will incur significant adverse effects (effectively increasing the duration of significant adverse visual effects) within approximately 10km of the development site.
12.86 Overall, therefore, due to the significant adverse effect on landscape character, including the setting of Stornoway, and the widespread significant adverse effects on views, it is considered that the proposal would not meet the requirements of OHLDP Policy NBH1, as it would not ensure that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained or relate positively to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area.
12.87 Furthermore, whilst it is recognised that the design and siting of the proposal seeks to limit impacts, due to the scale and number of turbines proposed, the scheme would have an unacceptable significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the character of the Outer Hebrides and, as such, would not meet the requirements of the SG in this regard. Having regard to the policy aims in this respect, is it considered that considerable weight should be accorded to this significant harm.
12.88 Nonetheless, it is also recognised that the harmful impacts of the proposed development on landscape character and visual effects would not differ materially to those of the consented scheme, with the exception of night time lighting. This is a material consideration, which should also be taken into account in the overall planning balance.
Historic resources
Policy context
12.89 The SPP states, in paragraph 29, that planning decisions should protect, enhance and promote access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment. Paragraph 135 goes on to say that planning has an important role to play in maintaining and enhancing the distinctive and high-quality, irreplaceable historic places which enrich our lives, contribute to our sense of identity and are an important resource for our tourism and leisure industry.
12.90 Paragraph 137 of the SPP states that, amongst other matters, the planning system should:
• promote the care and protection of the designated and non-designated historic environment (including individual assets, related settings and the wider cultural landscape) and its contribution to sense of place, cultural identity, social well-being, economic growth, civic participation and lifelong learning; and
• enable positive change in the historic environment which is informed by a clear understanding of the importance of the heritage assets affected and ensure their future use. Change should be sensitively managed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the fabric and setting of the asset, and ensure that its special characteristics are protected, conserved or enhanced.
12.91 The Historic Environment Policy for Scotland 2019 Policy HEP1 states that decisions affecting any part of the historic environment should be informed by an inclusive understanding of its breadth and cultural significance. Policy HEP2 requires decisions affecting the historic environment to ensure that its understanding and enjoyment as well as its benefits are secured for present and future generations.
12.92 Policy HEP4 indicates that changes to specific assets and their context should be managed in a way that protects the historic environment. If detrimental impact on the historic environment is unavoidable, it should be minimised. Steps should be taken to demonstrate that alternatives have been explored, and mitigation measures should be put in place. Policy HEP5 states that decisions affecting the historic environment should contribute to the sustainable development of communities and places.
12.93 The OHLDP Policy NBH4 states that development which would have a substantial adverse impact on historic significance will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
a) All reasonable measures will be taken to mitigate any loss of this significance; and
b) Any loss of significance which cannot be mitigated is outweighed by the social, economic, environmental or safety benefits of the development.
12.94 Policy NBH5 supports development that would preserve, protect or enhance the archaeological significance of heritage assets, including their settings. Development proposals that will adversely impact upon scheduled archaeological remains or the integrity of their settings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, where there is no practical alternative site and where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI). The policy also identifies that archaeological assessment may be required for proposals likely to negatively affect any regionally or locally important archaeological remains, including investigation and mitigation.
12.95 Policy NBH6 requires all development to preserve or enhance the setting of Historic Areas, including Conservation Areas, and Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park, as a Garden and Designed Landscape.
12.96 The SG explains that, in addition to the above policies, developers will be expected to demonstrate that wind farm proposals and associated infrastructure will have no unacceptable significant adverse impact on the site, context and setting of historic environment assets.
12.97 Any assessment should adequately consider: direct and indirect physical impacts; potential for cumulative effects (including the impacts of any secondary developments such as power lines, Met masts, borrow pits, access tracks or transmission stations); and opportunities for responsive siting and design.
12.98 Furthermore, the SG indicates that, if a wind energy proposal breaks the skyline at sensitive ridgelines when viewed from the component parts of the Calanais complex, it will only be supported if it can be demonstrated that the proposal will not have a significant negative impact on the setting of the Calanais complex.
12.99 The proposal will not directly affect any world heritage site, there are no listed buildings within the development site and no part of the project lies within a conservation area or historic Garden and Designed Landscape. Although not within the development site boundary, one Scheduled Monument is located one kilometre away from turbine seven.
EIAR
12.100 The EIAR states that direct effects would arise only as a result of physical disturbance or damage to heritage assets and, as such, the potential for direct effects is confined to the footprint of the proposed development. In addition to potential direct effects, the potential for indirect effects on the setting of any designated heritage assets within a 15km radius of the application site has been assessed within Chapter 7 of the EIAR. It states that the design of the proposed development considered impacts upon statutory heritage assets and turbines have been located to avoid the most significant impacts.
12.101 The EIAR identifies that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the setting of the Category B listed Lewis War Memorial. The closest proposed turbine to the War Memorial would be approximately 3.3km to the west by southwest. Turbines would be clearly visible in views from the War Memorial in an arc from west to northwest. Due to the design composition (which utilises the existing Pentland Road and Beinn Greidaig wind farms as part of the composition) and the openness and large-scale of the receiving landscape, the EIAR considers that the proposed development, whilst appearing prominent, could be reasonably well accommodated in these panoramic views from the War Memorial.
12.102 Views from the Memorial looking towards Stornoway and the coast, which are considered to be the most significant, would not be affected. It is therefore considered that the location of the turbines would not detract from an understanding or appreciation of the War Memorial itself. Furthermore, the impact of the proposal would not be materially different to that which would result from the extant consent. The turbine locations within the proposed development would be located further from the War Memorial, thus helping to maintain the Memorial’s visual prominence.
12.103 The negative effects of the proposed development on the setting of the listed War Memorial are considered to be outweighed by the benefits that would result to renewable energy generation, climate emergency and local benefits. As such, notwithstanding the harm to the setting of the listed building, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy NBH4.
12.104 The Druim Dubh stone circle Scheduled Monument (SM) is outside but in close proximity to the application site. As such, the EIAR considers that the proposal would have no direct effects on the SM, but would impact on its setting. The extent of this impact has been mitigated, due to the reconfiguration of the turbine array, to increase separation and rationalise its composition in views from Druim Dubh.
12.105 Whilst effects on the setting have been minimised, a significant effect would nonetheless remain in views north from the SM, which would extend further than the consented scheme. However, it is considered that the important aspects of the character of this heritage asset relate to its immediate surroundings, rather than long distance views to the north.
12.106 Accordingly, the EIAR finds that the integrity of the SM would not be affected, as the proposal would not compromise the immediate surroundings of the stone circle. Accordingly, having regard to the definition of setting and the assessment of effect, the EIAR considers that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the setting and therefore there is no need to consider IROPI in relation to OHLDP Policy NBH5.
12.107 The EIAR finds that there would be glimpsed views of the proposal from the Calanais complex. However, the tips of some of the turbines would be seen as distant and peripheral elements in the background. Whilst they would amount to visual elements on the horizon, it is considered that they would not detract from the integrity of the setting of the complex, due to the distances involved and the relative lack of prominence of the views.
12.108 The EIAR indicates that there are a number of non-designated archaeological features within the application site and the proposal has been designed to avoid all significant archaeological remains where possible. Whilst unknown remains may exist, the extent of works proposed is considered unlikely to result in adverse effects on archaeological features. The EIAR has considered potential impacts on a group of shieling huts, a head dyke and the former Lewis chemical works, but impacts are not considered significant and effects could be mitigated through a written scheme of archaeological works secured by condition.
12.109 Potential impacts on the Stornoway Conservation Area are also considered by the EIAR. Turbines would be visible from the Conservation Area, but their presence is considered likely to be peripheral in a small number of key views from the harbour. As such, they would not affect the principal contribution of the interrelationship of the built elements of the Conservation Area and their effect on the understanding and appreciation of the Conservation Area through its setting would be negligible. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would have no conflict with NBH6.
Assessment
12.110 No significant effects are predicted in the EIAR from the proposed development on any heritage assets other than the scheduled stone circle at Druim Dubh and the Category B listed Lewis War Memorial. Historic Environment Scotland have commented that the proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance and therefore HES do not object, although their decision not to object should not be taken as support for the proposals.
Lewis War Memorial
12.111 In terms of the Lewis War Memorial, Policy NBH4 seeks to protect the setting of listed buildings from development that would result in a substantial adverse impact on their significance. However, development that would have a substantial adverse impact may be permitted where any lost significance that cannot be mitigated is outweighed by the social, economic, environmental or safety benefits of the development.
12.112 It is recognised that the impact of the proposal on the landscape setting of Stornoway and on views from key heritage assets, such as the War Memorial, have been considered in the EIAR in relation to landscape and visual effects. However, the impacts of the proposal on their setting, in terms of views of the assets from within the landscape and the contribution made by their presence to cultural significance, has not been fully considered.
12.113 This monument is the best known and most visible of the War Memorials on the islands and the only one which commemorates the island of Lewis as a whole. The assessment of it within the EIAR is summarised in a paragraph under Stornoway, where it states “As a memorial, its siting in the landscape is not fundamental to its purpose.” However, this statement fails to appreciate that the prominent site was chosen so that it could be viewed extensively from outwith the site, it is understood, from all the parishes of Lewis. As such, its visibility from outwith the site and its setting is an important feature of its special interest.
12.114 The EIAR concludes that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the setting of the War Memorial. For the above reasons, it is considered that not all of the potential impacts have been fully assessed within the EIAR. Nonetheless, it is also considered that, even if this omission were rectified, the overall findings in this respect would not alter.
12.115 Having regard to the statutory duties for listed buildings and the strong local and national policy support for the protection of listed buildings, including their setting, it is considered that considerable importance and weight should be given to this significant adverse impact. Nonetheless, weighing the considerable weight given to the significant adverse impact of the proposal on the setting of the Lewis War Memorial against the wider public interest of the proposed development in terms of reduced GHG emissions, carbon savings, renewable energy generation and local economic benefits, it is considered that the proposed development would accord with Policy NBH4 Built Heritage.
12.116 Furthermore, the SEI2 revision to the development, to potentially remove two turbines, is not considered to materially alter the outcome of this assessment in relation to these issues. The benefits of the scheme would be reduced by a limited extent as a result of the revision. However, it is considered nonetheless that the clear benefits of the proposal, even if reduced, would continue to outweigh the significant adverse impact on the setting of the listed building.
Druim Dubh stone circle
12.117 In terms of the Druim Dubh stone circle, taking into account the definition of setting and assessment of effect set out in the EIAR, it is considered that the proposed development would not adversely impact the integrity of the Druim Dubh Scheduled Monument’s setting. Therefore, there is no need to consider the IROPI 'exceptional circumstances' requirements and the proposal is considered to accord with Policy NBH5 in this regard.
Potential archaeological remains
12.118 There is a potential for as yet undetected buried archaeological remains to survive within the application site. Taking into account the consultation comments of the Comhairle Archaeologist, the findings of the EIAR in this respect are supported.
12.119 It is agreed that any effects could be effectively mitigated by the implementation of an agreed scheme of archaeological works, to allow for the identification and recording of any archaeological features, or deposits of interest within the site, which would otherwise be affected by the proposal.
12.120 These works could be adequately secured by condition, which would be sufficient to offset the potential impact of the development on this historic environment resource. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy NBH5 in this regard.
Stornoway Conservation Area
12.121 The findings of the EIAR assessment on the setting of the Conservation Area are not shared. The Conservation Area includes part of the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL) fringing the west side of the harbour and encompassing the sea and landscapes that comprise the historic Stornoway Burgh inlet.
12.122 It is considered that the proposed development would result in a significant change to the perception of the Conservation Area, resulting in a significant negative effect on people’s appreciation of its historic setting and the GDL. It would particularly affect views approaching the harbour from the ferry route and from the east entrance to the town at Oliver’s Brae (A866), where turbines will appear as a prominent backdrop to the Conservation Area and the GDL.
12.123 Consequently, in terms of the setting of the Conservation Area, in contrast to the findings of the EIAR, it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse effect and there would be conflict with Policy NBH6. Nonetheless, it is also recognised that the impacts would not be materially different in this respect to those of the consented scheme.
Conclusions
12.124 OHLDP Policy NBH4 requires consideration of the potential public benefits of the proposal. Overall, taking into account the likely public benefits, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy NBH4, and also to accord with NBH5, but to conflict with Policy NBH6. Having regard to the strong local and national support for the preservation of the historic environment, it is considered that the harm identified should be given considerable weight. For the reasons given above, the removal of two turbines from the revised development would not materially alter this assessment. In respect of this harm and the policy conflict, it is further considered that the limited difference in effect between this current proposal and the consented scheme is a material consideration that should also be taken into account in the planning balance.
Noise
Policy context
12.125 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. 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.
12.126 The Institute of Acoustics (IOA) has published Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise. The document provides significant support on technical issues to all users of the ETSU-R-97 method for rating and assessing wind turbine noise. The Scottish Government accepts that the guide represents current industry good practice.
12.127 Planning Advice Note 1/2011 provides advice on the role of the planning system in helping to prevent and limit the adverse effects of noise. There are two sources of noise from wind turbines - the mechanical noise from the turbines and the aerodynamic noise from the blades. Mechanical noise is related to engineering design. Aerodynamic noise varies with rotor design and wind speed, and is generally greatest at low speeds. Good acoustical design and siting of turbines is essential to minimise the potential to generate noise.
12.128 The SPP paragraph 29 identifies the need to protect the amenity of new and existing development. Paragraph 75 states that the planning system should encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality.
12.129 The SG provides specific guidance on maximum noise limits, both for individual wind farms and cumulatively. Given the low levels of background noise within the area, the lower limits of ETSU-R-97 have been adopted. The SG also provides guidance on the type and amount of information required to assess proposals, including in relation to the construction phase of development proposals.
EIAR
12.130 Noise is considered in Chapter 12 of the EIAR. It assesses the likely effects from noise on nearby residences from the construction and operation of the proposal. As agreed with the Comhairle before the submission of the application, the baseline data resulting from the background noise monitoring for the assessment undertaken in 2011 was used for the current assessment. As baseline noise levels normally increase over time, the use of this existing data is considered to represent a conservative approach. Four noise monitoring locations were used, together with eight noise sensitive receptors, or representative receptors.
12.131 The assessment considered a number of potential noise sources during the construction phase. Of these, the use of borrow pits, with the resultant blasting, was identified as a potential significant impact. However, the EIAR considers that satisfactory mitigation could be achieved through the application of appropriate conditions to control this operation, including a requirement for the submission and agreement of a quarry management plan. It is intended that this would include a detailed blasting management plan and dust management plan.
12.132 The traffic noise assessment for the construction phase considers both the option of sourcing all aggregate from outside the application site or sourced from borrow pits within the site, which is the preferred choice of the applicant. The assessment demonstrates that, with either option, there would be a minor noise impact, the effect of which would not be significant.
12.133 In terms of the operational phase, the main noise source would be the operation of the turbines. The predicted noise levels have been assessed using computer noise modelling, for both the development in isolation and for the proposal with other nearby wind farms. The results indicate that, in both scenarios, predicted wind farm noise would not exceed noise limits. The EIAR therefore considers that the effect of noise from the operation of the proposal would not be significant.
Assessment
12.134 Generally, having regard to the consultation response received from Environmental Health, it is considered that the assessment undertaken within the EIAR is adequate and the conclusions are sufficiently robust.
12.135 It is noted that, in terms of potential cumulative impact, not all proposed wind farm schemes within the local area have been taken into account. However, most of those not considered would be unlikely or unable to proceed should the proposed development be constructed, as they would be in very similar locations to turbines within this proposed scheme.
12.136 An exception to this would be the permitted turbine at Beinn Bhuna. In that case, the existing permitted turbine is not considered to be close enough to noise sensitive premises to materially add to the cumulative level. As such, the findings in the cumulative impact assessment are not disputed.
12.137 A separate noise level limit was previously applied by condition in relation to the receptor at Druim Dubh. It is noted that ETSU allows residential dwellings that have a financial interest in the wind farm to be subject to a higher noise limit, but not to such an extent to render living conditions at the property to be unacceptable.
12.138 It is understood that the applicant has full control over the property. However, in order to comply with the relevant Institute of Acoustics guidance if the applicant were to rent the property out for residential purposes during the operational life of the wind farm, there would be a need to show that any tenant was specifically benefitting from the wind farm, i.e. through paying a reduced rent, in order for the property to be considered ‘involved’ in relation to ETSU. It is considered that this matter could be suitably controlled by an appropriate mechanism, such as an s75 planning obligation (legal agreement) with the developer.
12.139 From the details in the EIAR, a detailed planning condition related to noise has been drafted, which is included in Appendices 4 and 5 to this Report. Taking this into account and for the above reasons, it is considered that the noise impacts likely to result from the proposal would be able to be satisfactorily mitigated to an acceptable level. As such, the proposal is considered to accord with OHLDP Policy EI 8 and the SG in this regard.
Community amenity
Policy context
12.140 The SPP paragraph 29 identifies the need to protect the amenity of new and existing development. Paragraph 75 states that the planning system should encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality.
12.141 The OHLDP Policy PD6 requires all development proposals to ensure that there would be no unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses. Where appropriate, proposals should include mitigation measures to reduce the impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses.
12.142 The SG requires development proposals to consider potential impacts on community amenity. In this respect, reference is made to a settlement buffer of 2km. Both the SPP (Table 1: Spatial Frameworks) and SG (Landscape and Visual Impact policy) make reference to a settlement buffer, in relation to visual impacts.
12.143 In addition, the SG refers to the need to consider shadow flicker, noise, electromagnetic interference, commissioning and decommissioning, phasing, ancillary developments and infrastructure, public access and the cumulative effects of the above. The SPP also includes a requirement to consider these issues.
EIAR
12.144 The turbine layout is largely contained within the area of the consented scheme, with the exception of the proposed development to the north-west of the site. In comparison with the consented development, this proposed layout enables the turbines to be set back further from the outer edge of greater Stornoway.
12.145 The originally submitted scheme indicated that the distance to the closest properties would be some 1.8km for the proposed scheme, in comparison to approximately 1.5km for the consented scheme. The potential revisions resulting from SEI2, including the removal of T34, would not result in a significantly increased separation distance to the nearest turbine.
12.146 Two heights of turbine are proposed, with those to the east of the site, closest to residential properties, being some 156m in height, as opposed to 145m with the consented scheme.
Noise
12.147 The potential noise impact of the proposal on sensitive receptors has been considered in Chapter 12 of the EIAR and is addressed above. For the reasons given, it is considered that the proposal would not result in significant or unacceptable noise impacts, subject to the use of appropriate mitigation.
Shadow flicker
12.148 Chapter 15 of the EIAR considers the potential for the proposed development to cause shadow flicker for local residential occupiers. At UK latitudes, shadow flicker effects are only likely to occur within properties within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine, where they are located within 130 degrees either side of north of any turbine. As there are no residential properties located within 1,550m (10 rotor diameters of up to 150m, plus 50m micrositing) and 130 degrees either side of north of any turbine, the EIAR finds that the proposal would not result in any shadow flicker for local occupiers.
Electromagnetic interference
12.149 The potential for electromagnetic interference is considered in Chapter 10 of the EIAR. Whilst no effects are predicted during the construction of the proposal, there is the potential for interference to properties during its operation. The proposed development would be located between the digital broadcast mast at Eitseal, to the south-west of the site, and properties located to the north and east within 5km of the site, including those in Stornoway.
12.150 The likelihood of interference is reduced with digital signals, compared to analogue. However, the EIAR indicates that interactions of the interference mechanisms from the proposed turbines are complex and difficult to predict. The separation distance of the proposed turbines to the nearest residential property significantly exceeds the minimum 500m recommended by Ofcom. However, due to the relative location of the proposed turbines and the mast in relation to nearby properties, the possibility of interference remains.
12.151 The EIAR proposes a scheme of mitigation, to address any problems of reception. It is envisaged that this would require the developer to assess current television signals in advance of construction and to mitigate post-development problems with television reception attributable to it.
12.152 This would require the developer to meet the costs of investigation and to rectify effectively any problems should they arise, implementing solutions in a timely manner, to minimise any inconvenience to residents. It is proposed that this requirement would exist for the first year of operation, as any impacts would be expected to occur within this timeframe.
12.153 Potential mitigation measures for affected households could include the replacement or upgrade of receiving aerials, re-tuning television receivers, re-aligning aerials, or the provision of a bespoke solution, such as a new low-powered transmitter, a cable network, or a satellite receiver. It is anticipated that the implementation of these measures would fully mitigate any television reception issues arising as a result of the proposal.
Commissioning, decommissioning and phasing
12.154 The topic specific chapters within the EIAR and AI EIAR consider the proposed development in three main phases, in terms of its construction, operation and decommissioning. Within this report, each of the potential impacts has been assessed for the effects during each of those development stages.
Ancillary developments and infrastructure
12.155 Chapter 6 of the EIAR indicates that, in addition to the new wind farm tracks, temporary passing places, junctions and bell-mouths would also be required, as well as bridge and culvert type water crossings. Following the erection of the turbines, it is intended that the edges of the tracks would be re-turfed with peat and encouraged to re-generate, to reduce local visual impact during the operational phase of the development. Parts of the access tracks would potentially be visible from the eastern end of Pentland Road, the western edge of Newmarket and residential properties at Macaulay Farm and Marybank, along the A859.
12.156 The EIAR indicates that the proposed substation would be visible from very small sections of the A858 and A859, as well as elevated points beyond the application site. It is proposed that the substation building would be a single-storey structure, with parking, enclosed with a 2.7m high perimeter fence. The colour of the battery and switchgear containers is proposed to be co-ordinated with that of the substation, to have a low contrast with the surrounding moorland, and to maintain the amenity and simplicity of the landscape.
Public access
12.157 Although access for recreation is permitted over the application site, under the ‘right to roam’ Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 legislation, due to the terrain and land conditions, there is currently little public access and few walking routes. The EIAR indicates that the principal recreational activity undertaken on the site is angling. In addition, the Hebridean Way walking route passes through the centre of the application site and, in relation to the originally submitted scheme, at its closest point would be approximately 142m from the closest turbine.
12.158 During the construction phase of the development, the public right to roam within the application site would be restricted for health and safety reasons. It is intended that this would be controlled through an Access Management Plan, as well as by an overall Construction Method Statement. Given the relatively low levels of public access within the site currently, the EIAR considers that the effect of this would not be significant.
12.159 During the operational phase of the development, there would be unrestricted access to the site under the general ‘right to roam’. It is anticipated that temporary access restrictions would only apply for periods of intensive maintenance or for the upgrading of on-site infrastructure.
12.160 For the 35 turbine scheme, a total of approximately 28.7km of new wind farm tracks and 13 watercourse crossings would be constructed as part of the proposed development, to which the public would have access. Whilst this extent of change is not considered to be significant in EIA terms, it would result in a new network of publicly accessible routes across the site.
Visual impacts
12.161 As part of the landscape and visual impact assessment considered above, a residential visual amenity assessment (RVAA) was undertaken, to assess the effects likely to arise as a result of the originally submitted proposed development (see EIAR Appendix 6C). The agreed scope of the RVAA includes all individual residential properties within 2km of the proposed development, and individual properties or clusters of properties just beyond 2km from the proposed development.
12.162 There are no properties that would be within 1.8km of the proposal, eight properties that would be within 1.8km and 2km of the proposal, and 25 properties assessed that would be just beyond 2km of the proposal.
12.163 The EIAR finds that views from all eight properties within 2km, and from 14 of the 25 properties that would be just beyond 2km, would be significantly affected during the operational phase of the development, with one property likely to be significantly affected during the construction and decommissioning phases. Views of the aviation warning lights would also be possible, subject to screening from buildings and vegetation.
12.164 Nonetheless, whilst views of the proposal would be significant, the EIAR considers that this would not be the same as an unacceptable effect. In terms of residential visual amenity, the RVAA concludes that the proposed development would not be unacceptably overbearing or visually dominant, due to factors such as intervening distance, landform, vegetation and/or built-form, other man made development in the views and the use/orientation of the property.
12.165 As such, the EIAR finds that the proposal would not affect the living conditions of individual properties to such an extent that any of these would become an unattractive place to live, as opposed to a less attractive place, when the impact of the proposal is considered either individually or cumulatively.
Assessment
12.166 For the reasons given above, the proposal is not considered likely to result in significant noise impacts to nearby residential occupiers, subject to appropriate mitigation, which is a matter that can be controlled by condition. Furthermore, having regard to the assessment provided, the findings of the EIAR in relation to shadow flicker are accepted and it is agreed that the proposal would not have an impact in this regard.
12.167 Subject to the proposed scheme of potential mitigation being adequately controlled by condition, it is considered that the impact of the proposal on television reception would not be significant. Should any interference occur, it is accepted that the mitigation proposed would ensure that this could be adequately addressed.
12.168 From the details provided within the EIAR, it is considered that the ancillary developments and infrastructure required to support the proposal have been adequately assessed. Moreover, from the details provided and, in particular, the indicated scale, type and nature of these aspects of the development scheme, whilst they will have some impact on local amenity, particularly in relation to visual impacts, these effects are considered unlikely to be significant.
12.169 It is considered that the assessment of the potential impacts of the proposal in relation to the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development is appropriate. Furthermore, from the details and methodology within the EIAR and AI EIAR it is considered that the assessment undertaken is suitably robust and the findings in this regard are not disputed.
12.170 The creation of publicly accessible routes through the site will be considered further below, and in relation to potential impacts on ecology. However, in terms of its impact on community amenity, the proposal would have material benefits in this regard. Given the location of the site and its relative proximity to Stornoway, it is considered that these benefits could affect a significant number of people, resulting in moderate weight being given to them.
12.171 It is recognised that views from some of the properties closest to the application site would be significantly affected. Nonetheless, whilst the visual impact of the proposal would have a significant adverse effect, it is considered that its impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of those properties would not be sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal on this ground.
12.172 Due to the separation distances involved, in particular, as well as the orientation of the dwellings concerned, intervening landform, built-form and, to some extent, vegetation, the proposed turbines, whilst highly visible, would not be excessively overbearing or unacceptably dominant. Moreover, for the same reasons, whilst it is considered that the views of the turbines would be intrusive, it is also considered that the level of intrusion would not be such that it would render any of the properties concerned undesirable to live in as a dwelling.
12.173 As such, it is considered that the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of these nearest residential occupiers, whilst significant, would not be unacceptably harmful. Moreover, it is also recognised that the minimum distances between the turbines of the proposed development and the nearest residential properties would be greater than would be the case for the previously consented scheme, with not dissimilar heights of turbines involved on the eastern part of the application site.
12.174 The potential changes to the development from the removal of two turbines, as referred to in the SEI2, may increase separation distances for some properties compared to that originally proposed. However, overall the proximity of the scheme to the closest residential properties and the number of properties within 2km of the development would not alter. As such, the potential changes to the scheme are not considered to materially affect the assessment above and the SEI2 revisions would not result in any greater impact than previously considered.
12.175 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would meet the requirements of OHLDP Policy PD6, the SG and the SPP in relation to these issues. For the reasons given above, the proposal would not be harmful in relation to its likely impacts on noise, shadow flicker, electromagnetic interference, ancillary development and infrastructure. Whilst there would be adverse visual impacts to some local residential occupiers, considered overall, these would not be unacceptably harmful to their living conditions. In terms of public access, the proposal would have material benefits. Furthermore, appropriate consideration has been given to the various phases of the development proposal, including its commissioning and decommissioning.
Neighbouring developments
Policy context
12.176 The OHLDP Policy PD6 requires development proposals adjacent to existing or consented renewable energy development to not constrain this use. This may be achieved by a buffer zone between the uses, or by the use of other design and landscaping techniques.
EIAR
12.177 The EIAR considers that the development site is predominantly located within a defined remote area and in proximity to the operational windfarms of Beinn Greidaig and the Pentland Wind Farm. When the application scheme was submitted, these wind farms had 17 years and almost 16 years remaining of an operational consent respectively. The EIAR indicates that the application site is not considered to have any sensitive neighbouring uses and the proposal would not have the potential to constrain any land that has not already been impacted upon by existing windfarm development.
Assessment
12.178 Given the location of the application site, the conclusions reached in the EIAR about the potential of the proposal to constrain, or be constrained by, potential neighbouring uses adjacent to the site are not disputed.
Tourism and recreation
Policy context
12.179 Tourism is identified as one of Scotland’s key economic sectors in paragraph 2.2 of the NPF3. Paragraph 77 of the SPP states that, in remote and fragile areas and island areas outwith defined small towns, the emphasis should be on maintaining and growing communities by encouraging development that provides suitable sustainable economic activity, while preserving important environmental assets such as landscape and wildlife habitats that underpin continuing tourism visits and quality of place.
12.180 Paragraph 79 indicates that plans should set out a spatial strategy which, amongst other matters, promotes economic activity and diversification, including, where appropriate, sustainable development linked to tourism and leisure, forestry, farm and croft diversification and aquaculture, nature conservation, and renewable energy developments, while ensuring that the distinctive character of the area, the service function of small towns and natural and cultural heritage are protected and enhanced.
12.181 The OHLDP Policy EI 7 states that development proposals must be located to ensure that the Hebridean Way and the Core Path network are kept free of obstruction. Proposals for improvements to, and the expansion of, the existing paths network that facilitates greater access and enjoyment of key natural and built heritage resources (including moorland and lochs) are encouraged. These will be required to accord with the Outer Hebrides Outdoor Access Strategy and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, and to demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given to the need for associated way marking, information boards, car parking and other facilities.
12.182 The supporting text to the policy recognises that the opportunity for outdoor recreation is a key selling point of the Outer Hebrides’ tourism product and is an important factor in the health and well-being of local island communities.
EIAR
Tourism
12.183 Chapter 14 of the EIAR considers the potential impact of the proposal on tourism. However, it only considers potential impact during the operational phase of the development, as with the exception of turbine erection, much of the construction work would only be visible from within the application site boundary or relatively close to it.
12.184 The EIAR identifies that there were 148,641 leisure visits to the Outer Hebrides in 2017, from a total of around 219,000 visitors. Tourism is one of the key industries and growth sectors for the Outer Hebrides and, in 2017, almost three-quarters of visitors reported that they had visited Lewis during their trip. Tourism generates £53m annually in economic value for the islands and sustains around 1,000 FTE jobs.
12.185 The EIAR includes details of a number of public attitude surveys to wind farms in relation to tourism and recreation. A selection of studies is referenced, with a variety of results. One found that, for the majority of people, the development of a wind farm would neither encourage nor discourage them from visiting an area. Another that, on a national level, the negative impact on tourism was small, which was a finding also reflected in other studies.
12.186 The EIAR Table 14.13 considers the potential effects of the proposal on visitor attractiveness and tourism for a number of identified relevant receptors. These include Stornoway Golf Club, Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park, Calanais, Tiumpan Head, the Iolaire Memorial and An Clisham. The assessment of tourist routes and destinations within the EIAR finds that the proposal would have no significant effects.
12.187 The EIAR finds, in relation to the landscape and visual impact, that the proposal would have significant adverse effects on the setting of the Lewis War Memorial and, without affecting its integrity, some adverse effects on the setting of the Druim Dubh stone circle. However, the EIAR considers that, whilst important locally, neither of these heritage assets are important tourist attractions for Lewis. As such, the EIAR considers that there would not be any wider adverse effects on tourism as a result of the identified effects on these two assets.
Recreation
12.188 The EIAR identifies Lewis as a popular place for a number of recreational pursuits, including walking, cycling, horse riding, golf and fishing. As indicated above, there is little public access currently to the application site and the principal recreational activity undertaken directly on the site is angling.
12.189 As referred to above, access within the application site is intended to be restricted during the construction phase of the proposed development. The EIAR considers that, given the limited activity currently undertaken, the construction works are not likely to have any direct effects on specific recreational pursuits beyond angling within the site. With the exception of the works to erect the turbines, much of the construction work would only be visible from within the site.
12.190 Moreover, it also considers that, with the adoption of embedded and additional mitigation measures, the construction of the proposal would not result in any residual significant effects on water levels, flow and quality on and off the application site. As a result, overall and notwithstanding the need to construct additional bridges and culverts, the EIAR considers that the construction works associated with the proposal would not have a significant effect on recreational activities.
12.191 As indicated above, the 35 turbine proposal would result in approximately 28.7km of new tracks and additional water crossings, resulting in a network of publically accessible routes across the site.
12.192 Core Path 6 is a network of paths within Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL and is part of the national network of local authority core paths. The turbines would be visible to path users, in close proximity, for short sections of the route. The views would be wide and panoramic, although the EIAR considers that the primary views from these paths would be towards Stornoway and the sea. For the remainder of the route, there would be very limited or no visibility of the proposed development. However, overall, the EIAR finds that the proposal would have a major and significant local effect on Core Path 6.
12.193 The Hebridean Way would pass through the centre of the proposed development and, at its closest point, would be some 145m from a proposed turbine. There would be visibility of the turbines for some 11km of the route, which would result in a major and significant effect on a small portion of the route as a whole.
12.194 Similarly, there would be theoretical visibility of the proposal for approximately 35km of ‘The Timeless Way’, as it extends along the Pentland Road, the A858 (specifically, the section from the junction of the A859 with the Pentland Road) and B895 to Back/Tolsta. Within 5km of the site, these impacts are considered likely to be major and significant. However, the EIAR finds that, due to restricted visibility, the proposal would have only a minor and not significant effect on Sustrans Cycle Route 780.
12.195 The EIAR also recognises that there is potential for cumulative landscape and visual effects on tourism, recreation and the amenity value of the local area. The proposal would contribute to some cumulative effects for recreation routes, which would be significant locally.
12.196 The EIAR considers that, as the application site is not a recognised tourism destination, and is not formally used for specific land based recreational purposes, other than for angling and associated walking, the proposal would not result in direct effects upon specific recreational activities.
12.197 For the reasons given above, no adverse effects are predicted for any water related recreational activities and, overall, the EIAR finds that the proposal would result in beneficial long term local access effects within the site, although in EIA terms, the level of this effect is considered not significant.
Assessment
12.198 The comments received from Visit Scotland raised potential concerns about the impact of the proposal on tourism. However, the assessment within the EIAR in this regard is detailed. It is recognised that research undertaken elsewhere indicates that the existence of a wind farm is unlikely to have a material impact on tourism. The proposed development could be considered to have the effect of concentrating development next to the existing settlement and light industry in and around Stornoway (and thus away from highly sensitive scenic landscapes in the south, west and south-west of the Isle of Lewis).
12.199 Conversely, it is considered that a development of this scale could adversely affect the perception likely to be held by some receptors of the Outer Hebrides being remote and little touched by development. This is particularly the case given the identified impact of the proposed development on landscape character and visual effects, including views from the ferry route and the road from the airport.
12.200 Furthermore, it is recognised that the assessment within the EIAR was undertaken before the existence of COVID-19 and the resulting impact of the pandemic on the tourism industry, both nationally and locally. Nonetheless, whilst there is currently some uncertainty about the future local economic impact of tourism, the conclusions reached in this regard within the EIAR are generally considered to be reasonable. Given the attitudes expressed in previous surveys, as set out within the EIAR, it is considered unlikely that the proposal would have a material impact on tourism within Lewis and the Outer Hebrides.
12.201 In terms of the likely impact on recreation, it is accepted that the proposal would have material benefits, in the creation of tracks through the application site. Notwithstanding the potential impact of these tracks on ecology, which is considered further below, this would be a positive effect in relation to recreation, allowing easier public access to the area.
12.202 The British Horse Society is supportive of public access opportunities that would be provided as a result of the proposal, particularly if tracks would be dressed in a suitable fine material. Clarification has been provided by the developer that this matter could be addressed as part of an Access Management Plan (AMP), the submission and agreement of which could be controlled by condition.
12.203 It is intended that the AMP would set out how access arrangements would be addressed across the site for a number of activities, including walking, cycling and horse riding. For example, it could include a designated horse riding route around part of the site, which would incorporate suitable track surfaces, gates and signage, together with layby areas large enough for horse boxes.
12.204 Whilst public access arrangements across the site would no doubt be improved by the proposal, one turbine would breach the minimum stand-off distance, with only 145m between that turbine and the Hebridean Way. As a result, Scotways have objected to the proposed development and the Comhairle Environment Officer has raised similar concerns, as well as other concerns regarding the potential for ice-throw.
12.205 It is understood that consideration has been given by the developer to locating the turbine further from the Hebridean Way, so that the road would be beyond the topple distance of the turbine. However, as this re-siting would have other technical and environmental consequences, it was not pursued.
12.206 Clearly, there would be an element of risk associated with the proximity of the turbine to the Hebridean Way. However, in this particular case, it is considered that the level of risk would be low and not sufficient to support a recommendation of refusal on this issue, particularly as the Hebridean Way follows the public road at this point and taking into account the separate controls that exist for the construction of the turbines. Similar conclusions have been reached in relation to the concerns for potential adverse effects from ice-throw, given the considered relatively low likelihood of serious harm resulting from the associated risk.
12.207 The revisions to the scheme, resulting from the SEI2 information, including alterations to the layout and the potential removal of two turbines, are not considered to materially alter the assessment of these issues. The changes to the layout proposed are relatively minor, largely within the micrositing tolerances proposed, and the removal of two turbines is not considered likely to have any significant effect on tourism or recreation. There would be a marginal increase in separation between the closest turbine and the Hebridean Way, from some 142m to about 145m, following the revisions to the layout indicated in the SEI2.
12.208 Subject to the submission of an AMP, which would address the need for associated way marking, information boards, car parking and other facilities, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with OHLDP Policy EI7 in relation to these issues. Consequently, overall, it is considered that the proposal would be unlikely to be harmful to tourism and would have material benefits to recreation locally. As above, in relation to public access and for similar reasons, it is considered that these benefits should be accorded moderate weight.
Natural heritage, including birds
Policy context
12.209 Paragraph 193 of the SPP states that the natural environment forms the foundation of the spatial strategy set out in NPF3. Paragraph 194 goes on to say that the planning system should conserve and enhance protected sites and species, taking account of the need to maintain healthy ecosystems and work with the natural processes which provide important services to communities.
12.210 Paragraph 203 of the SPP states that planning permission should be refused where the nature or scale of proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. Direct or indirect effects on statutorily protected sites will be an important consideration, but designation does not impose an automatic prohibition on development.
12.211 Paragraph 204 states that planning authorities should apply the precautionary principle where the impacts of a proposed development on nationally or internationally significant natural heritage resources are uncertain but there is sound evidence indicating that significant irreversible damage could occur, although this should not be used to impede development without justification.
12.212 Paragraph 218 indicates a presumption in favour of protecting woodland. Removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will generally be expected.
12.213 Paragraph 195 states that planning authorities, and all public bodies, have a duty under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to further the conservation of biodiversity, which should be reflected in development management decisions. The Principles for Sustainable Land Use, as set out in the Land Use Strategy, are also expected to be applied, when taking significant decisions affecting the use of land.
12.214 The OHLDP Policy NBH2 indicates that a proposal that is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site will only be permitted in very limited circumstances. Natura (or European) sites include Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), designated for flora, fauna and habitats, and Special Protection Areas (SPA), classified to protect rare, vulnerable and migratory birds.
12.215 For proposals considered likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site, to be permitted, an Appropriate Assessment (AA) would need to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect its integrity. If this is not the case, in line with the relevant legislation, it would be necessary to demonstrate that there are no alternative solutions, and that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, and compensatory measures are provided to ensure that the overall coherence of the Natura network would be protected.
12.216 Amongst other matters, Policy NBH2 also includes strict controls on development proposals that would affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or a National Nature Reserve (NNR), a Ramsar site, and sites where there is a European Protected Species (EPS) or a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act on the site.
12.217 The policy also states that development proposals should avoid having a significant adverse effect on, and where possible should enhance, biodiversity and ecological interests of the site. Developers are encouraged to assess impacts of the proposed development on UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species.
12.218 Policy NBH3 seeks to safeguard trees and woodland areas. It includes a strong presumption against the removal of established trees and woodland of mixed native species that have a landscape and amenity value and/or contribute to nature conservation, unless removal would achieve significant additional economic, environmental or social benefits.
12.219 Policy EI 3 refers to the need for the full assessment of the likely effects of a development on the water environment. This is assessed in a separate section below, as are the potential impacts on soil resources, specifically peat.
EIAR
12.220 The EIAR includes Chapter 8 on Ornithology and Chapter 9 on Ecology, both of which were updated and superseded by revised Chapters and Appendices in the AI EIAR, which were submitted to address concerns that had been raised by consultees, including in relation to survey data and comparison with the consented scheme. However, following consultation on the SEI, a number of concerns remained, particularly in relation to ornithology, as well as impacts on peat, which are considered separately below. Consequently, further information was submitted, in the SEI2, to specifically address these concerns.
Habitats Regulation Appraisal
12.221 The AI EIAR considers the potential effects on Natura sites within the AI Appendix 8G Habitats Regulation Appraisal (HRA). This provides information to enable the competent authority (which in this case is the Scottish Ministers) to screen the project for Likely Significant Effects (LSE) and make an Appropriate Assessment (AA) if LSE cannot be ruled out.
12.222 In relation to AA, the AI EIAR considers that, in the absence of mitigation, the proposal would result in LSE to some of the qualifying features of:
• the Lewis Peatlands SPA and the Lewis Peatlands Ramsar site, which are located immediately adjacent to the western and northern site boundary and some 100m from the closest proposed infrastructure, in relation to black-throated diver, dunlin, golden eagle, golden plover, greenshank and red-throated diver; and
• the Lewis Peatlands SAC, which is located approximately 850m west of the site boundary at its closest point, in relation to otter.
12.223 The HRA for the current application finds that the proposal is unlikely to have significant effects on the SAC qualifying habitats, which reflects the conclusions drawn for the consented scheme.
12.224 As a result, the potential effects from construction activity, operational displacement leading to barrier effects, and potential collision with operational turbines were taken forward for further assessment for each relevant qualifying feature of the SPA/Ramsar site. For the SAC qualifying feature, further assessment was undertaken on potential effects from disturbance/displacement, direct damage to resting sites and disturbance to individuals using resting sites due to disturbance, temporary severance of otter habitat and commuting routes and direct mortality due to construction activities.
12.225 The Assessment in the AI Appendix 8G on HRA concluded that, with mitigation, there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of the identified qualifying features or the conservation objectives for the sites, considered both individually and in combination with other projects.
Ornithology
12.226 In addition to the AA carried out under the HRA, the AI EIAR assesses the potentially significant effects on nine species of bird in relation to the EIA Regulations. This was an iterative process, with the results of desk study and surveys informing the requirement for additional scope of works or embedded mitigation, feeding into the final scheme design, with widely spaced turbines and corridors between them.
12.227 A full assessment including, where appropriate, collision risk monitoring (CRM) and population viability assessment (PVA), of those nine bird species was undertaken following established guidance. Since the consented scheme was considered, hen harrier has become established as a breeding bird species in Lewis over the last 4 years. Activity recorded within the application site and survey results indicate that the on-site coniferous forestry plantation serves as preferential nesting and foraging habitat. Whilst a degree of change was predicted for some species, no significant effects were concluded for any species or site. These findings are summarised in Table 8.18 of the AI EIAR.
12.228 A further cumulative assessment was undertaken for golden eagle, white-tailed eagle and red-throated diver, with no cumulative significant effects concluded for those species. The AI EIAR confirms that the assessment of cumulative impacts on bird populations followed the specific guidance for onshore wind farms produced by SNH in 2018.
12.229 A cumulative impact assessment is undertaken by drawing on the assessment of effects for ornithological features affected by the proposed development that are also considered in the EIA of other projects, to determine whether effects are likely to affect the Favourable Conservation Status of an ornithological feature. The only effects with potential for cumulative impacts were those associated with flight activity and the corresponding risk of collisions with turbines. Table 8.19 of the AI EIAR summarises the results of the modelling undertaken.
12.230 Notwithstanding the findings within the AI EIAR Chapter 8 on Ornithology, consultation concerns were expressed, including in relation to potential adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA, as well as concerns about wider impacts. As a result, informal discussions took place with RSPB Scotland and NatureScot, which included the provision of a clarification document and an Outline Bird Protection Plan.
12.231 Following these discussions, further information on birds has been provided as part of the SEI2. This includes further information on herring gulls, and considers the potential effects on red-throated diver, nest sites for hen harrier, the need for clarification of the hen harrier model, and effects on golden eagles to the north of the site. The SEI2 also considers the removal of two turbines, T24 and T34, from the scheme to address some of those impacts, including on a red-throated diver nest site and the potential range use loss to golden eagle territory. This revision would also result in a reduction to collision risk across all species.
12.232 The SEI2 report concludes that, with the removal of the two turbines, T24 and T34, it is understood that the concerns raised by NatureScot in relation to the effect of the proposed development on the Lewis Peatlands SPA can be overcome.
12.233 The AI EIAR indicates that a range of environmental measures have been embedded into the proposed development, to minimise the potential impacts on breeding and roosting birds. Working practices would be set out within a Bird Protection Plan, which would form part of an overarching Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and would be implemented under the direction and supervision of an Ecological Clerk of Works.
12.234 In addition, although a key objective of the Access Management Plan will be to improve access to recreational users, it would also need to consider measures to dissuade access to part of the site that may be considered sensitive to significant human activity, i.e. because of nesting birds.
12.235 Taking this and other mitigation measures into account, including those in the Outline Habitat Management Plan, such as the annual monitoring of red-throated diver and hen harrier across the site for the duration of the construction and operational phases of the development, the EIAR (as amended) concludes that the development would not have a significant effect on birds.
Ecology
12.236 In addition to the SAC and Ramsar sites listed above, the Tong Saltings Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located some 3.5km east of the application site, with Achmore Bog SSSI situated about 2.4km to the south-west. A detailed summary of the habitats/vegetation present across the application site is provided in Appendix 9B to the AI EIAR. The site is intersected by three river catchments, the Abhainn Lacasdail, Abhainn a’ Ghlinn Mhòir and the Abhainn Ghrìoda. The Abhainn Leireabhaigh is to the south of the application site.
12.237 The Ecological Impact Assessment, which forms part of the EIAR, was informed by desk study data and a number of surveys, the details of which form appendices to the EIAR or AI EIAR and which were carried out in accordance with established technical guidance. Table 9.8 in Chapter 9 of the AI EIAR summarises the ecological features that were scoped into the assessment, together with the potential environmental changes and significant effects resulting from the proposal. Table 9.14 provides a summary of the assessed significance of effects.
12.238 The AI EIAR indicates that an iterative approach was taken with the design process for the scheme, to avoid potentially significant adverse effects on ecological features. These are summarised in Table 9.9 in Chapter 9 of the AI EIAR. Specifically, the layout was designed to avoid otter resting sites and path networks, the most sensitive areas of blanket bog habitat and rare plant species.
➢ Freshwater ecology
12.239 Embedded measures have been incorporated to minimise or avoid the risk of significant effects on freshwater ecology. These include: minimising the number of watercourse crossings and designing them in accordance with good practice; maintaining the connectivity of the watercourse habitat and avoiding impeding fish passage/migration; incorporating a minimum 50m stand-off (or buffer) between the development infrastructure and watercourses or waterbodies (with the exception of the crossings); and planning the timing of in-channel works to avoid sensitive life stages of fish.
➢ Woodland
12.240 In relation to woodland and forestry, no broadleaf woodland is recorded within the site. Some forestry plantation exists, but generally the trees are in poor condition, due to the low levels of nutrients in peat soil and the waterlogged nature of peat. Some 40.61ha of trees would be lost as a result of the proposal. The AI EIAR Appendix 9J considers the scale of woodland removal and sets out the approach to compensatory planting, both on-site and off-site, as identified within the Outline Habitat Management Plan (AI EIAR Appendix 9I).
➢ Otters
12.241 In relation to otters, in light of the embedded measures and potential mitigation, the resultant magnitude of change on the otter population that may form part of the SAC population is considered to be low and the resultant effect on the site’s integrity and the species conservation status is not significant.
➢ Tong Saltings SSSI
12.242 In terms of the Tong Saltings SSSI, the River Laxdale would be a potential pathway that would connect the application site to the SSSI. However, in light of the extensive embedded environmental measures to protect surface watercourses, the proposal is anticipated to cause temporary (short term) change to the local hydrology regime (of a low magnitude) with negligible effects to the interest features of the SSSI. The effect on site integrity would not be significant.
➢ Habitat
12.243 The effect of the proposal on the disturbance to and loss of peat is considered separately below. The vast part of the survey area is covered by blanket bog vegetation on deep peat and, with specific exceptions, this is considered to be in good condition throughout. Peat formation activity is considered to be relatively high.
12.244 The proposed development would result in permanent habitat loss, expected to be 28.68ha, due to land take associated with the construction of the proposal, and temporary disturbance during construction of an additional 73.96ha. It is considered that this would result in a medium magnitude of change affecting a large area of blanket bog within the development site, which is assessed as being of national importance for this habitat. Although vegetation within the disturbed area would be expected to recover in the medium to longer term, the AI EIAR considers the overall effect of this to be significant.
12.245 Potential impacts on wet heath communities (which cover approximately 32ha of the application site) were also assessed, including in terms of their direct loss and temporary disturbance during construction. The effects on this habitat would be minimised by following a similar approach to that for blanket bog. Nevertheless, this would be a medium magnitude of change on wet heath within the application site over the short to long term. This is considered to result in a significant effect on this regionally important habitat.
12.246 In terms of other potential effects to ecology identified within the AI EIAR, the assessment considers the potential for indirect disturbance and changes to the composition of plant communities resulting from hydrological change, and the potential effects of the proposal on dry heath communities, marshy grassland communities, waterbodies (rivers and lochs) and fish. The assessment concludes that the effects of the proposal on these ecological features would not be significant in EIA terms.
➢ Cumulative effects
12.247 The AI EIAR also considers the potential for cumulative effects with other consented and planned wind farms. It finds that no significant effects on river/lochs, fish and freshwater invertebrates are likely in combination with other developments or activities. It reaches a similar finding in relation to the otter population, both within the wider area and for the SAC otter population.
12.248 Given the predicted significant effects on blanket bog and wet heath habitat anticipated within the application site, as well as with other sites elsewhere, cumulatively the loss and disturbance to blanket bog habitat is assessed as potentially being significant. However, provided each scheme implements a reinstatement/restoration plan, vegetation recovery within the disturbed areas would be expected in the medium to longer term, with compensatory habitat management measures also reducing potential impacts.
➢ EIAR Conclusions on Ecology
12.249 It is intended that working practices to minimise effects on ecology during construction would be set out in and implemented through a Construction Environmental Management Plan, including a Pollution Prevention Plan and Pollution Incident Response Plan.
12.250 A Tree Removal Plan would also be prepared, together with a Compensatory Planting Plan, to provide a replacement of up to 40.6ha of woodland, mainly on adjacent land controlled by the Stornoway Trust. This would be managed to provide habitat for hen harrier. A Species Protection Plan for otter would be prepared, which would include details of pre-construction surveys and a suite of embedded mitigation measures.
12.251 Habitat reinstatements would enable up to 70% of the habitat disturbed for construction to be reinstated in the application site in the medium to long term (10 to 20 years) following construction activities. In addition, a full Habitat Management Plan would be developed following the principles presented in the Outline Habitat Management Plan, which forms the AI EIAR Appendix 9I.
12.252 The provisions within the HMP would include monitoring, and the provision of compensatory blanket bog habitat management off-site, of some 66ha. The AI EIAR concludes that this compensatory habitat management would reduce the residual effect of habitat loss to not significant.
Assessment
Ecology
12.253 In light of the additional information provided and having regard to the comments of specialist consultees, such as NatureScot, SEPA and Scottish Forestry, the assessment within the AI EIAR is considered thorough and robust. The likely effects of the proposal have been identified and assessed, mitigation and monitoring measures have been outlined, and residual impacts have been clearly set out within the submissions.
12.254 It is considered that the proposal would appear to accord with the relevant policies of the OHLDP in relation to its likely impact on the natural environment. Whilst some significant effects are likely to occur, particularly to woodland, blanket bog and wet heath habitats, it is considered that the compensatory measures proposed would be sufficient to reduce these impacts to an acceptable level.
12.255 In addition, the scheme includes embedded mitigation measures within its design and the application proposes careful control measures during the construction stages of the development, together with replacement tree planting, which can all be secured by condition. These are such that the proposal is considered unlikely to have unacceptable impacts on other identified ecological features, including otter.
12.256 Accordingly, in relation to ecology, subject to appropriate mitigation, compensation and monitoring, the impacts of the proposal are considered acceptable and to meet the requirements of OHLDP Policies NBH2 and NBH3 in these regards.
Ornithology
12.257 In relation to ornithology, an apparent clear difference in views exists between key specialist consultees on this issue. Strong objections to the proposal continue to be raised by the RSPB, and the applicant has submitted further comments to address these. In addition, the Comhairle Environment Officer has also raised similar concerns. However, it is considered that, in relation to potential impacts on the SPA, greater weight should be given to the views of NatureScot, as the statutory consultee. As a result, subject to the removal of the two turbines identified, T24 and T34, it is accepted that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA, having regard in particular to the likely significant effects on golden eagle and red-throated diver.
12.258 In relation to the overall effect of the proposal on the wider bird population, it is recognised that the adverse impacts of the proposal are likely to be significant. Some of these effects are able to be reduced through the use of appropriate mitigation measures, which could be secured by condition, including through adherence to the Breeding Bird Protection Plan and measures to mitigate impacts on hen harrier, for example, as included in the Outline Habitat Management Plan.
➢ Breeding Bird Protection Plan
12.259 The Breeding Bird Protection Plan includes a list of bullet point scenarios, which NatureScot have confirmed is considered to cover all likely eventualities. It covers a range of measures to remove any significant risk that construction or maintenance activities would give rise to an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, including identifying periods within the breeding season when no construction activity would take place.
12.260 In terms of hen harrier, the applicant has referred to recent studies indicating that this species can breed successfully within close proximity to wind farms and to examples from different Scottish wind farms where young have fledged at nests close to operational turbines. It is indicated that chicks were successfully fledged in 2018 and 2019 from breeding locations within approximately 300m of the currently operational Beinn Greidaig wind farm.
12.261 In addition, the applicant comments that evidence from the Beinn Greidaig site suggests that there was limited consistency in site fidelity, with birds not restricted to specific breeding locations. Similarly, recent winter survey results indicate that hen harrier roosting locations are not fixed and that alternative roosting habitats outside of the wind farm site boundary are available and used.
12.262 In relation to red-throated diver, subject to the removal of turbine T24, a single breeding location would fall within 750m of the proposed turbine locations. Taking into account the applicant’s response to this concern, should this proximity lead to displacement, it is considered that it is reasonable to anticipate that the numerous alternative potential breeding habitat locations within the wider environment would be used.
12.263 The intention of the developer to undertake continued monitoring of certain species during the construction and operational phases of the development is also welcomed and should be used to inform mitigation measures, including in relation to disturbance avoidance. It is considered that the proposed Ornithological Monitoring Plan, which could be secured by condition, should reflect the recommendations of NatureScot in this regard and include details of full breeding bird and year-round Vantage Point surveys in years 1-5, 10 and 15.
12.264 Nonetheless, even with these measures, it is considered that, due to its nature and location, the proposal could be reasonably anticipated to have an adverse effect on some bird species. The extent of this potential impact is a matter of some dispute between the specialist consultees and the applicant. Nonetheless, it is not a matter of contention that several of the turbines are sited within the disturbance free distances for relevant bird species breeding and roost sites.
12.265 These impacts could potentially be addressed by the further removal or the re-siting of the turbines concerned. However, it is recognised that the removal of additional turbines may threaten the viability of the proposal and the siting locations chosen reflect a balance between a large and diverse number of different constraints. As a result, alternative mitigation measures, such as the Breeding Bird Protection Plan, are proposed.
12.266 Subject to the extension of exclusion time periods within the Plan, from mid-May to 5 June, as recommended by consultees, it is considered that this plan would provide a reasonable level of mitigation in this regard, to reduce the risk of unacceptable disturbance through construction or maintenance activities, including to hen harrier and red-throated diver. In addition, concerns expressed regarding the potential for disturbance through public access could be addressed, to some extent, through the proposed Access Management Plan, which could also be secured by condition.
➢ Collision risk
12.267 Concerns have been expressed by the RSPB about the lack of further collision risk modelling following the SEI2 potential removal of two turbines, particularly in view of their continued concern about the significant adverse effect of the proposal, which has resulted in their requested removal of a minimum of seven turbines (including T24). However, the comments of NatureScot indicate that the predicted collision risk impacts on white tailed eagle and golden eagle are not considered unacceptable.
12.268 In addition, the collision risk information provided in the SEI indicates a predicted annual loss of 0.7% of the Lewis population of hen harrier and 0.007% of the Natural Heritage Zone population of red- throated diver. Population modelling of the Lewis hen harrier population indicates that it will still increase even if these predicted mortality rates are realised. In addition, the removal of two turbines from the scheme, as indicated in SEI2, would reduce the overall impacts of the proposal in this respect. As such, it is considered that the absence of further modelling would not justify a recommendation of refusal in this particular case.
12.269 In relation to the potential for further impacts from grid connections, the submissions indicate an intention for an underground connection from the site to the grid. However, a scheme for the detailed connection route and method would be subject to a separate application and consideration in due course.
➢ Conclusion on ornithology
12.270 For the reasons above, it is concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of nearby Natura sites. However, taking into account the potentially significant adverse effects that may result to some species, it is also concluded that the proposal would conflict with the OHLDP Policy NBH2.
12.271 Having regard to the SPP and the consultation responses, it is considered that the views expressed have not indicated that the proposal, even taking a worst case scenario, could result in significant irreversible damage to ornithology species. It is also accepted that the consented development would be likely to have some adverse impacts in these regards. Nonetheless, given the strong national and local policy support for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, including birds, it is considered that considerable weight should be given to these significant adverse impacts.
Soil resources
Policy context
12.272 Paragraph 194 of the SPP states that the planning system should seek to protect soils from damage such as erosion or compaction. Paragraph 205 states that developments should aim to minimise the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere through the drainage or disturbance of peat.
12.273 The OHLDP Policy EI 5 states that, for some large scale renewable energy proposals, development will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that unnecessary disturbance of carbon rich soils, such as peat and any associated vegetation, is avoided. A peat survey should demonstrate that areas of deepest peat have been avoided and the impacts on carbon-rich soils and associated habitats have been minimised. Where required, a peat management plan must also be submitted, which demonstrates best practice in the movement, storage, management and reinstatement of soils.
12.274 The application site is within an area classified as ‘Carbon Rich Soils’ (Class 1 Peatland & 2 Peatland or areas with high potential to be restored to peatland) defined in the Carbon and Peatland Map, SNH, 2016. The SG states that, as set out in the SPP, areas of carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitats will be subject to significant protection. Wind farm proposals within these areas may be supported if it can be demonstrated that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation.
12.275 The SG goes on to state that, where appropriate, the utilisation of the carbon calculator will be required, to determine the net impacts or benefits of the proposed development. Developers will be required to undertake peat (depth) surveys for their development proposals, and subsequent mitigation and micrositing. The use of piled foundations on areas of deep peat or carbon rich soil is encouraged, in order to minimise disturbance and the generation of waste material.
EIAR
12.276 The issues of potential impacts on soil resources is primarily considered in AI EIAR Chapter 9: Ecology, together with the revised AI Planning Statement, section 5.10 and Appendix 4. A Peat Management Plan and an updated Peat Land Slide Risk Assessment were also submitted (AI Appendix 9H). In addition, a Peat Technical Note was submitted as part of the SEI2, as Appendix C.
12.277 The revised AI Planning Statement sets out that, as indicated above, the dominant habitat within the application site is blanket bog, covering approximately 1,668ha. Wet heath covers approximately 32ha of the site and is present where the blanket peat thins around knolls and hummocks. The proposed development would result in a direct loss of 28.68ha of blanket bog, of which some 1.4ha is of the highest sensitivity. In addition, some 73.96ha of blanket bog habitat would be affected by temporary or indirect disturbance, with 3.86ha of the highest sensitivity.
12.278 The SEI2 Report sets out that the consented development, which was granted in 2012 and varied in 2016, would result in a total disturbance of 306,321 cubic metres of peat. Since consent was granted, the policy to protect areas of peat has changed, and turbine technology and construction methods have improved greatly. As a result, the application scheme as originally submitted would result in a total disturbance of 193,878 cubic metres of peat. The majority of these savings in peat disturbance come from a change in turbine foundation design, the removal of 2 borrow pits and the reduction in the distances of access tracks.
12.279 At the time of submission, it was considered that the 37% reduction in peat disturbance from the consented scheme to the proposed development would comply with the pre-submission scoping concerns raised by SEPA and the request to minimise disturbance to peat. It was also considered that this reduction would demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirements.
12.280 Following comments on the proposal, SEPA provided feedback to help assist the applicant in avoiding areas of deepest peat. A design review was undertaken and informal discussions took place between the applicant, SEPA and NatureScot, to identify the most appropriate locations for turbines, where a conflict of environmental constraints exists.
12.281 As a consequence, with small changes in the location of turbines or hardstanding areas, further peat disturbance savings are possible. The Technical Note provides detailed information on this iterative design review process and compares the figures for peat disturbance between the scheme as originally submitted and the site layout as revised. Should these changes be implemented, it would result in a total disturbance of 180,127 cubic metres of peat. This could potentially reduce the peat disturbance from the scheme as submitted by a further 13,751 cubic metres of peat, which could result in an overall saving of 41% when compared to the consented development.
Consented As submitted Proposed changes development 2016 application 2019 2020 Quantity of peat 306,321m3 193,878m3 180,127m3 disturbed % saving compared to - 37% 41% consented development 2016
12.282 As a result of the design changes, the SEI2 Report considers that the applicant has done what can be reasonably done to mitigate the effects on peat, as required by the Electricity Act, when balanced against the benefits of providing renewable energy.
12.283 The further changes identified to the scheme to minimise ornithological impacts (namely the removal of T24 and T34) would deliver additional reductions in peat disturbance not identified in the calculations above.
12.284 The Peat Management Plan includes proposals for peat reinstatement, which demonstrate that all of the excavated peat can be beneficially re-used within the application site, either immediately, or following a period of temporary storage. Control measures are proposed that are designed to ensure that stripped peat remains viable throughout the construction works.
12.285 Off-site mitigation is proposed to be undertaken across at least 66ha, which is broadly twice the area directly impacted, with proposals including a range of management measures to improve the condition of the peat. The Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP) (AI Appendix 9I) provides more details of the proposed mitigation and management proposals.
12.286 The carbon calculator figures, set out in paragraphs 12.30 - 12.42 above, do not take account of the proposed mitigation and compensation set out in the outline habitat management plan (OHMP). The 35 turbine scheme is predicted to pay back the carbon loss in developing the proposal in approximately 1.1 years and would result in a potential annual CO2 savings of some 352,904 tonnes per year, which could result in a total carbon saving of approximately 8.8M tonnes over its 25 year operational life. As indicated above, the reduction in turbine numbers to 33 is anticipated to result in a 2.2% reduction to this figure, with potential annual CO2 savings of some 345,119 tonnes per year.
Assessment
12.287 The submission of a peat survey and a revised Peat Management Plan (PMP), including a revised Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA) to support the application accords with the OHLDP EI 8 and SG policy requirement. AI Chapter 4 Project Description states that the layout of the proposed development has avoided the deepest areas of peat and the most sensitive vegetation, and that tracks would be floated on areas of peat deeper than 1m.
12.288 Nonetheless, the consultation response from SEPA highlighted that, as originally submitted, the comparison with the consented scheme did not go far enough to demonstrate that the project had sought to minimise carbon losses from disturbed peatlands, in line with the SPP policy. The avoidance of disturbance is considered to be as important as reducing carbon emissions in tackling climate change, and best practice in avoidance and mitigation measures in relation to projects on peat has moved on since 2012.
12.289 Consequently, notwithstanding the 37% reduction in peat disturbance, compared to the consented scheme, the applicants undertook further work to identify whether additional reductions could be made. Laydown areas and substations were removed from the scheme, as shown in the revised layout submitted with the SEI. Following further consultation comments, the siting of individual turbines was examined more closely, to explore whether relatively minor changes could be made that would further reduce peat impacts.
12.290 The resulting information, presented within the SEI2, including the AI#2 Figure 4.1 Site Layout and Appendix C, Peat Technical Note, demonstrate further significant reductions in peat disturbance could be achieved. As a result, SEPA has withdrawn its objection to the proposal, subject to this amended site layout plan and additional post consent amendments to reduce peat disturbance and carbon loss, following further peat probing. In addition, SEPA has requested conditions relating to, amongst other matters, the Peat Management Plan, borrow pit restoration, and battery storage details.
12.291 The other requested conditions include a requirement for a Finalised Habitat Management Plan, which should be in line with the outline plan submitted, deliver at least 66ha of off-site improved blanket bog or wet heath habitat and, in addition to the objectives identified, also aim to protect the existing good quality habitat on site, in light of its actively peat-forming characteristics.
12.292 Given the nature of the application site, the avoidance of peat disturbance in relation to the development would not be feasible. However, from the application submissions, revisions and additional information provided, and having regard to the specialist consultation responses of SEPA, it is considered that the assessment undertaken in relation to peat disturbance is suitably thorough and robust.
12.293 Subject to the amended site layout plan and the application of appropriate conditions, it is considered that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development as amended would minimise disturbance of peat and would avoid areas of deepest peat. The application submissions also identify the potential for very small carbon gains, due to the reinstatement of peat within borrow pits and improvement in peat quality elsewhere.
12.294 For these reasons, in relation to soil resources, it is concluded that the proposal meets the aims of the SPP policy and is in accordance with OHLDP Policy EI 5 and the requirements of the SG. Furthermore, in comparison to the consented development, the extent of peat disturbance would be significantly less, which is a matter that weighs significantly in favour of the current proposal.
Water resources
Policy context
12.295 The policy principles set out in paragraph 194 of the SPP include the need for the planning system to promote protection and improvement of the water environment, in a sustainable and co-ordinated way. Paragraph 202 requires developers to minimise adverse impacts through careful planning and design. All public bodies, including planning authorities, have a duty under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 to protect and improve Scotland’s water environment.
12.296 In terms of flood risk, paragraph 255 of the SPP sets out policy principles. These include taking a precautionary approach to flood risk from all sources, and the promotion of flood avoidance and flood reduction. Paragraph 256 states that development that would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding, or which would increase the probability of flooding elsewhere should be prevented.
12.297 OHLDP Policy EI 1 encourages development proposals to avoid areas susceptible to flooding, promotes sustainable flood management and requires proposals to have regard to the probability of flooding from all sources. Policy EI 2 requires new development to adopt the principles of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), including the use of permeable surfaces.
12.298 OHLDP Policy EI 3 requires development proposals to avoid adverse impacts on the water environment. Development within the water environment should be avoided, with a minimum buffer strip of 6m incorporated between the water body and the proposed development. Habitats should be managed or enhanced, with no significant effect on water quality, and water quantity and natural flow patterns and sediment transport processes.
12.299 In addition, for major developments, where a site contains or is adjacent to a wetland or boggy area, the policy requires a Phase 1 habitat survey to be undertaken for the whole site and a 250m buffer around it. Where a ground water dependent terrestrial ecosystem (GWDTE) is identified, the site layout should avoid it and drainage should be designed to ensure that ground water flows to the habitat are maintained.
EIAR
12.300 Water resources are addressed in Chapter 11 of the EIAR, on hydrology & hydrogeology, with effects on ecology considered in Chapter 9 of the AI EIAR. The EIAR indicates that the main potential water effects associated with the proposed development relate to the construction phase, which would involve excavation and dewatering of borrow pits, the formation and upgrading of access tracks, the excavation, dewatering and placement of turbine foundations, and the formation and upgrading of watercourse crossings.
12.301 The EIAR considers that the potential effects on the water environment during the operational and decommissioning phases would be more limited, primarily resulting from operational traffic and maintenance activities, which could result in pollution and increased run-off, to the detriment of water quality. In terms of drainage, the EIAR indicates that drainage details, based on SUDS, for construction and operational phases could be controlled through condition.
12.302 As part of the embedded mitigation, in recognition of the identified risks, a 50m buffer zone is proposed to the entire water course network, except for watercourse crossings, where mitigation would be provided, to protect water quality within and downstream of the site.
12.303 No significant risks to groundwater resources have been identified. No licensed groundwater abstractions for drinking water or industrial activities are recorded within the site. A private water supply exists at Lews Castle and a 250m buffer zone is proposed is this respect, to protect the quality of the water and in relation to the abstraction at Marybank Quarry.
12.304 The EIAR indicates that areas of the site with steep slopes would be avoided for the construction of turbines, infrastructure and access tracks. In addition, as considered above, areas of significant amount of peat would be avoided and areas of deeper peat would be avoided as much as possible. The use of micrositing during construction would aim to focus development on areas of shallower peat.
12.305 The majority of the site is located outside 1 in 1000 and 1 in 200 year flood zones. No development infrastructure would be located within either of these zones, except for access track watercourse crossings, which would be unavoidable. The EIAR has considered the potential for flood risk to two rivers and two residential areas downstream of the site. Given the relatively limited extent of works compared to river catchments and effectiveness of mitigation, it anticipates no increased flood risk.
12.306 Potential effects on GWDTEs are also considered in the EIAR. This assessment concludes that there would probably be significant effects on two GWDTEs, as a result of the borrow pit search area and substation site near the northern site entrance.
12.307 The revised assessment on Borrow Pits concludes, as the earlier assessment also concluded, that where adverse impacts are identified, these could be mitigated by measures such as a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and water quality ‘monitoring and respond’ programme. These are matters that could be controlled by condition.
12.308 No cumulative effects on the water environment have been identified. Overall, the EIAR finds that, with both embedded and additional mitigation in place, the effect of the proposal on all water receptors, either individually or cumulatively, would not be significant, with the exception of conditions supporting two GWDTE. This impact, when assessed in relation to the overall impact on ecology, is not considered to be unacceptable.
Assessment
12.309 Generally, the assessment undertaken in relation to water resources is considered to be thorough and, in the main, the conclusions reached appear suitably robust.
12.310 SEPA expressed concerns, following the initial submission, about the dewatering likely to be required for the construction of the turbine bases and the consequent requirement for pumping into settlement lagoons. The SEI gave more information on this matter. The design for dewatering, collection and settling of suspended sediment (i.e. use of silt traps, fences, straw bales or lagoons) is proposed to be developed during the detailed design for the proposed development, should consent be granted. It is intended that this would be detailed and agreed with SEPA, as part of the Construction Site Licence.
12.311 Furthermore, it is proposed that dewatering activities are designed and implemented in consultation with SEPA on a foundation-specific basis, following completion of detailed ground investigations and micro-siting prior to construction. It has been confirmed by the applicant that it is anticipated that this requirement would be conditioned, with details to be confirmed pre-construction. In addition, it is intended that the finalised HMP would include habitat restoration to compensate for such potential effects.
12.312 This approach is considered reasonable and would seem to provide adequate mitigation for the potential effects of dewatering, subject to the application of appropriate conditions.
12.313 Overall, the EIAR and AI EIAR appear to have taken into account the OHLDP policy requirements, including those of Policy EI 3, and the points raised by consultees, with regard to demonstrating that the proposal has been designed to minimise any detrimental impact on the water environment. As such, subject to the mitigation identified, it is considered that the proposal would not conflict with OHLDP Policies EI 1, EI 2 and EI 3.
Aviation, defence, broadcasting and telecommunication
Policy context
12.314 Amongst other matters, paragraph 169 of the SPP requires proposals for energy infrastructure to take into account impacts on aviation and defence interests, and telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. In addition, paragraph 284 encourages planning authorities, airport operators and other stakeholders to work together to address planning issues relating to airports, such as safeguarding. Paragraph 292 of the SPP highlights the importance of digital infrastructure, in particular in island areas, and stresses that planning has an important role to play in strengthening digital communications capacity and coverage across Scotland.
12.315 The OHLDP Policy EI 8 requires proposals for renewable energy projects to demonstrate, amongst other matters, that the proposed development would have no significant adverse impact (including cumulative) on aviation, defence and telecommunications transmitting and receiving systems. Policy EI 10 recognises the importance of digital connectivity for social, economic and civil resilience. Policy EI 11 confirms that, for all development proposals, account will be taken of the advice of relevant agencies for safeguarding, including the Civil Aviation Authority, Highlands and Islands Airports, NATS, Ministry of Defence, and Meteorological Technical Sites.
12.316 The SG, in relation to aviation and defence, confirms that any potential aviation and/or defence constraints arising in relation to radar should be identified. In addition, any impacts on aviation and defence operations should be satisfactorily addressed and it should be demonstrated that aviation, defence and emergency services operations would not be compromised. This includes flight activity, navigation and surveillance systems, and other air safety, navigation, test or surveillance assets or systems.
EIAR
12.317 The EIAR Chapter 10 on Telecommunications and Aviation was updated and superseded by Chapter 10 of the AI EIAR. In addition, the AI Planning Statement updates and supersedes the original Planning Statement; Section 5.11 concerns aviation and responds to some of the issues raised as a result of the consultation on the EIAR.
12.318 The AI EIAR identifies potential receptors and considers predicted effects during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the development. The potential effects on television reception are considered in paragraphs 12.140 – 12.175 (Community Amenity) above. The AI EIAR outlines the design approach regarding these potential constraints and highlights consultation that was undertaken with organisations that own or operate infrastructure on or close to the application site, both pre-submission of the application and during the application process.
12.319 Some utility infrastructure and communication links could be affected by the proposal, but the design process undertaken has ensured that, wherever possible, the location of the proposed turbines would avoid affecting infrastructure or telecommunications interests. Where this has not been possible, the AI EIAR sets out mitigation measures that would be implemented so that these services would not be affected by the proposal.
12.320 The proposal has the potential to affect a 33kV pole mounted power line and an underground cable linking the Beinn Greidaig wind farm to the Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution (SHEPD) substation, as well as Scottish Water pipework near to the site entrances on the A859. However, all of these potential impacts could be addressed by appropriate mitigation, which could be secured by condition.
12.321 The proposal could affect the operation of microwave and scanning telemetry links than run across the application site. Initial consultation led to the development of buffers as part of the design approach for the proposal. Subject to the removal of micrositing tolerances in the case of one turbine, and the mitigation of microwave links, which could be secured by condition, the proposal is considered unlikely to have any adverse residual effect on these links.
12.322 NATS En-Route Ltd have objected to the proposal, due to conflict with current safeguarding criteria and the risk to operation of 2 links between Sandwick and Eitshal (Eitseal), potentially obscured by Turbine T8. This proposed turbine would be located in the same place as the consented Turbine T34. The applicant therefore anticipates that the same condition requirements would apply to the proposal as to the consented scheme. It can be expected that, as a result, mitigation would address the concern raised by NATS, with discussions ongoing to establish the most appropriate mitigation solution.
12.323 The MOD have indicated that the proposal would have no impact on air defence radar infrastructure, due to the distance between receptors, curvature of the earth and intervening terrain. The MOD have therefore not objected in this regard, but have highlighted the need for lighting to all 35 turbines, given their proposed heights. This would require medium intensity (2000 candela) red aviation warning lights fitted as close as possible to the top of all fixed structures. The AI EIAR indicates that this mitigation forms part of the proposed development and has been included in the assessment of effects.
12.324 HIAL has confirmed that, subject to lighting, no objections were raised to the proposal. They commented that the proposed turbines would need to be lit with a single aviation light, which has been taken into account in the EIA Appendix 6D (Night Time Assessment) and, together with the MOD lighting requirement, could be addressed by a condition of the consent. During the construction phase of the development, the two cranes likely to be required will also need to be lit, in accordance with the code of practice set out in BS7121. This requirement has also been taken into account in the assessment of likely effects set out in relation to Landscape and Visual Impacts (paragraphs 12.43 – 12.88).
12.325 HIAL has also indicated, pre-application submission, that the proposal represents a significant infringement to the safeguarded area for Stornoway Airport and its associated communication systems. It is a CAA requirement for HIAL to demonstrate that Air Traffic Provision would not be compromised or downgraded by the proposal and a safety case and full assessment will need to be submitted to them. A safeguarding assessment was undertaken for the consented scheme, which was agreed with HIAL and CAA.
12.326 In relation to the Meteorological Office radar, an objection has been received from the Met Office about the potential effects of the proposal on the radar at Druim a’ Starraig. However, subject to the implementation of a radar mitigation scheme, which could be covered by conditions similar to those applied to the consented scheme, the objection could be removed.
12.327 Having regard to the potential for cumulative impact, the AI EIAR considers that, as all potential effects on telecommunications, infrastructure and utilities can be or have been mitigated, no cumulative impact would occur as a result of the proposal. The scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable and would meet the relevant policy requirements.
Assessment
12.328 The turbines sit within safeguarding and consultation areas for HIAL (on behalf of the CAA), NATS, the MOD, and the Met Office, in relation to their Druim a’ Starraig radar on the Eye Peninsula (previously operated by the MOD). It is noted that the MOD does not object to the development.
12.329 NATS En-Route plc objects to the proposed development due to the risk to the operation of two links between Sandwick and Eitshal (Eitseal). A microwave link runs within 20m of the proposed location of T8 and the developer has stated that, due to other constraints, it has not been possible to relocate the turbine. However, having regard to the agreement reached in relation to the consented scheme, where similar issues arose, it is considered that an appropriate mitigation solution is likely to be found. Subject to this being secured, it is therefore considered that this issue is not one that should count against the proposal.
12.330 Both the Met Office and HIAL objections are considered similarly able to be addressed through appropriate mitigation, secured by condition. The developer has had detailed discussion with the Met Office regarding the need for a radar mitigation scheme for the consented development. Agreement has been reached regarding this mitigation and work has commenced on the required solution. It is understood that this mitigation solution is also suitable for the proposed development and, subject to a condition managing its implementation, it is considered that this would satisfactorily address this objection.
12.331 The development would infringe the safeguarding distances for Stornoway Airport. Due to the height and position of the development, a steady red omnidirectional aviation warning light of 200 candela would be required on the hub height of the turbines to address this issue. However, provided that this condition is met, HIAL would not object to the proposal.
12.332 Concerns raised in relation to telemetry and telecommunications are also considered able to be satisfactorily addressed by appropriate mitigation and restrictions on micrositing, which are also matters that could be secured by condition. It is understood that the objection received from JRC was based on the layout as shown at the scoping stage of the EIA process. The layout was revised to take into account the concerns expressed and the layout as submitted and revised is considered to meet the buffer requirements in this regard.
12.333 Subject to securing the identified mitigation and the application of conditions, it is concluded that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on aviation, telecommunication, broadcasting or defence. As such, in these respects, the proposal would meet the aims of the SPP and comply with OHLDP Policies EI 8, EI 10 and EI 11, and the provisions of the SG.
Borrow pits, roads and traffic
Policy context
12.334 The SPP highlights, in paragraph 234, that minerals will be required as construction materials to support the ambition for diversification of the energy mix. In paragraph 243, it states that borrow pits should only be permitted if there are significant environmental or economic benefits compared to obtaining material from local quarries; they are time-limited; tied to a particular project and appropriate reclamation measures are in place.
12.335 In relation to transport, the SPP paragraph 271 sets out the policy principle that plans and development management decisions should take account of the implications of development proposals on traffic, patterns of travel and road safety.
12.336 Paragraph 290 states that development proposals that have the potential to affect the performance or safety of the strategic transport network need to be fully assessed to determine their impact. Where existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate a development without adverse impacts on safety or unacceptable impacts on operational performance, further investment in the network is not likely to be required. Where such investment is required, the cost of the mitigation measures required to ensure the continued safe and effective operation of the network will have to be met by the developer.
12.337 Paragraph 291 goes on to indicate that consideration should be given to appropriate planning restrictions on construction and operation related transport modes when granting planning permission, especially where bulk material movements are expected, for example freight from extraction operations.
12.338 The OHLDP Policy ED5 states that borrow pits will be supported to allow the extraction of minerals near to or on the site of associated development, provided it can be demonstrated that there are significant benefits compared to obtaining the materials from local quarries and that criteria in relation to potential impacts have been addressed. The policy also confirms that consents for borrow pits would be time-limited, tied to the proposal and must be accompanied by full restoration proposals and aftercare.
12.339 The criteria referred to above include requirements to address potential impacts from disturbance, disruption, pollution, on communities and the local economy, on natural and historic heritage, landscape, the water environment, air quality, on land including carbon rich soils, waste management, the road network, and cumulative impacts.
12.340 The SG indicates that any requirement for temporary borrow pits will be required to accord with the OHLDP Policy ED5 and sufficient information should be provided to demonstrate that the proposal would meet the requirements of the policy and those of paragraph 243 of the SPP. In addition, the details provided should include a map of all the proposed borrow pits and detailed plans of each pit, in accordance with specific information requirements. The impact of the pits should be assessed in accordance with the Planning Advice Note 50 Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings, in particular paragraphs 52 and 53.
12.341 In addition, OHLDP Policy PD2 requires new roads to be safe and not compromise the existing road network. Road design and parking should be suited to the type, location, scale and circumstances of the development. Policy EI 9 highlights key priority areas for the upgrading and development of the transport infrastructure within and serving the Outer Hebrides, with criteria for new or improved traffic infrastructure or traffic management measures.
EIAR
12.342 The EIAR Chapter 4 provides details of the proposed borrow pits and Chapter 13 considers the potential traffic and transport impacts. These were updated, revised and superseded by the AI EIAR Chapters 4 and 13, and Appendix 13B, which considers the likely traffic impacts with and without the use of borrow pits. In addition, the revised AI Planning Statement, submitted as part of the SEI, provided a Borrow Pit Assessment as Appendix 3. This Borrow Pit Assessment was revised and superseded by Appendix E of the AI#2 submissions, provided as part of the SEI2.
12.343 The proposed development includes the provision of five on-site borrow pits, proposed as a source of aggregate for construction of wind farm tracks, turbine bases, crane hard-standings, the main construction compound and ancillary compounds, substation compound and the site office.
Roads and traffic
12.344 The assessment carried out in AI Chapter 13 considers the transport and traffic impacts with Option 1 (with no on-site borrow pits) and Option 2 (with on-site borrow pits). The AI Chapter 13 assessment also identifies and assesses the route for abnormal loads (EIAR Appendix 13A), which would be routed from Arnish Pier to the site using the A859.
12.345 Option 1 (without borrow pits) calculates that some 40,804 return journeys would be required during the construction phase for the 35 turbine proposal. This would result in an approximately 7% increase in total vehicle movements on the local road network, although it is predicted that this increase would not result in significant effects to the safety and convenience of other road users.
12.346 Option 2 (with up to 5 borrow pits) calculates that some 5,876 return journeys would be required during the construction phase, equating to about 1% increase of all vehicle movements on local road networks. Compared to Option 1, this would result in a substantial reduction in HGV movements associated with the construction of the proposal.
12.347 The AI Chapter 13 concludes that construction traffic associated with the proposal would result in no significant adverse effects for Option 1 and the impacts would be further reduced for Option 2. It identifies that improvements could potentially be carried out on the A859 and around the Arnish Pier. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would also be required, to further ensure no significant effects from the construction of the proposed development would occur.
12.348 The potential for significant cumulative effects with the construction of other wind farms (namely Muaitheabhal Beinn Mòr, Muaitheabhal Beinn East Extension and Muaitheabhal Beinn South Extension) has been considered within the AI EIAR. These were concluded to be unlikely.
12.349 Consequently, the AI EIAR finds that no significant effects on transport and traffic are likely to result from the construction and operation of the proposed development, including in relation to cumulative effects. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the OHLDP Policies PD2 and EI 9.
Borrow pits
➢ Proposal
12.350 The SEI2 Appendix E provides more information about borrow pits, including how they would be managed and restored post construction. The location of the proposed borrow pits are shown on the revised site layout plan, Ref AI#2 Figure 4.1, with site specific indicative plans of each borrow pit provided in Figures 4.12a-e of the EIAR.
12.351 The Revised Borrow Pit Assessment (rBPA) in the SEI2 Appendix E, indicates that, typically, aggregate extraction from borrow pits involves the installation of perimeter drains, the creation of sumps and silt traps, the removal of the upper layer of heather or grass, and the separation of extracted material, to be crushed within or adjacent to the borrow pit and separated into stockpiles for use as general fill, structural fill or topping material.
12.352 Extraction would involve the blasting of rock, with the methodology set out in a Quarry Management Plan. For the 35 turbine development, it is estimated that some 194,077 cubic metres of rock would be required. A phased restoration of the borrow pits is also proposed.
12.353 Even with the use of borrow pits on site, a limited amount of stone would need to be imported from existing on-island quarries for initial site set up works and to construct the section of track up to the first of the borrow pits. This is expected to be sourced from one or more of local established sources (such as Marybank Quarry, IA & C Maciver at Parkend Industrial Estate, Bennadrove Quarry, or Ceann an Ora Quarry).
12.354 A justification for using borrow pits rather than established sources is provided within the rBPA. It highlights the need for certainty that both the quantities required and the timescales for supply can be met, particularly at times of peak demand, without causing delay to the construction programme.
12.355 The consented development includes provision for the development of seven borrow pits within the site, as compared to the current proposed use of five pits. This would reduce the extent of peat extraction for the borrow pits from 124,126 cubic metres to 58,809 cubic metres, which is considered to be a substantial reduction in the loss or disturbance of peat due to borrow pits.
12.356 The rBPA also sets out the financial implications to the applicant of the use of borrow pits, using approximate figures. This indicates that the cost of using stone won on site would be some £2,717,078, whereas stone quarried off-site would cost some £6,986,772, representing a difference of about £4,269,694.
12.357 The rBPA also considers the impact on traffic movements with the use of on-site borrow pits, as set out above, whilst also identifying resulting reductions in potential noise impacts and lower emissions, and reducing risks to the environment, such as silt from access roads finding its way into watercourses, to a more condensed work area.
➢ Impacts
12.358 The effects of the borrow pits were considered within the landscape and visual impact assessment set out within the EIAR. This concluded that the development and operation of the borrow pits would contribute to a significant localised effect on the landscape character of the application site, within about 100-250m. There would be limited visibility of the borrow pit adjacent to the northern access point from the Pentland Road, and limited visibility of the other four borrow pits from parts of the A859, elevated vantage points and a small number of properties.
12.359 These effects would be temporary, however, as the borrow pits would only be operational during the construction phase of the development, and the borrow pits would be the subject of a detailed restoration plan. It is intended that this would draw upon the advice of a landscape architect and ecologist and implemented in agreement with the Comhairle, NatureScot and SEPA.
12.360 In relation to borrow pits, the AI EIAR has considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposal with borrow pits. It identifies that there would be some negative effects due to a direct loss of habitat (especially blanket bog) and an indirect effect on surrounding habitats due to the disturbances created during construction. A precautionary 25m disturbance distance is proposed around the borrow pits in order to reduce these potential indirect effects, with habitat mitigation in and around the borrow pits after construction, to mitigate some of this loss.
12.361 The rBPA highlights that the only potentially significant effects on geology, hydrology and hydrogeology relate to two low value ground water dependent terrestrial ecosystems on Cnoc Loch a’ Leadharain, around Borrow Pit A. The AI EIAR does not advocate micrositing for this borrow pit because, when considering the effects of habitats rather than the water conditions supporting these habitats, the overriding ecology assessment is focussed instead on the wider-scale wet heath and blanket bog habitat and the adoption of a Habitat Management Plan. However, an agreed water quality ‘monitoring and respond’ programme is recommended.
12.362 The rBPA also considers the potential impacts of the use of borrow pits on residential amenity, in relation to noise from blasting, dust generation and noise from construction traffic. Having regard to the EIAR and AI EIAR, it is considered that there would be no significant adverse effect from the creation of borrow pits on nearby residents, subject to the use of appropriate mitigation.
12.363 In terms of potential impacts on heritage assets, the use of borrow pits is not considered likely to result in significant effects on built assets. However, there is the potential for borrow pits to impact on as yet undetected buried archaeological remains, which could be mitigated through a written scheme of archaeological works, secured by condition.
12.364 The rBPA concludes that there is a clear need for borrow pits to support the development as proposed, they are in very close proximity to the development and their use would be time limited. Their potential environmental impacts would be relatively small and could be effectively addressed by suitable mitigation. Therefore, their use is considered to be acceptable.
Assessment
12.365 Having regard to the comments made by Comhairle Roads, the updated AI Chapter 13 is considered to demonstrate that the impact of the proposal on roads and traffic would be acceptable, subject to suitable mitigation. Whilst impacts would occur, these would be relatively limited, particularly with the use of on-site borrow pits.
12.366 The movement of large and abnormal loads would require careful planning and may require some improvement to existing infrastructure. However, these are matters that could be secured by legal agreement or condition, including the requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which should be drawn up in consultation with Comhairle Roads.
12.367 In relation to borrow pits, a full viability assessment has not been provided. However, the figures provided within the rBPA indicate that the use of on-site borrow pits would result in a cost saving to the applicant of over £4m. The source of these figures is based on recent projects that the applicant has been involved in and are stated to be very approximate. Nonetheless, even allowing for some degree of variation, the difference in cost would be considerable.
12.368 It has not been suggested that the use of off-site quarries would render the project unviable and the use of on-site borrow pits would result in a loss of potential revenue for existing quarry businesses. However, the cost benefits associated with on-site borrow pits coupled with the identified need to secure a timely and adequate supply are considered to represent sufficient justification to support their use in this case.
12.369 Furthermore, the use of on-site borrow pits would result in a considerable reduction in the number of HGV movements on the local road network during the construction phase of the development, compared to the use of off-site quarries, with consequent reductions in emissions, fuel consumption and noise, which adds further weight to the support for their use.
12.370 It is not considered that the significant localised landscape and visual effects of the borrow pits should be regarded as temporary, as the profile of the landscape would be altered post construction. However, it is agreed that a detailed restoration plan would be required and this could be secured by condition. This restoration plan should ensure that the restoration materials and techniques are suitable and that the sites blend into the surrounding topography. Steep faces would be expected to be graded out and disturbed surfaces resurfaced with peat previously excavated from the areas. As such, the likely residual impact is considered to be acceptable.
12.371 The assessment of the impact on ecology, geology, hydrology and hydrogeology is considered to be suitably robust and satisfactory mitigation has been proposed for the effects identified including, in particular, a Finalised Habitat Management Plan, which can be secured by condition. Similarly, it is considered that the use of appropriate conditions would adequately mitigate potential archaeological impacts.
12.372 The effects on residential amenity and living conditions are noted. Given the distances involved, it is considered that the potential requirements for blasting can be appropriately managed to avoid significant adverse effects. This can also be secured by condition, including the use of a Blasting Management Plan. Similarly, potential issues of dust are likely to be limited due to the distances involved; measures to minimise the generation of fugitive dust at the borrow pit faces can be required and controlled by condition, through the implementation of a Dust Management Plan.
12.373 It is recognised that the consented scheme would result in the creation of seven borrow pits. Consequently, the current proposal for five pits would reduce the amount of peat disturbance and the use of borrow pits, linked to a ‘just in time’ delivery process, would also remove the need for laydown and storage areas on site, which would otherwise result in further peat impacts. As such, in comparison, it is considered that the likely effects of the current proposal would be less than that of the consented scheme in these respects. This too is a matter that weighs in its favour.
12.374 Consequently, overall, it is concluded that, in relation to borrow pits, roads and traffic, the proposed development would meet the aims of the SPP and would be in accordance with the OHLDP Policies ED5, PD2 and EI 9 and the requirements of the SG.
Cumulative impacts and consideration of alternatives
EIAR
Cumulative Impacts
12.375 The EIAR Chapter 2, section 2.16 considers the assessment of cumulative effects. It confirms that these are assessed on a chapter by chapter basis within the EIAR (and AI EIAR where these topics have been updated), having identified the relevant common receptors and Zone of Influence for each topic covered. The assessment of cumulative effect considers the likely impacts in association with existing operational development, development that is under construction and development with consent, as sufficient information exists for these other developments to enable a robust assessment of cumulative effects, unlike proposals at any earlier stage of the development process.
Consideration of Alternatives
12.376 The EIAR states that national planning policies indicate that there is no requirement for renewable energy development to demonstrate an overall need for renewable energy generation. In addition, there is no need to justify such proposals being in a specific location, as the EIA and planning processes will consider the particular effects of a specific location and its overall acceptability. Moreover, consent has previously been granted for a renewable energy development in this location, which demonstrates that, in principle, the proposed development is appropriately located.
12.377 As such, whilst there is a requirement under the EIA process to report on the reasonable alternatives considered, this is restricted in the submitted EIAR (as amended) to the examination of alternative designs that were considered for the application site. Chapter 3 of the EIAR describes the design criteria, including the technology, size and scale of a wind farm.
Assessment
12.378 The consideration of potential cumulative effects is clearly set out within the EIAR and AI EIAR, and supplemented by the additional information provided within the SEI2. It is considered that the assessment undertaken is reasonable and appropriately identifies the range of potential cumulative effects that are likely to arise from the proposed development. Consideration of these effects has been undertaken in relation to each of the issues identified above and the assessment within this report reflects that process.
12.379 In terms of the consideration of alternatives, it is recognised that the application site reflects that of the consented scheme and, as such, the current proposal is, in itself, effectively an alternative proposal. The EIAR (as amended) includes direct comparison with the consented development where appropriate, as well as details of alternative design approaches for the development site, and it is considered that this provides sufficient information to demonstrate an adequate consideration of alternatives.
12.380 Moreover, the additional information provided in the SEI2 provides a clear indication of the potential impacts of the development in relation to ornithology, using a number of possible alternative layouts, and in relation to peat disturbance. It is also considered that the provision of this information demonstrates that potential reasonable alternatives to the development continued to be considered iteratively during the application process.
12.381 Consequently, overall, it is concluded that the EIAR (as amended) adequately considers the potential for likely significant cumulative effects of the proposed development and has satisfactorily considered potential reasonable alternatives to the scheme as submitted.
Comparison to consented development
12.382 A comparison of the layout of the consented development to that of the current application as originally submitted is shown on submitted Figure 9.1 Consented Development vs Proposed development (March 2019), included in Appendix 1 to this Report.
12.383 The principle of wind energy development on this site has been established by the current consent for a development of 36 turbines, with a height of 145m to blade tip. The topics above include comparison with this consented development, as appropriate. In many respects, the overall impacts are likely to be similar. However, a number of key differences between the two schemes have been identified.
12.384 In terms of benefits, the 35 turbine proposal would result in significantly less peat disturbance and loss compared to the consented development, including a reduced requirement for five borrow pits, compared to the previously consented seven. A reduction in the number of turbines would reduce its impact on peat disturbance even further.
12.385 Having regard to the comments of NatureScot, the removal of turbines T24 and T34 would result in the current proposal having no worse an impact on the range loss of golden eagles than the anticipated cumulative impacts likely to result from the existing and currently consented developments. In addition, in common with the consented scheme, the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the Lewis Peatlands SPA.
12.386 The significant adverse landscape and visual impacts would not be dissimilar to those of the consented scheme, with the exception of night-time lighting. The need for additional lighting of the turbines, due to their increased height compared to those previously approved, would result in a significant additional adverse impact. However, due to the location of the site relative to the town of Stornoway, the impact of this would be less than would occur in other locations, for example, on sites further from a developed area or sources of light.
12.387 In comparison to the consented scheme, the carbon loss payback period for the 35 turbine proposal would be slightly shorter (1.1 years or some 13.2 months, in contrast to 15 months) and the carbon savings would be higher (some 352,904 tonnes per year compared to 179,161 tonnes per year) with a proposed increase in capacity of some 16MW to 196MW.
12.388 It is anticipated that the removal of 2 turbines from the current proposal as originally submitted would affect the comparison of the proposed scheme relative to the consented development. The benefits in performance arising from the proposal would be likely to be reduced, as indicated in paragraphs 12.30 – 12.42 above. Nonetheless, the current proposal is considered likely to compare favourably to the consented development in this regard.
12.389 Greater benefits have been identified for the current proposal in relation to the local economy and job creation in comparison with the consented development. However, this change is primarily understood to relate to the methodology employed to assess the impacts and, as such, the two schemes are considered unlikely to be materially different in these respects.
12.390 Overall, in most respects, with the removal of two turbines T24 and T34, the impacts of the current proposal are considered likely to be no worse than those of the consented scheme. In relation to the loss of and disturbance to peat, the current proposal would represent a significant improvement in comparison to the consented scheme, whereas the requirement for additional night-time lighting would result in further significant adverse landscape and visual impacts.
Overall assessment of likely significant effects and planning balance
12.391 The principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable and, in terms of spatial strategy, the location of the proposed windfarm is considered to accord with policy, subject to detailed assessment of compliance with the provisions of the SG. In addition, the location of the site is comparable to that of the consented scheme, with a broadly similar layout for the turbines.
Positive impacts
12.392 In terms of potential significant positive impacts and benefits resulting from the proposal, considerable weight is given to the important positive benefits likely to result to the local economy, both in terms of overall investment and job creation. These would be particularly significant locally during the construction phase of the project, but are also likely to be materially beneficial during the operational and decommissioning phases. Furthermore, the proposal would make a strong positive contribution towards supporting the case for the Radial Connector, as it would help to ensure that a solid ‘needs case’ is in place.
12.393 Given the overall scale and predicted capacity of the proposal, it is considered that it would make a significant contribution to the delivery of renewable energy production and consumption, even with a reduction to 33 turbines. It would also make a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which, together with the total carbon saving resulting from the proposal, are considered to be a significant benefit of the scheme, which is accorded substantial weight.
12.394 It is considered that the proposal would be unlikely to be harmful to tourism. It would also have significant material benefits to recreation and public access, which are considered to carry moderate weight in favour of the proposal.
Neutral effects
12.395 The creation of borrow pits on site, rather than the use of existing local quarries, would result in significant peat loss and disturbance, and would result in a loss of potential revenue for local businesses. However, these borrow pits are considered to be justified, as they would meet an identified need to secure a timely and adequate supply of aggregate and would have significant cost benefits to the applicant.
12.396 Given the nature of the application site, the avoidance of peat disturbance in relation to its development would not be feasible. However, subject to the amended site layout plan and the application of appropriate conditions, it is considered that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development as amended would minimise disturbance of peat and avoid areas of deepest peat. The application submissions also identify the potential for very small carbon gains, due to the reinstatement of peat within borrow pits and improvement in peat quality elsewhere through mitigation measures, including the implementation of a finalised Habitat Management Plan.
12.397 Subject to the application of appropriate conditions and mitigation, the proposal would not be likely to result in harmful impacts on noise, shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference, or in relation to its ancillary development and infrastructure. Whilst there would be significant adverse visual impacts to some local residential occupiers, considered overall, these would not be unacceptably harmful to their living conditions.
12.398 Similarly, with appropriate mitigation and conditions, it is concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on aviation, telecommunication, broadcasting or defence. The submissions demonstrate that the proposal has been designed to minimise any detrimental impact on the water environment and the impact of the proposal on roads and traffic would be acceptable, subject to suitable mitigation. However, the absence of harm is neutral in its impact and weighs neither for nor against the proposal.
Negative impacts
12.399 In terms of landscape and visual impacts, due to the proximity of the proposed development to Stornoway, it would be likely to have significant adverse effects on the appreciation of the town and its landscape setting from the sea. The proposal would also result in widespread significant adverse effects on views extending to around 14km of the development. Night time lighting would also be a necessary feature of the proposal, which would incur significant adverse effects within approximately 10km of the development site.
12.400 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would not ensure that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained and the proposal would not relate positively to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area. Furthermore, due to the scale and number of turbines proposed, the scheme would have an unacceptable significant visual and landscape impact on the character of the Outer Hebrides and, as such, would not meet the requirements of the OHLDP and SG in this regard. It is considered that considerable weight should be given to this adverse impact.
12.401 In addition, the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the setting of the Lewis War Memorial and would result in a significant change to the perception and appreciation of the historic setting of the Stornoway Conservation Area and the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape. This harmful impact also carries considerable weight against the proposal.
12.402 In relation to ecology, it is considered that some potential adverse impacts could be adequately addressed by appropriate mitigation, such as replacement tree planting and otter mitigation measures, which could be secured by condition. Some significant adverse effects are likely to occur, particularly to blanket bog and wet heath habitats, and these impacts are given considerable weight. However, it is also considered that these impacts could be significantly reduced by the compensatory measures proposed, including embedded design mitigation measures and the use of careful control measures during the construction phase of the development.
12.403 It is concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of nearby Natura sites. However, considerable weight is given to the potentially significant adverse effects that may result to some bird species, including hen harrier.
Planning balance
12.404 Considered overall, it is concluded that the considerable weight given to the harmful effects identified above, including landscape and visual impacts, effects on the setting of heritage assets, blanket bog and wet heath habitat, and on birds, including nationally important species, would be clearly outweighed by the greater substantial and considerable weight given to the benefits of the scheme to renewable energy generation, climate change and carbon emissions, the local economy and employment, and the moderate weight given to public access and recreation benefits.
12.405 Consequently, it is concluded that the identified conflict with OHLDP Policies NBH1, NBH2 and NBH6 in these regards would be outweighed by the particular benefits of the development proposed, as set out above, which would be sufficient to justify support for the proposal overall.
12.406 It is also recognised that, with the exception of night time lighting, the landscape and visual impact of the proposal and its effect on the setting of heritage assets would not be materially different to that of the previously consented scheme. Subject to the application of appropriate conditions, suitable mitigation and compensation, and in light of the revised layout and the removal of two turbines, many of the other impacts of the amended current proposal would be similar to, or not materially worse than, the previously consented scheme.
12.407 Furthermore, in comparison with the consented development, the five borrow pits currently proposed would be fewer in number than the seven previously approved and the likely impacts of the proposal on the loss and disturbance of peat would be significantly reduced. In this respect, the current proposal would be clearly preferable to that of the previously consented ‘fall-back’ development, which is a matter that also weighs in favour of the current proposal.
PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS
13.1 Chapter 16 of the AI EIAR identifies the range and type of mitigation measures proposed to support the proposed development and reduce its effects on the environment. Appendix 5 includes the detailed wording of the conditions that are suggested should form part of the deemed planning permission, if the scheme is granted consent by the Scottish Ministers. Certain matters are considered more appropriate to address in the S36 consent, such as detailed aviation arrangements and Met Office radar requirements. For completeness, these issues have been noted at the start of Appendix 5.
13.2 In addition, certain matters have been identified for inclusion within a planning obligation (S75 legal agreement) between the Comhairle, the land owner and the applicant. The previously consented scheme was subject to a similar agreement, which is proposed to cover matters that are unable to be addressed by planning condition. Again, these matters are noted at the start of Appendix 5, for ease of reference and completeness. It is suggested that conditions should be applied to any deemed planning permission granted consent to cover the following matters:
• details of approved drawings and site layout, to confirm that consent is granted for the layout as revised in the SEI2 and with the removal of turbines T24 and T34; • design and operation details of the turbines; • signage; • design of sub-station and ancillary development; • micro-siting; • borrow pits - scheme of works; • borrow pits – blasting; • appointment of Planning Monitoring Officer; • appointment of Ecological Clerk of Works; • the approval of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan, including amongst other matters, a Pollution Prevention and Control Strategy, a Finalised Peat Management Plan and Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment, Drainage Management Strategy, Surface Water and Groundwater Management and Treatment Plan, Wetland Ecosystem Survey and Management Plan, Restoration/Reinstatement Plan ; • construction hours; • the approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan; • the approval of an Access Management Plan; • the approval of a finalised Habitat Management Plan, including amongst other matters individual species protection plans, protection, monitoring, and the delivery of off-site habitat improvement; • the appointment of an Archaeological Clerk of Works; • forestry – compensatory planting; • noise mitigation measures; • television reception; • telemetry scanning station scheme; • private water supplies; • redundant turbines; • aviation safety; • aviation lighting; and • site decommissioning, restoration and aftercare.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED VIEW
14.1 It is recommended that the view of the Comhairle on the proposal should be expressed to the Scottish Ministers, having considered the detail of the application to date, as amended, the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance, national planning policy, consultees’ responses and representations and other relevant material considerations.
14.2 The recommended view of the Comhairle recognises that there are aviation concerns that require further consideration by the developer and by Scottish Ministers. For the reasons set out above in paragraphs 12.391 – 12.407 (Overall assessment of likely significant effects and planning balance), it is concluded that the Comhairle as Principal Consultee should submit to Scottish Ministers the following: • Scottish Minsters should note the national importance of large scale wind farms in the Outer Hebrides in delivering the Radial Connector infrastructure and renewable energy targets; • The principle of this type of development in this location has previously been considered to be acceptable and, therefore, in principle, the Comhairle is supportive of the proposed development; • The developer has worked to address some objections and concerns with the relevant consultees and bodies since submission of the EIAR and this is reflected in the Supplementary Environmental Information and consultation feedback received, which is to be welcomed; • Two turbines (T24 and T34) merit exclusion from the development on ornithological grounds and the layout of the development should reflect that submitted on the site layout drawing Ref AI#2 Figure 4.1 (November 2020), included in Appendix 1 to this Report, with the individual locations of the turbines as reflected in Appendix C Peat Technical Note of the SEI2, to minimise the impact on peat loss and disturbance; • The Comhairle’s support, in principle, for this development is subject to the removal of the aviation objections from NATS En-Route being addressed before any consent is issued by Scottish Ministers; • Should the Scottish Minsters then be minded to approve the development, the Comhairle’s support, in principle, for this development is subject to: (i) The application of appropriate conditions on the s36 consent, including in respect of the Met Office radar mitigation measures, and the application of a suite of suggested planning conditions, as set out in Appendix 5, to ensure that specific matters will be addressed, including to secure the necessary mitigation and monitoring measures; and (ii) The completion of a planning obligation between the Comhairle, the developer and other interests before a consent is issued by Scottish Ministers, which addresses measures to ensure appropriate decommissioning and restoration, contributions to arrangements for monitoring of the construction by the Planning Authority, and other relevant matters. • The Comhairle is of the view that there is no public interest in holding a Public Local Inquiry for this Stornoway Wind Farm application and that an early decision is in the wider public interest.