PLANNING APPLICATION: 13/00615/EIA

In the event that a recommendation on this planning application is overturned the Committee is reminded of the advice contained on the front page of the agenda for Reports on Applications

The Proposal

Application (as amended) to erect 4 wind turbines (originally for 8 turbines) and associated infrastructure. Each 3-bladed turbine is 110m high to blade tip (70m hub height and a rotor blade diameter of 80m) with a nominally rated capacity of 2 - 2.3 MW. (Colour and finish of turbine to be agreed). Low voltage transformers and switch gear to be located adjacent to each turbine and housed in a grey cabinet (6 x 3 x 3m high) or located within each turbine. Each turbine would be sited on a 18m square concrete pad, approx 3m deep with an adjacent aggregate surfaced crane hardstanding, approx 20 x 39m. Site access taken from B9010 road with an existing 2.3km long track upgraded and thereafter, approx. 3.5km of new tracks created to connect the turbines. All tracks to be typically 5m wide with aggregate surface. At the end of the existing upgraded track there would be a single storey pitched roof substation and control building, approx. 9 x 13 x 5m high (external finishes not specified). The substation would be linked to the turbines by underground cabling mostly running along the edges of the proposed tracks. 3 borrow pits are proposed, one (BP1) using an existing gravel pit located near the beginning of the existing track off the B9010 access, and the other two pits are located in the upper part of the site adjoining the new access tracks. The pits will be used to provide material for track construction. A low concrete bridge is proposed over the River Lossie with a 12m main span and box culverts on either side (detailed design yet to be agreed). The bridge will replace an existing ford. In addition, 6 existing culverts will be up-graded and 4 new pipe culverts installed. Proposed connection to the national grid would be likely to the existing Dallas substation with cables likely to be routed underground. Details of this would be subject to a separate planning application, as required. There would be a temporary construction compound area located approx. 100m south of the B9010 site access incorporating a 60m lay-by.

The Site

The turbines are located on the northern sloping flanks of Cairn Uish over a habitat of moorland and blanket bog. The turbines are located immediately north and north-east of the existing Rothes Wind Farm (Phases I and II with a total of 40 turbines either 100 or 125 m high (to blade tip)). Access to the site is from the B9010 at the opposite side of the roadside pond below Kellas House. The turbines are sited some 2.5km south of the B9010, 1km south-west of the southern end of Glenlatterach Loch, and 1km east of the (landmark) hill, Mill Buie. The site is some 10km south-west of Elgin, with Dallas some 4.8km to the west and Kellas some 2.3km to the north. The site is not covered by any national or local landscape, natural or cultural heritage designation, except for the non-statutory Millbuies Site of Interest to Natural Science (SINS) and there are known archaeological assets within the site. For renewable energy purposes, the turbines (as amended) are located within an 'Area of Search' for larger turbines (80 - 130m high) and lie within the Landscape Character Type 9 'Upland Moorland and Forestry' (Moray Onshore Wind Energy: Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance 2013 and Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study 2012 refer).

Policy / Objections-Representations / Consultations - See Appendix

History

Planning history for this site:

12/01373/SCO - Scoping Opinion issued for 8 turbines at site 2.5km south of Kellas - response confirmed that EIA was required and environmental issues and potential impacts to be taken into account were identified.

For Rothes wind farm to the south:

01/02056/SCO - Construct and operate wind powered electricity generating station (28 turbines and ancillary works) at Cairn Uish Rothes Estate - granted permission under S.36 of the Electricity Act 1989 by Scottish Ministers (with turbines 100m to blade tip and 82 m rotor diameter) (Rothes I).

07/02800/S36 - Extension of wind farm at Rothes Wind Farm - granted permission under S.36 of the Electricity Act 1989 by Scottish Ministers (with 18 turbines, 125m to blade tip and 80m rotor diameter) (Rothes II).

To the west:

14/01087/EIA - Erection of wind farm comprising 10 wind turbines 126.5m high to tip [93m rotor diameter] and associated access track and ancillary infrastructure, erection of 1 permanent anemometer mast temporary formation of construction compound and erection of 2 temporary anemometer masts at Meikle Hill Dallas - currently under consideration.

Advertisement

Advertised as a departure from the development plan. Advertised for neighbour notification purposes. Advertised in accordance with the EIA Regulations 2011.

Observations

Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan i.e. the approved Moray Structure Plan 2007 and the adopted Moray Local Plan 2008 unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the main planning issues are considered below.

During consideration of the application and following negotiations, notably in relation to landscape and visual impact, the application was amended with the number of turbines reduced from 8 to 4 turbines. The northernmost line of turbines (T1 - T4) as originally proposed has now been omitted, whilst turbines T5 - T8 are retained and adjusted in their siting in order to be located within an Area of Search and relate better to turbines within the Rothes wind farm. (In the amended details, these turbines are also renumbered as T1 - T4). The height of the turbines remains unchanged. The application is being determined on the basis of the amended proposal for 4 turbines.

In accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 the original application for 8 turbines is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES). With the reduction in the number of turbines, a Kellas Wind Farm Amendment (the Amendment) document was submitted. Apart from a re-assessment of landscape and visual matters, the Amendment indicates that with the reduced number of turbines as now proposed, the other issues covered in the ES are deemed not to require further assessment, with the impact(s) as previously identified in the ES remaining unchanged or now reduced in their significance.

As originally submitted, the proposal was considered to depart from the development plan, including policy ER1 and IMP1 based primarily on landscape and visual considerations and a proposal that was not wholly located within an Area of Search (see below). As amended, all four turbines are now located within an Area of Search. As a result, the extent of integration and the resultant landscape and visual impact of the reduced number of turbines within the surrounding area is now considered acceptable and in satisfying other elements of relevant planning policy, the proposal is now considered acceptable in policy terms and is no longer regarded as a departure from the development plan (see below).

Policy Context The Moray Structure Plan 2007 (MSP) strategic aims include the promotion of economic opportunities and diversification of the local economy, and also safeguarding and enhancing the environment and mitigating any impacts caused by new development. Policy 2 (l) supports the strategy by "promoting opportunities for the sensitive development of renewable energy". Compliance with these strategic aims is assessed primarily through local plan policies ER1 and IMP1 which seek to establish the criteria by which a wind farm can be acceptably accommodated into a rural setting. Following consideration, the amended proposal promotes an opportunity for a sensitive development which would support the aims of structure plan policy.

Policy ER1 of the Moray Local Plan 2008 (MLP) refers specifically to renewable energy proposals where, to be considered favourably, the proposed development must meet a number of criteria. Commercial wind energy developments should be located within a 'Preferred Search Area', as identified in wind energy guidance and meet a range of criteria set out in policy ER1. The term "Preferred Search Area", as originally defined within the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Wind Energy Planning Guidance (WEPG) (2005), has now been replaced by "Area of Search" as defined in the Council's up-dated Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance: Moray Onshore Wind Energy (MOWE) (March 2013).

A number of related and relevant local plan policies also apply and inform consideration of various specific criteria in policy ER1 and IMP1. The latter requires all development to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced, and integrate into the surrounding landscape, etc.

The Council's Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance: Moray Onshore Wind Energy (March 2013) (MOWE) sets out the Council's approach in considering and determining planning applications for wind energy proposals. It includes detailed information requirements and issues expected to be addressed in applications and at the pre-application stage. The MOWE sets out the Council's overall strategy for wind turbine development including a spatial framework assessing the capacity to accommodate four different typologies of turbines (based upon height rather than the output or number of turbines) relative to landscape character areas identified in the Council's Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study (2012) (MLCS). The MOWE expects developers to demonstrate how their proposals can be integrated into the Moray landscape and requires them to assess their proposals against the MOWE/MLCS guidance.

Within the MOWE, the term "Area of Search" refers to "... areas with the greatest scope for further investigating the feasibility of developing a wind farm. Areas of Search status do not imply a presumption in favour of granting planning consent. When assessing proposals, regard will be had to the development plan policies, spatial frameworks, development guidelines, additional guidance and the Moray Wind Turbine Landscape Study." (MOWE, Map 8 refers). Unlike the original proposals, the 4 turbines which now form part of the amended proposal are all located within an Area of Search.

The proposal falls within the large typology of turbine (80m and over to blade tip), and is located within the "Upland Moorland and Forestry" (9) Landscape Character Type (LCT) where there is "Some limited scope to accommodate further large scale typologies. The more defined landmark hills of Brown Muir, Mill Buie and Carn na Cailliche should be avoided with development being sited in lower lying areas set well back into the interior of these uplands to minimise landscape and visual impacts on adjacent sensitive well settled and smaller scale landscapes. Small hills and ridges which lie on the outer fringes of these uplands and form the immediate skyline to smaller scale valleys should be avoided. Intrusion on the key approach along the A940 should be avoided ..."

The MOWE includes requirements for a minimum safeguarding distance or "buffer zone" of 2km around towns, villages and rural communities, and a 1km "buffer" around rural residential properties. As amended, the proposed turbines are all located within an Area of Search and therefore they take account of, and satisfy these spatial requirements.

Additionally, and reflecting national guidance, the MOWE requires all wind developments to meet a x10 rotor diameter requirement from regularly occupied buildings to address amenity and safety considerations in particular noise pollution, ice throw and shadow flicker (Scottish Government online advice also refers). These requirements are also achieved for the amended proposal.

The Council's Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study 2012 (MLCS) is a material consideration in the determination of applications both in its own right, and as an integral part of the MOWE guidance. The MLCS considers the landscape and visual capacity of the (same) four typologies of turbines (based on blade tip height) as outlined in the MOWE, whether for single turbines or groups of turbines relative to the various identified landscape character types (LCTs). These are based upon (and refine) the landscape character types identified in SNH's Moray and Nairn Landscape Character Assessment 1998. The MLCS represents the most up-to- date landscape character assessment for Moray and has been prepared in partnership with SNH.

From the MLCS, this development is located within the Upland Moorland and Forestry LCT wherein overall sensitivity is judged to be medium for large (over 80m high) turbine typologies. In addition, the MLCS requires that development on the more defined 'landmark hills', such as Mill Buie should be avoided, which is the case here.

A number of factors contribute towards the sensitivity of the LCT within which the proposal is located (see MOWE, Map 8 and 13). To consolidate the established pattern of larger typologies within this particular LCT, thus minimising cumulative effects that could occur with different sizes and designs of turbines in all landscapes, the MLCS requires wind energy developments to follow the established pattern of larger wind farm developments already associated with these less sensitive landscape areas where their more extensive scale can better accommodate and provide an appropriate wider setting to such large developments. Impacts on adjacent, more sensitive, smaller-scale settled landscapes should be minimised by setting development well back into the upland interior and also considering limitations on the height of turbines.

As material considerations, National Planning Framework (NPF3) and Scottish Planning Policy (2014) (SPP) set out national policy regarding renewable energy proposals. The Scottish Government web-based renewables advice identifies a number of factors to be taken into account in determining the location of turbines. These criteria are related, or are similar to those identified in adopted local plan policy ER1, which require to be met and ensure any renewable energy proposal can be considered favourably. Although proposed at the draft consultation stage, and contrary to the views expressed in representations received on this proposal, neither document stipulates a requirement that turbines should be no closer than 2.5km to settlements.

At a national level, international, EU, UK and Scottish policy frameworks are generally supportive of renewable energy developments. NPF3 encourages a mix of renewable energy technologies. In encouraging the development of a spatial framework to identify areas most likely to be appropriate for onshore wind energy and identifying criteria to be considered in determining applications, SPP requires the planning system to support the change to a low carbon economy consistent with national objectives and targets including 100% of electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020.

As a material consideration in the determination of this application and whilst generally this wind farm would be consistent with the UK and Scottish Government's energy policy, delivery of the proposed total generating capacity of 9.2 MW (max) would only make for a very limited rather than any substantive or significant contribution towards achieving objectives for energy supply and energy targets and/or in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Landscape/Visual Impact (Policy 2 l), ER1, IMP1, MOWE and MLCS) Wind turbine developments are inevitably prominent due to their height, but based on policies and guidance referred to above, an assessment needs to be made on whether an unacceptable impact upon landscape character and visual impact occurs and whether the proposal integrates with the surrounding rural environment.

Chapter 7 of the ES and later, the Amendment, considers the landscape and visual impact of the development for the original and the amended proposals respectively. Although prepared for the original proposals, the ES provides a landscape and visual assessment of the likely impacts and concludes that there will be no significant impact upon the wider landscape surrounding the site. The proposal is not located within any specific landscape designation and taking into account the effects of intervening distance, landform and vegetation cover, the impacts (effects) on any designated national park, area of great landscape, and inventory garden and designed landscape are all assessed at best as moderate and not significant. With the amended proposals and whilst not assessed in the Amendment, the resultant impact on such designations from a reduced number of turbines would also be likely to be no greater than before, if not reduced.

In terms of landscape and visual impacts on adjoining LCTs, from settlements and transport routes (except that along the B9010), no significant direct effects are identified in the ES. Indirect effects owing to visibility and prominence are assessed as being not significant because of mitigating effects including intervening distance, landform and vegetation cover, and although the turbines may be seen to breach the skyline they will appear to visually relate to, and be read as part of the adjoining Rothes wind farm. With the amended proposals reducing the number of turbines and being located slightly further away from settlements including Kellas, the effects are likely to remain similar or be reduced.

For the original proposal, the ES includes an assessment of the impact of the turbines on residential properties in the immediate area, where all properties within 2km of the nearest turbine are either abandoned or derelict. A significant effect is identified for the nearest occupied property, 'Craighead', located just over 2km from the turbines and occupied by the Kellas Estate Manager. From the primary windows and front garden of that property, the blades of the Rothes turbines already feature in views and the northernmost line of the turbines as originally proposed would be visible against the skyline and prominent due to their closer proximity to that property.

With the amended proposals removing the northernmost line of turbines and taking account of the intervening topography and (slight) increase in distance to/from the amended turbine positions, the existing orientation and primary outlook from Craighead towards turbines will not significantly change. In these terms together with the proposal also satisfying the separation distances required by the MOWE (to address visual and other effects) it is not considered that there would be an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity of that property.

Unacceptable effects of original proposals In the ES, major/moderate and significant effects are identified along the B9010 where turbines are visible on the skyline and located adjacent to, and appear to add to those of the Rothes wind farm, and/or where screening is limited, generally in views up to 4 - 5km from the site (see viewpoints 1 and 5 from Pikey Hill and Dallas respectively). The ES also concludes that direct effects on the sensitivity of the (Upland Moorland and Forestry) LCT in which the turbines are sited are moderate/minor but not significant because of the proximity of the proposal to the Rothes wind farm and the extent to which it defines this section of the landscape.

However, the Council's Landscape Architect considered that the ES did not fully address all the key constraints for this LCT, including account of the proposal being sited on the outer edge of this upland area and the resultant increased intrusion on the adjacent smaller-scale settled Lossie Valley. In particular, the most northerly turbines (originally numbered T1 - T4) were sited too close to the outer edge of the uplands, increasing their dominance and intrusion on the Lossie Valley and resulting in obvious contrasts in size with the operational Rothes wind farm. This was evident in the visualisations for the original proposals (see viewpoints 2, 5, 26 and 27) where turbines T1 - T4 appear particularly large, being seen between 2.7 (from Kellas) and 4.9km (from Dallas) from the B9010 and/or residential properties within the Lossie Valley. (A number of representations also consider the turbines as originally proposed would be prominent and dominant from Kellas).

The turbines appear large in relation to the Rothes wind farm turbines because the latter are more set back into the uplands. Additionally, they are sited in a slight dip, reducing the vertical extent of the turbines. This obvious contrast in size (height), together with some overlapping of turbines from the two developments would have resulted in a confused and cluttered appearance in views from the B9010 (see viewpoint 2, where the hubs of turbines T1 - T4 sit above the blade tips of the Rothes turbines and additionally, the presence of the transmission line tower adds to the clutter and congested layout of overlapping turbines).

Furthermore, as the Council's Landscape Architect comments, the original proposal would have also increased the extent of the large turbines seen on the upland skyline from the Lossie Valley. Here, with T1 - T4 being the most prominent, the turbines would also breach the partial screening afforded by the landmark hill, Mill Buie which contains the edge of the Lossie Valley, and they would also appear to "tip down" the outer slopes of Mill Buie (see viewpoint 5, Dallas).

As a result of the unsatisfactory effects of the original proposals, it was concluded that whilst not wholly located within an Area of Search, the turbines were located within the Upland Moorland & Forestry LCT which has some limited capacity to accommodate wind turbines, provided they are sited in the lower lying area set well back into the interior of this upland area, to minimise landscape and visual impacts on the adjacent sensitive well-settled and smaller-scale landscapes including the Lossie Valley along the B9010. In accordance with the Council's Landscape Architect's advice, it was recommended that turbines 1 - 4 be omitted from the development, and the remaining turbines 5 - 8 be reduced in height and/or repositioned to avoid the intrusion of blades seen on the skyline from the eastern part of the Lossie Valley in the Dallas area.

Amended proposals Following this advice and after discussion with the applicant, the proposals have been substantially amended, with the number of turbines reduced from eight to four. Although their height has not been reduced there has been a slight adjustment in the siting of the turbines.

From the Amendment, the significance of views from a number of viewpoints has been re- assessed and two additional viewpoints (26 and 27) are included. The Amendment concludes that the 4 turbines sit well within the visual envelope of the Rothes wind farm rather than extend their horizontal spread and improve the aesthetics of the scheme. In some views they appear as the same scale as the existing turbines, thus not causing clutter or odd visual experiences when travelling along the B9010, or they do not "top" the hill, or are not visible. For each viewpoint assessed, the magnitude of change, and significance of impact has been reduced.

The Council's Landscape Architect considers that the omission of the outermost four turbines (T1 - T4) has considerably lessened the intrusion on the adjacent smaller-scale, settled upper Lossie valley and ensures that a section of the B9010 is largely free of views of wind turbine development sited in the adjacent uplands where the slopes of the landmark hill, Mill Buie provide containment. Furthermore, the relationship of the proposed 4 turbines to the operational Rothes wind farm, in terms of compatibility of scale, is improved. The Kellas proposal lies very close to the Rothes wind farm and although in some views the two wind farms seen in combination is not optimal, in terms of design layout, this is nevertheless acceptable because of the changing nature of views and general compatibility of turbine size. In addition, the extent and prominence of turbines upon the skyline of Mill Buie is much reduced and existing woodland also provides a degree of screening of the blade tips of turbines 3 and 4 (as amended).

On balance therefore, and with all 4 turbines now located within an Area of Search, the proposals have a reduced impact in terms of no significant adverse landscape and/or visual effects being identified as well as appearing to better integrate within the surrounding area. As such, the amended proposals are acceptable in landscape and visual impact terms and therefore are considered to accord with, rather than depart from, development plan policy and guidance.

Whilst the Council's Landscape Architect indicates that it would have been preferable to have reduced the height and position of the remaining four turbines, to ensure that no turbine blade tips are visible between Dallas and Kellas, it is understood that the options for obtaining a lower turbine comparable in design to those used in the Rothes turbines are limited and may prevent this. Similarly, a recommendation to re-position Turbine 1, to reduce the extent to blade visible from Dallas is limited based on other site constraints.

Given the potential for adverse landscape and visual effects to occur within the amended proposals, the Council's Landscape Architect considers that it is important to ensure that the positions of the turbines are not significantly altered during construction. To address this it is not recommended that a micro-siting allowance be included as part of any permission, meaning that any proposed change, for example in terms of the siting or height of the turbines will require to be submitted/approved prior to any change being carried out.

Similarly, the location and design of the sub-station will also require further appraisal to mitigate its visual intrusion upon the Lossie Valley. Given the current absence of external finish details for the sub-station within the submission, a condition to address this is recommended.

Impact on Natural Heritage (Policy 2, ER1, E1 E2, IMP1) Chapter 6 of the ES gives consideration to the impact and effects of the development on ornithology and ecology interests on and around the site. The assessments includes regard to breeding birds (including protected and migratory bird species and potential mortality risks for birds colliding with turbine blades and power lines) and to badgers, otters and voles, and bats as well as habitats and vegetation surveys. From the former, there were limited or no recorded presence of bird species within the area and for the latter, no rare/scarce or uncommon plant species were recorded with bog, heath and peat habitats found typically within the site.

As a result the ES identifies no significant effects occur in ornithological and ecological terms with no mitigation required, and the layout of turbines and tracks has been designed to avoid sensitive areas of habitat and vegetation interests including peat with various site construction and management practices proposed to address any residual risk. The scale of the project and significance of the impacts is considered unlikely to warrant a Habitat Management Plan to help compensate for loss of habitat, disturbance to species, etc.

Following consultation, SNH has not objected to the development, noting that the proposal will not adversely impact on any statutory nature conservation designation, or protected species although conditions are recommended to clarify details about the impact on breeding birds, on wetland habitats and of the presence of herring and common gulls. Similarly, RSPB Scotland also concur that no significant impacts on bird populations are likely to occur but they recommend post-construction monitoring surveys to address and take account of wider cumulative effects of wind turbine developments. The latter goes beyond the scope of the current proposal. Given the extent of the development, the proposal is not considered to adversely affect the non-statutory SINS designation which covers the site.

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on nature conservation (ecological and ornithological) interests, and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance.

Impact on Built Heritage (Policy 2 (f), ER1, BE1, BE2) Chapter 9 of the ES gives consideration to the impact and effects of the development on cultural heritage and archaeology interests on and around the site, including direct and indirect (setting) effects. For the former there are no site-specific built heritage interests covering the site, hence no significant direct effects are identified. In terms of indirect effects and within the wider area, the ZTVs indicate the turbines will be visible to two Category A Listed Buildings (in particular Kellas House) and five Category B listed buildings (including Dallas Lodge) but all effects are low or minor and not significant owing to the effects of turbines seen together with the Rothes wind farm and where visibility is limited by intervening distance, topography and woodland cover. Following consultation, Historic Scotland agrees with the assessment for Kellas House, and has not objected to the development.

The ES acknowledges the known archaeological interest within the development site with no or minor impacts occurring. Given the limited extent of proposed ground disturbance during construction the likelihood of encountering remains of archaeological significance is considered low. Following consultation, Aberdeenshire Archaeology Services recommend a condition for a walk over survey to be undertaken prior to commencement to record and identify any items of interest.

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on the built environment (cultural heritage and archaeological) interests, and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance.

Impact on Surface and Groundwater Hydrology and Hydrogeology (Policy 2, ER1, EP5, EP6, EP7, EP8, EP9, IMP1) Chapter 10 of the ES gives consideration to the impact and effects of the development in hydrological and hydrogeological terms, with most potential effects expected to occur during the construction phase and at or adjacent to areas where infrastructure is proposed. Where possible, effects have been mitigated as part of the design of the scheme but where initial impacts (of moderate or less significance) are not alleviated then additional mitigation is proposed to ensure the residual effects become negligible or slight in significance. These may be managed, for example through use of best practice and other control procedures introduced to reduce the risk of pollution and contamination upon groundwater, etc to be identified within a proposed site- specific construction method statement.

According to the ES, the impact on river flows and flooding are limited and the new bridge crossing and other watercourse works will be designed to minimise the impact on the current watercourse morphology, and the routing of the access tracks is designed to avoid areas of peat.

Following consultation, SEPA has not objected to the development and issues raised regarding wetland ecology, environmental management and pollution prevention, groundwater hydrology, water levels in the borrow pits, and water runoff in relation to the tracks, etc can be adequately addressed by a planning condition requiring a site specific construction environmental management plan (CEMP) to be submitted/approved. A condition is also recommended regarding details for the final design/location and works involved in the proposed bridge over the River Lossie. Although not objecting, Scottish Water also require further information to demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely affect the public drinking water supply within the Glenlatterach Reservoir catchment area in which the proposal is located.

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on contaminated land, drainage and flooding, pollution prevention, peat and watercourse engineering interests, and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance.

Impact on Transport and Access (ER1, T2, T5, IMP2, IMP1) Chapter 15 of the ES gives consideration to the impact and effects of the development in traffic and transportation terms, with most traffic effects associated with the 12 month construction phase. Aggregate material for the tracks will be sourced from up to 3 on-site borrow pits to reduce the number of HGV trips on the public road. In line with the MOWE guidance the turbines are well away from any public roads, so the minimum safeguarding distance is observed (1.5 x turbine height away from public roads). The proposed permanent and temporary compounds will include space for vehicular parking.

The turbine delivery route is anticipated from Invergordon via the A9, A96 and then onto the B9010 from Dr Grays roundabout to the site access opposite Kellas House. To mitigate effects on the trunk and local road network a road management plan will be prepared to identify all required/proposed traffic management measures, vehicle delivery routes and schedule including that for abnormal loads, and all accommodation works, including temporary signage and markings, etc. Impacts of traffic noise and vibration, disruption and delays to drivers and pedestrians, accident risks, dust and dirt, etc are all identified as negligible or minor and not significant and temporary in effect.

Following consultation neither Transport Scotland or the Transportation Manager object to the development, but a number of conditions are recommended to ensure the impacts on the trunk and local road networks are addressed including the need to safeguard or re-instate any parts of the public road network affected by the proposed development, details of the finalised delivery route arrangements, the design of the site access, and a Traffic Management Plan to address the transportation implications of the development, particularly at the construction stage.

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects in transportation and traffic generation terms, and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance.

Impact on Noise (Policy 2k, ER1, EP8, IMP1) Chapter 8 of the ES gives consideration to the impact and effects of the development upon the noise amenity of local residents during operation of the turbines. The ES concludes that the development would meet noise constraints for day and night noise levels formulated on the same basis as that for the Rothes wind farm extension at the nearest noise sensitive premises, both individually and cumulatively with the Rothes turbines. The ES concludes that the proposed turbines could be accommodated in noise terms without unacceptable impact on surrounding property and without the need for mitigation.

Following consultation, the Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the development and recommends conditions specifying noise levels to be observed during operation of the turbines. Addition conditions regarding construction working hours, etc are also recommended.

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on noise interests (including impact on the amenity of any nearby noise sensitive receptors), and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance.

Impact on Shadow flicker (MOWE) Chapter 12 of the ES gives consideration to the impact and effects of the development upon local amenity caused by shadow flicker, the optical effect caused by the intermittent obstruction of a light source by a moving object. Shadow flicker occurs under certain combinations of geographical position, time of day and year. Both Scottish Government renewables advice and the MOWE guidance recommend/require that a turbine be no nearer to residential property and all regularly occupied buildings respectively than x10 the rotor diameter. Beyond this distance the effects of shadow flicker upon amenity are considered unlikely to occur. In this case, for a maximum rotor diameter of 80m, a minimum distance of 800m should be provided.

Although undertaken for the original proposals, the ES concludes that no properties fall within the x10 rotor diameter zone of potential shadow flicker. The same conclusion can be reached for the amended proposals. However, as a precaution and in the event of any complaint regarding shadow flicker, the Environmental Health Manager has recommended that the matter be investigated and rectified by mitigation measures, as appropriate.

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects in terms of shadow flicker and would accord with relevant guidance.

Impact on aircraft activity (ER1) Chapter 11 of the ES gives consideration to the impact and effects of the development upon aircraft activity. The ES concludes that the proposal does not breach any CAA published safeguarding guidance for licensed and unlicensed airfields and aerodromes, and with Easterton airfield over 5km away, no consideration of potential height obstacle is required. At the time of preparing the ES, discussions were ongoing with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) after the latter had advised that the development may impact on their air traffic radar.

Following consultation and for civil aircraft operations, there are no objections on air safeguarding grounds from national air agencies or from Inverness and Aberdeen airports. For military aircraft activity, and after initially objecting to the proposal on grounds of radar interference and hazards to low flying, the MoD has now withdrawn its objection subject to conditions requiring agreement on a radar mitigation scheme and the display of lighting on the turbines once erected.

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on aircraft activity interests and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance.

Impact on Electromagnetic Interference (ER1) Chapter 11 of the ES gives consideration to the impact and interference effects of the development upon telecommunications and television signals. The ES concludes that no significant interference effects occur, hence no mitigation measures are required and although no adverse impact is identified for television reception this does not preclude potential disturbance effects occurring once the turbines are operational.

Following consultation, consultees including Ofcom and other network operators have not objected to the development. As a precaution, and in the event of any complaint(s) being received regarding interference to television signals or to telecommunication fixed link systems, conditions are recommended requiring the applicant/developer to investigate and rectify any effect(s).

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on electromagnetic interference interests and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance.

Socio Economic Impact (Policy 1 b), 1e), 2, ER1, T7, CF3, IMP1) Chapter 16 of the ES gives an overview of the socio-economic effects (employment, tourism and recreation) associated with the development.

The ES identifies a positive benefit arising in terms of local employment opportunities in creating jobs, improving the local economy and improving electricity supply. However, the latter effects are not quantified. For the former, opportunities for 15 - 20 construction workers are identified but the size of the local service team during operation of the turbines is not specified. Although intending to use local contractors and personnel, where possible, this cannot be guaranteed.

The ES indicates that whilst difficult to quantify, tourism is important to the local economy and reference is made to published studies which conclude that for the majority of tourists, wind turbines are not a major factor in their decision to visit an attraction. Whilst the turbines would be theoretically visible in views from a number of tourist attractions within 10km of the site, no significant negative impacts occur.

As the site is not currently used for outdoor access purposes the proposal would have a minimal effect on public access during the construction period with any impact being temporary and of short-term duration. By improving access to the site and the surrounding area with access tracks being formed, no significant adverse impacts would arise during the operational period. The ES considers the visual presence of the proposal may deter some users of any nearby promoted path/core path route or some participants engaged in other recreational pursuits (e.g. angling/fishing, shooting/stalking, and golfing/field sports) but overall, these impacts are considered as minor but not significant.

Following consultation, the Moray Access Manager has not objected to the proposal subject to conditions regarding preparation of a Public Access Plan to promote access, including the development of connecting paths between the vehicle track ends to allow for circular routes for access users, and for the signposting of existing tracks where access is suspended due to ongoing works.

From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on tourism and recreational interests. Whilst not quantified, positive benefits will arise in economic and employment terms. As such, the proposal would be considered to accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance.

Impact upon Woodland (E3, ER3) Most of the area involved in the development is upland moorland. Following consultation, the main potential impact on woodland is in relation to the excavations involved in relation to the Borrow Pit 1. Providing the excavations are kept to the existing extent of this borrow pit there should be no detrimental impact on this area of ancient woodland surrounding. Subject to a condition to address this, the Forestry Commission Scotland has no objection to the proposal.

Decommissioning (ER1, MOWE) Local Plan Policy ER1 and MOWE require decommissioning arrangements to be made for wind energy proposals at the end of their lifetime (typically a 25 year period). This proposal is not dissimilar from other wind turbine developments where apart from indicating that the effects of decommissioning may be similar to those expected during construction, the actual arrangements for decommissioning, expected here to take 2 - 4 months to complete, are the least well developed at the time of promoting the scheme. The ES notes that the above ground level elements of the development would be removed whilst foundations, tracks and hardstandings would be covered over with topsoil and re-seeded, all in accordance with a decommissioning programme to be agreed prior to the commencement of decommissioning works.

To address this conditions are recommended requiring the restoration arrangements to be submitted/agreed together with a requirement that a financial bond or similar is in place to ensure sufficient funds are in place and available to cover all aspects of the decommissioning process including removal of turbine infrastructure and reinstatement of the site and that the bond is reviewed at regular intervals during the lifetime of the permission to ensure it remains sufficient to meet the necessary costs of the decommissioning works.

Developer Contributions/Community Benefit (IMP3) In light of previous Committee decisions regarding wind turbine developments, no developer contributions have been assessed/sought for the proposal and as the issue of any community benefit arising from the development is not a material planning consideration; any funding arrangement should be considered separately and independently of the planning merits of the proposal.

Conclusion and Recommendation National policy is generally supportive of renewable energy development in relation to identified energy targets. Given the size/scale of the amended proposal, the positive contributions towards targets for renewable energy generation and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would be limited rather than substantive in nature. Whilst not fully quantified, the contribution to the local economy through job opportunities or improving electricity supply in Moray would also likely be limited.

Local planning policy presumes in favour of wind energy developments subject to meeting a range of criteria. The original proposal (for 8 turbines) was considered to result in unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impacts, and was not wholly sited within an Area of Search. The amended proposal - for 4 turbines - has addressed both concerns to an extent where the proposal would not result in adverse landscape and visual effects, and together with its proximity to the operational Rothes wind farm it would integrate more sensitively within the surrounding area. Individually and cumulatively, and in all other respects, and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable adverse effects on the environment and the proposal would accord with the development plan.

It is recommended that the amended proposal be granted planning permission.

REASON(S) FOR DECISION The Council's reason(s) for making this decision are:-

With the number of proposed turbines reduced from 8 to 4 turbines together with adjustment in their siting/location, the amended proposal - for 4 turbines - is no longer considered to result in unacceptable landscape and visual effects and would integrate more sensitively within the surrounding area. Individually and cumulatively, and in all other respects, and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate otherwise.

Author/Contact Officer: Maurice Booth Ext: 01343 563274 Planning Officer

Beverly Smith Manager (Development Management)

APPENDIX

POLICY

Moray Structure Plan 2007 and/or Moray Local Plan 2008

ER1: Renewable Energy Proposals

Renewable energy proposals will be considered favourably where they meet the following criteria: a. they are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and natural environment b. they do not lead to the permanent loss or permanent damage to, prime agricultural land, c. they are compatible with tourism/recreational interest and facilities, they do not interfere with aircraft activity, d. they do not result in an unacceptable impact in terms of visual appearance, landscape character, noise, electro-magnetic disturbance, watercourse engineering, peat land hydrological impacts, pollution, traffic generation or damage to the local ecology, and e. they do not result in an unacceptable cumulative impact.

Proposals are required to provide “decommissioning arrangements” to illustrate how the site will be reinstated if and when the plant ceases to operate. This may be enforced through a section 75 agreement.

Commercial wind energy developments should be located within a Preferred Search area identified in the Wind Energy Policy Guidance and meet the above criteria.

IMP1: Development Requirements

New development will require to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced appropriate to the amenity of the surrounding area. It must meet the following criteria: a. the scale, density and character must be appropriate to the surrounding area, b. the development must be integrated into the surrounding landscape, c. adequate roads, public transport, and cycling and footpath provision must be available, at a level appropriate to the development, d. adequate water, drainage and power provision must be made, e. sustainable urban drainage systems should be used where appropriate, in all new developments f. there must be adequate availability of social, educational, healthcare and community facilities, g. the development should, where appropriate, demonstrate how it will incorporate renewable energy systems and sustainable design and construction. Supplementary Guidance will be produced to expand upon some of these criteria, h. provision for the long term maintenance of public landscape and amenity areas must be made, i. conservation of natural and built environment resources must be demonstrated, j. appropriate provision to deal with flood related issues must be made, including the possibility of coastal flooding from rising sea levels and coastal erosion, k. pollution, including ground water must be avoided, l. appropriate provision to deal with contamination issues must be made, and m. the development must not sterilise significant workable reserves of minerals, prime quality agricultural land, or preferred areas for forestry planting. n. where appropriate, arrangements for waste management should be provided.

EP9: Contaminated Land

Development proposals on potentially contaminated land will be approved if: a. site specific risk assessments are undertaken by the applicant to identify any actual or possible significant risk to human health or safety, or to the environment and that any previous historic uses are not continuing to cause significant pollution to the water environment, and b. effective remediation measures are agreed to ensure the site is made suitable for any new use granted consent, and c. appropriate measures for the disposal of any contaminated material is agreed with the Council.

The Council will consult SEPA in respect of pollution of controlled waters and licensing issues arising from remediation works.

Policy T2: Provision of Road Access

The Council will require that a suitable and safe road access from the public highway is provided to serve new development and where appropriate any necessary modifications to the existing road network to mitigate the impact of development traffic, and the provision of appropriate facilities for public transport, cycling, and pedestrians. Access proposals that have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape and environment that cannot be mitigated will be refused.

SPP17 details that there will be a presumption against new accesses onto a trunk road, and that the Scottish Executive will consider the case for such junctions where nationally significant economic growth or regeneration benefits can be demonstrated.

T5: Parking Standards

Proposals for development must conform with the Council’s policy on parking standards.

Policy EP8: Pollution

Planning applications that are subject to significant pollution such as noise, including RAF aircraft noise, air, water and light will only be approved where a detailed assessment report on the levels, character and transmission of the potential pollution is provided by the applicant to show how the pollution can be appropriately mitigated. Where the Council applies conditions to the consent to deal with pollution matters these may include subsequent independent monitoring of pollution levels.

EP7: Control of Development in Flood Risk Areas

Proposals for development in areas considered to be at risk from flooding will only be permitted where a flood risk assessment to comply with the recommendations of National Guidance and be satisfactory to both SEPA and the Council is provided by the applicant. The assessment must demonstrate that any risk from flooding can be satisfactorily mitigated without increasing flood risk elsewhere. New development should not take place if it would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or would materially increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere. Due to continuing changes in climatic patterns, the precautionary principle will apply when reviewing any application for an area at risk from inundation by floodwater. The following limitations on development will also be applied to take into account the degree of flooding as detailed in National Guidance; a. in areas of little of no risk (less than 0.1%) there will be no general constraint to development. b. areas of low to medium risk (0.1% to 0.5%) will be considered suitable for most development. However, these areas will generally not be suitable for essential civil infrastructure such as hospitals, fire stations, emergency depots etc. Where such infrastructure has to be located in these areas or is being substantially extended, they must be capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events. c. in areas of medium to high risk (0.5% or above)

i. in built up areas most development may be acceptable if flood prevention measures exist, are under construction, or are planned.

ii. essential civil infrastructure will generally not be permitted.

iii. undeveloped and sparsely developed areas are generally not suitable for additional development. Exceptions may arise if a location is essential for operational reasons.

EP6: Waterbodies

The Council will approve proposals affecting waterbodies where the applicant provides a satisfactory report that demonstrates that any impact (including cumulative) on river hydrology, sediment transport and erosion, nature conservation, ecological status or ecological potential, fisheries, water quality, quantity and flow rate, recreational, landscape, amenity, and economic and social impact can be adequately mitigated. The report should consider potential impacts up and downstream of the works particularly in respect of potential flooding. Opportunities for the enhancement of biodiversity and nature conservation should be considered. SNH and SEPA will be consulted on proposals.

EP5: Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)

Surface water from development should be dealt with in a sustainable manner that avoids flooding and pollution and promotes habitat enhancement and amenity. All sites should be drained by a SUDS system or equivalent. A Drainage Assessment will be required for developments of 10 houses, or greater than 100 sq metres for non residential proposals. Applicants must agree provisions for long term maintenance to the satisfaction of the Council, SEPA and Scottish Water.

E2: Local Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity

Development proposals which will adversely affect Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Interest to Natural Science, Ancient Long Established or Semi Natural Woodland, raised peat bog, wetlands, protected habitats or species or other valuable local habitats or conflict with the objectives of Local Biodiversity Action Plans will be refused unless it is demonstrated that; a. local public benefits clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, and b. there is no suitable alternative site for the development.

Where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat or species of importance exists on the site, the developer will be required at his own expense to undertake a survey of the site’s natural environment.

Where development is permitted which could adversely affect any of the above designated sites the developer must put in place acceptable mitigation measures to conserve and enhance the site’s residual conservation interest.

Development proposals should protect and where appropriate, create natural and semi natural habitats for their ecological, recreational, landscape and natural habitat values.

Policy IMP3: Developer Contributions

Contributions will be sought from developers in cases where, in the Council’s view, a development would have a measurable adverse or negative impact on existing infrastructure, community facilities or amenity, and those contributions would have to be appropriate to reduce, eliminate or compensate for that impact.

Where the necessary contributions can be secured satisfactorily by means of planning conditions attached to a planning permission, this should be done, and only where this cannot be achieved, for whatever reason, the required contributions should be secured through a planning agreement.

Policy ER3: Development in Woodlands

Development proposals within woodlands will be refused where this development would adversely affect the biodiversity or recreational value of the woodland or prejudice the management of the forest.

CF3: Countryside Recreation: Access and Trails

Development proposals will not be permitted which prejudice rights of way, identified paths and trails for non-motorised public access, inclusive of routes from the statutory Moray Core Paths Plan and the wider Moray Local Access Development Plan. Continued monitoring of impact will be required in environmentally sensitive areas.

BE1: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and National Designations

National Designations

Development proposals will be refused where they will adversely affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments and nationally important archaeological sites or their settings unless the developer proves that any significant adverse effect on the qualities for which the site has been designated are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.

Local Designations

Development proposals which will adversely affect sites of local archaeological importance, or their settings, will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that; a. local public benefits clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site, and b. there is no suitable alternative site for the development, and c. any adverse effects can be satisfactorily mitigated at the developers expense.

Where, in exceptional circumstances, the primary aim of preservation of archaeological features in situ does not prove feasible, the Council shall require the excavation and researching of a site at the developers expense.

The Council will consult Historic Scotland and the Regional Archaeologist on development proposals which may affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological sites.

BE2: Listed Buildings

The Council will encourage the protection, maintenance, enhancement and active use of listed buildings.

Development proposals will be refused where they would have a detrimental effect on the character, integrity or setting of the listed building(s). Alterations and extensions to listed buildings or new developments within their curtilage must be of the highest quality, and respect the original structure in terms of setting, scale, materials and design.

The demolition of listed building(s) will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of retaining the building and that the community would benefit from the redevelopment. All applications for the demolition of listed buildings should be supported by a report on the condition of the building, a study on the viability of retaining the building in active use, a report on the steps taken to advertise and market the building and, the proposals to recycle existing building materials into the future use of the site. Any proposed replacement of a demolished listed building should be of comparable quality in terms of construction and design.

Buildings which are allowed to fall into a state of disrepair may be placed on the Buildings at Risk Register and remedial works to buildings in disrepair may be enforced in the public interest.

Proposals should be in accordance with guidelines laid out in Historic Scotland’s Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings with regard to listed building consent applications.

E1: Natura 2000 Sites and National Nature Conservation Sites

Natura 2000 Designations

Development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site will be subject to an appropriate assessment. Where an assessment is unable to conclude that a development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, development will only be permitted where:- a. there are no alternative solutions; and b. there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest. These can be of a social or economic nature, except where the site has been designated for a European priority habitat or species. Consent can only be issued in such cases where the reasons for over- riding public interest relate to human health, public safety, beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or other reasons subject to the opinion of the European Commission (via Scottish Ministers).

National Designations

Development proposals which will adversely affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s) or National Nature Reserves will be refused unless the developer proves that: a. the objectives of designation and overall integrity of the site will not be compromised, or b. any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the site has been designated are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance

E3: Tree Preservation Orders and Controls on Trees

The Council will serve Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on potentially vulnerable trees which are of significant amenity value to the community as a whole, or trees of significant biodiversity value.

Within Conservation Areas the Council will only agree to the felling of dead, dying, or dangerous trees. Trees felled within Conservation areas or subject to TPO protection should be replaced, unless otherwise agreed with the Council.

The Council may attach conditions on planning consents ensuring that existing trees and hedges are retained or replaced. An applicant will be required to survey and identify those trees to be protected within the development site. A safeguarding distance should be retained between mature trees and proposed developments.

When imposing planting or landscaping conditions on certain developments especially in rural areas, the Council will specify the use of native species of trees and will prioritise the re- establishment and extension of hedgerows and/or shelterbelts.

T7: Cycling, Walking and Equestrian Networks

The Council will promote the improvement of the cycling, walking, equestrian and motorised sport path networks within Moray. It will give priority to the path networks and to long distance routes including the Aberdeen to Inverness National Cycle Route and the Speyside Way. Development proposals that adversely impact on the routes and cannot be adequately mitigated will not be acceptable.

Dependant on funding the Council will examine the possibility of an extension of the Elgin to Lhanbryde footpath network.

Policy IMP2: Development Impact Assessments

The Council will require applicants to provide impact assessments in association with planning applications in the following circumstances: a. an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required for all developments that are likely to have significant environmental affects under the terms of the EA regulations. b. a Transport Assessment (TA) is required for developments that raise significant transport implications such as additional peak hour traffic, traffic late at night in a residential area or road safety concerns. The indicative thresholds contained in the related guidance to SPP17 will be used. However it should be noted that Transport Assessments could be required no matter the size of the site. Moray Council will develop its own thresholds and promote these through Supplementary Guidance which will be subject to stakeholder consultation before adoption. Moray Council's Roads Service can assist in providing a screening opinion on whether a Transport Assessment will be sought. c. a full Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) will be required for all retail proposals of 1000 square metres gross or more outwith designated Town Centres. For smaller developments the Council may require a retail statement to be prepared by the applicant. d. where appropriate, applicants will be asked to carry out other assessments e.g. noise; air quality; flood risk; badger or bat surveys to confirm the compatibility of the development proposal.

Policy 1: Development and Community

The policy set out below identifies the strategic community development requirements for the delivery of the structure plan strategy-

The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: a) the identification within the local plan of the business and industrial land allowances set out in Schedule 1 and the provision of strategic business locations at Elgin and Forres Enterprise Park and business park opportunities at Buckie, Keith and Lossiemouth; b) the encouragement of tourism development opportunities; c) the identification within the Local Plan of the housing allowances set out within Schedule 2; d) the provision of affordable housing in association with new housing development where a demand is identified in the Local Housing Strategy; e) the encouragement of low impact, well-designed development in the countryside to support local communities and rural businesses; f) sustaining the vitality and viability of town centres through the support of opportunities and proposals for retail and commercial development in accordance with the sequential approach; g) promotion of the strategic transport links as set out in Proposal 2; h) the protection and enhancement and new provision of facilities for community use, healthcare, sport and recreation; i) the inclusion within Local Plans of a policy requiring appropriate developer contributions towards healthcare and other community facilities.

Policy 2: Environment and Resources

The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: - a) protecting international, national and local nature conservation and scenic designations from inappropriate development; b) protecting the wider natural environment and local biodiversity from inappropriate development and promote opportunities for environmental enhancement and restoration where possible; c) working in partnership with the Cairngorms National Park Authority and other interested parties to implement the objectives of the National Park; d) restricting development within coastal areas outwith settlements to only that in which social and economic benefits outweigh environmental impact; e) providing protection from development to the countryside around the towns of Elgin, Buckie, Keith, Forres and Lossiemouth; f) conserving and enhancing the areas built heritage resources and their settings; g) supporting proposals aimed at regenerating the area’s natural and built environment including good design; h) providing waste management facilities to deliver Area Waste Plan and National Waste Plan objectives and ensuring that new development is designed to facilitate waste management practices and promotes the minimisation of waste; i) promoting sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in all new developments; j) promoting schemes to alleviate flooding in a sustainable and sensitive way using natural ecosystems and features where possible and also restricting development within flood risk areas following the guidance set out in the Risk Framework in SPP7: ‘Planning and Flooding’ and promoting flood risk management schemes to tackle flooding that threatens existing development and considering development proposals against the Flood Risk Framework set out in Table 5; k) safeguarding the area from pollution and contamination; l) promoting opportunities for the sensitive development of renewable energy and promoting renewable energy in new development; m) safeguarding resources for the production of minerals, preferred forestry areas, and prime agricultural land.

OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS

NOTE: Following the determination of this application, name and address details will be /have been removed (i.e. redacted) in accordance with the Data Protection Act (paragraph 3 of Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services Committee 16 September 2014 refers) a) 9 representations (OBJECTIONS) received from

Mr Stephen Thomas, Dunrobin Burnside Road Lhanbryde IV30 8PA Mr Norman Forteath, Old Schoolhouse Kellas Elgin Moray IV30 8TS Ms Macs Dixon, The Kennels Kellas Elgin IV30 8TS Mr Alistair Gill, Post Office House Kellas Elgin Moray IV30 8TS Catriona Forteath, Old Schoolhouse Kellas Elgin Moray IV30 8TS Jodie Forteath, Old Schoolhouse Kellas Elgin Moray IV30 8TS Stewart And Lesley Johnston, The Old School Kellas Elgin Moray IV30 8TS V A Naylor, Allt Na Craiobh Kellas Elgin Moray IV30 8TS J P Dacre, An Halle Kellas Elgin Moray IV30 8TS

The main grounds of objection are:

Contrary to policy Issue: Proposal contrary to national policy guidance requiring wind turbines to be built not closer than 2.5 km of a settlement. Not all turbines are sited within an area of preferred search. Comment: The guidance i.e. National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy (2014) as introduced in June 2014 do not include the earlier draft consultation specification for a 2.5km minimum separation distance between turbines and settlements. The Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance sets out the spatial framework for wind energy developments and includes a 2km separation distance between turbines and settlement and 1km from rural property. In the original proposal, not all of the turbines were located within an Area of Search (replacing the term Area of Preferred Search) but this is achieved with the amended proposals and all four turbines are located within an 'Area of Search'.

Impact on landscape character Issue: Visual impact from borrow pits during construction and the pits are massive, will blight the landscape and are disproportionate to the size of the wind farm. There is also a concern that after excavation these will not be filled in and the ground re-instated. Comment: Borrow pits are proposed to provide an on-site aggregate material source for use on the development, reducing the need for importing material onto the site. Following consultation, Scottish Natural Heritage and Council's Landscape Advisor have not objected to the landscape impact of the pits. A condition is recommended requiring the restoration of the borrow pits at the end of the construction period when there should be no longer any need for them.

Impact on historic character Issue: Proposal will compromise and have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Category 'A' listed building, Kellas House. Comment: Historic Scotland raise no objection is this respect. Kellas House and its related structures are at a reasonably substantial distance from the turbines and are substantially screened by trees.

Visual impact Issue: Visual details should include the existing Rothes turbines and include details of views from Kellas. This has not been assessed in terms of individual and cumulative impacts. The existing turbines already spoil the natural beauty of the area and the new turbines are higher and brought closer to Kellas. Adding turbines will have a greater impact on Kellas, and being taller and closer to it, the increased visibility of turbines will be far more intrusive than the existing Rothes wind farm as they will be seen more easily and dominate the skyline. The Environmental Statement indicates that no significant effects occur outwith 5km of the site, so at 2.3km away Kellas would be adversely affected. With turbines some 460 feet above the village and the majority sited within 2.5km of Kellas, they will appear very dominant and overbearing as they come down the side of the valley towards the village. This dominance is accentuated by the turbines (blades) being of similar size as those on taller towers than the original Rothes turbines. This proposal is not an extension of the existing Rothes scheme but a new site and as a standalone development it will be more than a little overbearing and dominant, and have greater cumulative visual effects. Comment: The viewpoints selected are those which are considered to give a reasonably representative assessment of the likely impact of the turbines whether upon Kellas or the surrounding area. These details have enabled an appropriate assessment of the visual impact of the turbines, to an extent that the original proposal was considered unacceptable in terms of the impacts highlighted in views along the B9010 corridor. The amended proposals reduce the number but not the height of the turbines and remove the northernmost line of turbines as originally proposed. The location of the remaining turbines are set further back from Kellas, thus reducing their intrusive and dominant presence and they no longer appear to extend down the valley side. Whilst still evident in some views, the location/siting of the amended proposals relate better visually with the surrounding area, including the landscape character type designation within which they are located, to an extent that the amended proposals are considered to be acceptable rather than having an unacceptable adverse visual effect on the surrounding area.

Noise Impact Issue: Existing noise from existing Rothes turbines is intrusive (depending on direction of wind) and with proposals at Kellas, cumulative impact of increased noise especially when added to the wind farm to the south. Comment: Following consideration, the Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the development subject to conditions to mitigate and address potential individual and cumulative noise effects.

Impact on wildlife Issue: Impact on wildlife including badgers, bats, wild cats and birds. The studies lack depth and detail and understate the effects on an area rich in wildlife and the development including the access road will disturb invasive species. Comment: Following consideration of the Environmental Statement, Scottish Natural Heritage has not objected to the development as the effects, direct or indirect, are unlikely to be significant although conditions are recommended to address ecology impacts. In addition, RSPB Scotland has not objected to the development as having a significant impact on bird species.

Access and Road Safety Issues: The larger vehicles and other traffic generated during construction, including the delivery of long load/turbine components will have a detrimental effect and cause significant traffic and road safety problems to both general road users and emergency vehicles on the B9010 which is narrow and in a poor state of disrepair. The proposed access to the site will necessitate major alterations at an already dangerous accident spot. Access should be taken via the existing Rothes wind farm to the south. Comment: Given the scale of the turbines and the extent of installation work involved it is inevitable that there will be some disturbance and disruption effects in relation to the highway network whether in forming the site access or from deliveries to/from the site. Such effects are however temporary and limited to the construction phase. Subject to conditions as recommended, including a Traffic Management Plan the Council's Transportation Manager has not objected to the development. Subject to conditions to address the impact of abnormal deliveries on the trunk road, Transport Scotland has also not objected to the development.

Impact on watercourses Issue: Proposal will have adverse effect on watercourses from pollutants and water run-off from the site. Comment: Following consultation, SEPA has not objected to the development and to address all pollution prevention and environmental management risk, and to control pollution of air, land and water during the construction phase, a condition is recommended requiring a construction environmental management plan to be submitted/approved.

Other issues Issue: Lack of a proper justification for the turbines and what will they be used for? With very little employment being generated, is the development for the applicant's financial benefit? Comment: This is not a planning issue.

Issue: Proposals described as an extension when they are in fact a new wind farm. Comment: The formal description of the application does not state that the proposal is for an extension to the existing Rothes wind farm development. Rather, the proposal is for a standalone development of four new turbines (reduced from eight turbines), separate from the Rothes development however, because of its close proximity it will in some views be seen in combination with that adjacent development and appear visually as an extension to it.

Issue: Houses in Kellas close to the site not informed/notified. Comment: The proposals were notified in accordance with the current regulations. Wider publicity to the development was afforded as a result of the public advertisement of the proposals, and all representations as received have been taken into account.

Issue: Loss of property value. Comment: This is not a material planning issue.

Issue: Why can the turbines not be sited to south of the existing wind farm complex where they would have minimal extra impact on the area and they would not need to be so large Comment: Irrespective of the suggested alternative location, the Council is required to determine the proposal as submitted and on its individual merits. b) 28 representations (in SUPPORT) received from

J Thomson, 46 Brodie Drive Bishopmill Elgin IV30 4LW Mr Edward Gormanley, Craighead Kellas IV30 8TS Theresa Craig, 40 Chandlers Rise Elgin Moray IV30 4JE R Meldrum And C Hamilton, 26 Jamieson Drive Elgin IV30 6FS Owner/Occupier, Tounnaig High Street Conon Bridge Dingwall IV7 8HA L Hill, 2 Westmoreland Street Fochabers IV32 7DT Owner/Occupier, 13 Ashgrove Cottages Elgin IV30 1UU Owner/Occupier, 2 Glebe Crescent Kinloss Moray IV36 3HG Ross MacPherson, Waterford Farm Cottage Forres IV36 3TN Scott Hanton, The Smithy Kintessack Forres IV36 2TG Cliff Forsyth, 32 St Margarets Crescent Lossiemouth Moray IV31 6RG Craig Short, 14 White Road Forres Moray IV36 1FB Robert Fraser, 17 Reiket Lane Elgin Moray IV30 6HT E And G Hamilton, 14 Mannoch Court Elgin Moray IV30 6YT Aileen Andrew, 87D High Street Elgin Moray IV30 1EA Owner/Occupier, The Croft Archiestown Aberlour Moray AB38 7QX Owner/Occupier, 2 Glebe Crescent Kinloss Moray IV36 3UG Stewart Sheils, 35 St Margarets Crescent Lossiemouth Moray IV31 6RF R Rattry, Cairnlea Knockando Aberlour Moray AB38 7RX Duncan Isaac, 2 Chanory Road South Elgin IV30 6NG Sandra Duncan, A & I Supplies Ltd Edgar Road Elgin IV30 6YQ S J McClarchey, 93 Macdonald Drive Lossiemouth IV31 6LH Arther McKerron, Oakview Morriston Road Elgin IV30 6UL Neil Paton, 13 Woodland Walk Lossiemouth IV30 6JP A H Murray, 97 Duncan Drive Elgin IV30 4NH P Love, A & I Supplies Ltd Units 4 - 7 Edgar Road Elgin IV30 6YQ Aaron MacConnachie, 24 Barlink Road Elgin Moray IV30 6HL F A V Jurgens, Spy Far Kellas IV30 8TS

The main points of the representations include:

Beneficial impact of the development for the area as it would help to secure the future of Kellas. Estate as a successful local business and local employer. Contribution to reducing harmful CO2 emissions. Contribution to the economy through business rates and job creation. Wind turbines are seen to be an acceptable form of development. The project is relatively small compared with the existing development. Proposal should not have a negative impact on the landscape or local community. Proposal only has a limited life. Comment (PO): The number of representations received in support of the proposal exceeds those submitted against the proposal, although only two representations have a "local" Kellas address. The comments refer to positive benefits likely to accrue from the development, draw comparison and note the proximity of the proposal relative to the existing Rothes wind farm, or concur with the findings of the ES about the non-significant effects of the proposal upon the surrounding landscape and area in which the development is located.

CONSULTATIONS

(Note: responses as indicated are based on amended proposals)

Aberdeen Airport - No objection.

NATS - No safeguarding objection.

Contaminated Land - No objection.

Scottish Water - No objection in terms of direct impact on water and waste water mains. Further information required in relation to implications of development in relation to the Glenlatterach public drinking water supply including clarification about distances of turbines relative to required buffer zones around water courses in the Glenlatterach catchment and the measures including precautions to ensure water quality is not adversely affected during wind farm activities including a dedicated Environmental Health Officer to be appointed and present on site to assess and monitor any damaging effects of caused by the development.

Access Manager - No objection subject to condition regarding Public Access Plan to include development of connecting paths between tracks and provision for alternative access arrangements during construction. In terms of encouraging enhanced access rights in relation to new development proposals there is limited regard for this in the supporting documentation.

Highlands & Islands Airport Limited - No objection subject to development being notified to Civil Aviation Authority.

RSPB – No serious concerns with these proposals which will not have a significant impact on birds in the local area but would seek an assessment and post-construction monitoring of the cumulative impact in relation to larger wind farm developments (existing and proposed) within the immediate area.

JRC - No objection.

Atkins Global Telecommunications - No objection.

Ofcom - No objection.

Aberdeenshire Archaeology Services - No objection subject to condition regarding a 'walk- over' survey being carried out prior to works first commencing.

MOD - No objection subject to conditions regarding an Air Traffic Control Mitigation Scheme to be submitted/approved and installation of approved lighting on the turbines.

Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions including specification of noise levels not being exceeded, construction hours, details of turbines, etc

Historic Scotland - No objection as the proposal does not raise issues of national significance.

SEPA - No objection subject to condition regarding a Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Transportation Manager - No objection subject to the conditions including a survey of the delivery route, road improvement/highway strengthening, agreement of turbine and delivery vehicle access, visibility details, junction improvements and traffic management plan, etc.

Scottish Natural Heritage – For amended proposals, refer to previous comments on original submission where proposal unlikely to have significant adverse effect, directly or indirectly upon any designated site and impacts on protected species - including birds – are unlikely to be significant but further information is required on measures to address ecology impacts on all species of breeding birds, for example through a Construction Method Statement. Measures to ensure that water quality is not compromised should adequately address potential impacts on aquatic species and the developer/applicant should implement measures to minimise impact on habitat and species and develop management practices to achieve this and enhance bio-diversity (which may include consideration of a Habitat Management Plan). In landscape and visual terms, the principle impact (of the original proposals) is the additional cumulative impact with this proposal appearing alongside the Rothes wind farm development as one large development with further iteration recommended to improve the visual relationship between the developments. Although not significant, the landscape and visual impacts of the buildings and tracks should also be considered.

Planning Gain Unit - No contribution required.

Transport Scotland (response from term consultant, JMP Consultants Ltd) - No significant traffic or associated environmental impact on trunk road and conditions recommended relating to deliveries by abnormal load vehicles on the trunk road.

Forestry Commission - Objection withdrawn subject to condition that extent of BP1 is restricted to that of the existing borrow pit and that no additional tree felling will occur.

Development Plans - The 8 turbines as originally proposed were located partially within an Area of Search and had an adverse landscape and visual impact. In terms of the revised proposals, together with comments from the Council's Landscape Architect, the reduction in number of turbines has addressed the primary landscape and visual impact concerns and the proposal accords with the policies of the Moray Local Plan 2008, Moray Structure Plan 2007, The Moray Onshore Wind Energy Policy Guidance 2013 and Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study 2012. Some consideration should be given to repositioning Turbine 1 to reduce the extent of turbine blade visible from the Dallas area.