Argyll and Bute Council Planning and Regulatory Services
Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______
Reference No : 14/01978/PP
Planning Hierarchy : Local Development
Applicant : RES UK and Ireland Ltd
Proposal : Erection of 14 wind turbines (up to 110 metres high to blade tip), upgrading of road junction with A83(T) and improvements to C20, construction of access tracks, control building and sub-station, transformers, anemometer masts and ancillary development.
Site Address : Blary Hill, land north of Arnicle, Barr Glen ______
DECISION ROUTE
Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
• Erection of 14 wind turbines (110m to blade tip, 70m to hub height) with a total installed generating capacity of up to 28MW; • Upgrading of existing road junction with A83T; • Improvements to the C20 Barr Glen road; • Construction of internal access tracks; • Erection of control building, sub-station and transformers; • Erection of anemometer mast and ancillary development; • Temporary 10m communication mast; • Temporary enabling works including construction compound with car park.
(ii) Other specified operations
• Clear felling of forestry and subsequent compensatory planting; • Installation of underground cabling; • Connection to national grid at Carradale; • Working of two borrow pits (subject of requirement for separate planning permission); • Land preparation works including drainage; • Landscaping and ecological management, and
• Off-site improvement of existing farm access west of the A83(T) opposite Glenbarr Primary School (subject of separate application 14/01979/PP to be considered separately). ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the application is refused for the reasons appended below. ______
(C) HISTORY:
10/00760/PP - Erection of temporary 80m meteorological mast for 2 years – Approved 14/07/2010
11/00306/PP - Erection of temporary 81.5m meteorological mast – Approved 04/05/2011
13/00702/PP - Erection of temporary 81.5m meteorological mast for a period of two years (renewal of planning permission 11/00306/PP) – Approved 28/05/2013
Adjacent Site 11/02525/PP - Erection of 3 wind turbines (100 metres high to blade tip) control building, new and improved access tracks and ancillary development (Auchadaduie) – Approved 21/07/2014
Opposite Side of the Glen 14/00132/S36 - Section 36 consultation for the proposed Creggan Wind Farm. An objection to the originally submitted proposal was issued by the Council to the Scottish Government Energy Consents & Deployment Unit on 22/08/2014. In response, the applicants have elected to revise their proposal and a further consultation in respect of the amended scheme is currently under consideration.
Associated Access Works Currently Under Consideration 14/01979/PP - Temporary hardstanding for a turning area associated with abnormal loads accessing the proposed Blary Hill windfarm, Land west of Glenbarr Primary School, A83(T), Glenbarr, – Pending determination ______
(D) CONSULTATIONS:
Area Roads Manager - Report dated 11/09/2014 The Area Roads Engineer has not raised any concerns relating to the proposal subject to conditions being attached to any permission. However, the applicant should be aware that there will be no financial contributions from Argyll & Bute Council towards the work required to facilitate access via the C20 public road or to make good any damage directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm. Additionally, it will be the applicants’ responsibility for making good any damage to the public road which is directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm.
Public Protection Unit - Memo dated 08/10/2014 Environmental Health has not raised any objection subject to a condition relating to noise being attached to any permission. This condition would ensure that the ETSU noise limit of 35dB would be met at nearby residential properties.
Access Team - Letter dated 18/09/2014 The Access Team believe that the proposed development offers an opportunity to improve the provision of outdoor access opportunities in this area and would be supportive of proposals that propose to:
• Create new tracks and paths, • Enhance existing pathways, • Promote recreation use of the site through signage and other promotional materials, and • Create new car parking facilities that allow members of the public safe and easy access to the site.
Flood Risk Officer - Report dated 25/03/2015, 08/04/2015 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment as requested by SEPA in their response dated 07/10/2014. The main focus of the FRA is the crossing of the Barr Water. The northern edge of the site boundary (by the Barr Water) lies within the indicative limits of fluvial flooding as shown upon the SEPA Flood Map. Localised areas on the site and adjacent to the northern edge of the site lie within the indicative limits of surface water flooding shown upon the SEPA map.
The FRA concludes that the bridge crossing of the Barr Water can be located above the 200 year flood level, but that flooding of the access road to the bridge may still occur.
The following issues have been identified within the modelling approach and should be addressed: • Access road flooding • Bridge modelling approach • Long section plots in appendix E • Freeboard amount • Compensatory storage • Other watercourse crossings.
Since this response the applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment and a response accepting the findings of this has been provided. The Council’s Flood Risk Officer is now content to remove the original concerns subject to the imposition of planning conditions securing the submission of further details prior to the commencement of works.
Transport Scotland – Report dated 09/04/2015 Transport Scotland has no objected or raised concerns in relation to this proposal. However, should Members be minded to approve the application then they have recommended conditions be attached relating to abnormal loads and temporary traffic numbers.
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) - Letters dated 10/10/14 and 20/01/15 SNH initially objected on the grounds of disturbance of Greenland White-fronted Geese roosting at Loch Arnicle and concerns over the Collision Risk Assessment. Their concerns are detailed further below:
Greenland White-fronted Geese GWFG are a European Protected Species listed in Annex 1. SNH has advised that there is potential for the building and operation of large turbines within 500m of a small loch to cause displacement or abandonment of the loch. They therefore objected to the proposal as submitted on this point. The applicant refers to several studies carried out assessing the potential disturbance from wind turbines on geese. In the absence of studies of roost use in relation to wind turbines close to roosts, it is acceptable to use other disturbance studies to inform a precautionary view. SNH disagree that reliance can be placed on some studies of pink-footed and barnacle geese to suggest Greenland white-fronted geese will habituate to the turbines closest to the loch, as the situations are not the same, and as Greenland white-fronted geese are noted as behaving/responding slightly differently to other geese in certain situations.
In response, the applicants have adjusted their layout in order to provide improved separation between the turbines closest to the Loch Arnicle and the loch itself. This has been the subject of further consultation with SNH who responded on 13 th April detailing that they considered that the further information supplied by the applicant demonstrated that the proposed wind farm would not have a detrimental effect on the qualifying interests of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. Nonetheless an ‘appropriate assessment’ to satisfy the Wild Birds Directive is required and is provided in Appendix B to this report.
SNH also provide advice on other bird interests which could be affected by the proposal, as summarised below:
Golden Eagle SNH consider that the predicted low collision rate risk figure of 1% - 2% is in any event unlikely. It is clear though that the birds from Beinn an Tuirc are occasionally using upper Glen Barr and may use some of the Beinn an Tuirc mitigation area close to the proposal. In longer term, with forestry management, there may be some scope for eagle foraging closer to the wind farm, but nonetheless use is still likely to be low and is not a significant concern.
Hen Harrier A single breeding pair of Hen Harriers is to the west and are likely to remain in the general area, but SNH largely agree with the assessment that risk to harriers from the wind farm will be low.
The ES does not acknowledge that that forest felling is likely to increase habitat for harrier including close to the turbines and therefore poses an increased risk to hen harriers. Given this potential increase in risk any permission will require the development to provide details of mitigation measures prior to the commencement of works.
Black Grouse SNH accept that it is difficult to mitigation for this species when the lek sites hold small numbers and are potentially prone to moving around. For that reason the pre- construction surveys will be important should the proposal be approved.
Collision Risk Modelling SNH believe that the amended Collision Risk Assessment (CRA) calculations are subject to a number of issues which will skew the final figure. Despite this, having examined the extra data, SNH believe it unlikely that the true figure will be so high that it causes concern regarding cumulative collision risk for the Kintyre population of GWFG. SNH initially objected on this basis but subsequently are prepared to withdraw this should the data be re-calculated.
SNH believe that an accurate re-calculation is important so that they and the Planning Authority can continue to monitor the cumulative impacts of various wind farm proposals on the Kintyre population of GWFG and other species. SNH would be content if this need for this re-calculation is imposed as a condition in the event of the application being granted.
Landscape and Visual SNH consider that the proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) in that it will have significant and adverse impacts on the landscape character and visual amenity of the inner/eastern/upper glen of Barr Glen. Furthermore, the proposal will have significant and adverse landscape and visual impacts on combination with the currently under consideration by the ECDU Creggan wind farm.
SNH’s response dated 13 th April advised that the revised layout provides some qualitative improvements for receptors within Barr Glen compared to the original layout. However, their landscape advice from 10 th October 2014 remains broadly applicable to this proposal.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) - Letters dated 07/10/2014 and 14/04/2015 SEPA originally objected to the proposed draft peat management plan that states ‘trackside screening bunds are proposed for minimising visual impact of the stone tracks’. No information has been provided in relation to the anticipated width, height and length of the bunds nor is there any justification for their creation. SEPA requested more information on this element of the proposal.
The draft peat management plan submitted states that ‘ any surplus peat could then be placed within the borrow pit restoration schemes along with excess soil’ . SEPA require the PMP to assess whether the re-use is realistic. They do not consider this as an acceptable re-use of peat and it would not constitute an environmental benefit.
In response, applicant has submitted a peat management plan for consideration. SEPA’s response of 14th April accepts the details of this so long as the planning authority are satisfied that there is a clear planning need for proposals that have a r requirement for landscaping, such as peat verges on floating roads and borrow pit restoration. In that event the peat management proposals would be acceptable from SEPA’s point of view.
The developer has identified ways to reuse the excavated peat on site. There has been quantification of the amount of peat likely to be excavated at each location and proposed uses including details of construction methods. Material calculations (waste produced versus reuse) seem broadly in balance. Overall the draft Peat Management Plan appears reasonable and in line with SEPA’s recommendations on peatland development and associated guidance.
Detail of excavation methods, handling and storage of peat is to be developed in the final PMP and site specific considerations and environmental mitigation measures must be taken into account.
SEPA has also raised concerns regarding flood risk. To this end, the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment detailing the risk of flooding at the proposed access from the C20 Barr Glen Road. The SEPA Flood Maps have been reviewed and indicate that only small parts of the site are located within the 200 year flood extent. Review of SEPA’s historical flooding database currently shows no record of flooding in the area. Although there remains a possibility of occasional flooding of land by the bridge over the Barr Water at the site entrance, this does not pose any additional risk to the surrounding area over the pre-development position and any occasional interruption to the means of access to the site would be an operational matter for the applicants to consider.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) - Letter dated 28/10/2014 RSPB has objected on the basis of the unknown impacts on GWFG and advised that should the proposal be considered favourably then a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ should be required. Survey data from the ES and that for Auchadaduie wind farm clearly show that geese from Glenbarr regularly use Loch Arnicle as a roost. The information demonstrates that disturbance to GWFG can occur beyond the 300m buffer and concludes that disturbance is likely within 500m of Loch Arnicle. It also notes that the geese become alert at 650m and take flight at 450m. RSPB recommend adopting a precautionary approach and providing a greater buffer of 500-600m. It is worth noting that only a single turbine is just within 500m to the loch and we are awaiting comment from RSPB and SNH on an adjusted layout with a revised Collision Risk Assessment. At the time of writing no response had been received. Should additional comment be received it will be reported separately.
Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) - Letters dated 15/10/2014, 08/12/2014, and 30/03/2015 FCS initially raised significant concern over the proposed felling of approximately 200ha of commercial forestry. Since this initial response, there have been various correspondence between the planning authority, the applicant and FCS in an effort to resolve this matter. FCS has now accepted that a planning condition could be used in to address their interests in the event of the application being granted.
Historic Scotland - Letter dated 25/09/2014 HS do not raise any objections to the proposal despite impacts on certain assets within their statutory remit. It is considered the level of impact on the following Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) is not sufficient as to warrant an objection by them to the application:
• An Dunan, dun, WSW of Auchadaduie • Blary, dun ENE of proposal, • Garvalt, dun 500m SW of the site, and • Crois Mhic Aoide, standing stone 2,100m SW of Beinn an Turc, Saddell
Given HS’s lack of objection they do not recommend any form of mitigation.
Glasgow Prestwick Airport - Email 02/09/2014 The proposal does not conflict with the safeguarding surface of Glasgow Prestwick Airport.
Glasgow Airport - Email dated 16/09/2014 The site is outwith the airport’s safeguarding zone and therefore offers no comment.
National Air Traffic Services (NATS) - Email dated 08/09/2014 NATS offer no objections to the proposal as it does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria.
Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) – Email dated 03/09/2014 The proposal will significantly infringe on the safeguarding surfaces for Campbeltown Airport. However, given the intervening terrain this can be mitigated through the use of a red obstacle light being fitted at the hub of some of the turbines.
Spectrum Licensing (Ofcom) - Email dated 09/09/2014 This response detailed information relating to microwave fixed links managed and assigned by Ofcom and does not raise any objection.
Atkins Global (on behalf of Telecommunications Association of the UK Water Industry) - Email dated 09/09/2014 Atkins has no objection to the proposal on behalf of TAUWI.
The Joint Radio Company Limited – e-mail sent 29/08/2014
JRV does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.
Scottish Government - Letter dated 29/08/2014 Scottish Government acknowledged receipt of the notification of an application accompanied by an Environmental Statement but has offered no comment on the ES.
West Kintyre Community Council (WKCC) – Letter dated 15/09/2014 The community council has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:
• The application would have an adverse visual effect on those persons residing in Glenbarr, Barr Glen and the surrounding area; • The application would have an adverse effect on the built environment of Glenbarr, Barr Glen and the surrounding area; • The application would have an adverse effect on the natural landscape of the area; • The application would have an adverse effect on the ‘hidden glen of Barr Glen’; • Concerns over the visual and cumulative effect of the turbines with those already in and around the area; • Real concerns over the need for residents to have 24hr access of Barr Glen during the construction phase, with no guarantee given that this would happen; • Concerns regarding the affect on livestock in the Glen when and if any blasting takes places during the construction phase; • Concerns about the nuisance to residents due to noise and frequency of heavy haulage traffic using the glen road during the construction phase, even though the road will be widened to accommodate; and • Concerns over the possibility of speeding traffic on the Glen road when upgraded/widened. ______
(E) PUBLICITY:
The proposal has been advertised in terms of the EIA Regulations 2011 and regulation 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Closing dates of 19/09/2014 and 26/09/2014 respectively.
The subsequent Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) was advertised in terms of the EIA Regulations 2011 and regulation 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Closing dates of 27/03/2015 and 20/03/2015 respectively. ______
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
There have been 34 objections and a single representation from the prospective developers of the proposed wind farm on the opposite side of the glen, which they do not wish to be construed as an objection.
Objectors
Councillor John McAlpine, 10 Market Place, Tarbert, PA29 6AB (25/09/2014)
Mr Jonathan Hooper, Ugadale Cottage, Saddell, Campbeltown, PA28 6QR (03/09/2014) Mrs Margaret Sinclair, 4 Barrhill, Glenbarr, PA29 6UT (02/09/2014) Mr John Seddon, Kilmaluag Cottage, Glenbarr, PA29 6UZ (12/09/2014 03/10/2014) Mrs Michelle Seddon, Kilmaluag Cottage, Glenbarr, PA29 6UZ (12/09/2014) Mr Frank McNaughton, 3 Barrhill, Glenbarr, PA29 6UT (15/09/2014) Ms Fiona McArthur, Barrglen Equitation Centre, Arnicle Farm, Glenbarr, PA29 6UZ (17/09/2014, 14/03/2015) Ms Susan Howard, Trekking and Riding Society of Scotland, Bruaich-Na-H’Abhainne, Maragowan, Killin, Perthshire, FK21 8TN (19/09/2014, 27/09/2014, 26/03/2015) Mrs Stephanie Stretton, 4 Glenbarr Cottages, Glenbarr, PA29 6UX (22/09/2014) Mr D. Iain McArthur, Arnicle Farm, Glenbarr, PA29 6UZ (20/09/2014, 13/03/2015, 30/03/2015) Mr D A McAthur, Arnicle Farm, Glenbarr, PA29 6UZ (03/11/2014, 27/03/2015, 08/04/2015)) Ms Mary McIsaac, 6 Glenbarr Cottages, Glenbarr, PA29 UZ (24/09/2014) Ms Elma McArthur, Arnicle Farm, Glenbarr, PA29 6UZ (23/09/2014, 17/03/2015) Ms Christine O’Hanlon, Breachar, Tayinloan, PA29 6XF (22/09/2014) Mr Rob Nolan, North Beachmore House, Muasdale, PA29 6XD (24/09/2014) Miss Louise Duncan, North Beachmore House, Muasdale, PA29 6XD (24/09/2014) Miss Imogen O’Hanlon, South Crubasdale, Muasdale, PA29 6XD (24/09/2014) Mrs O Richmond, Leac a’Ghreadaidh, Muasdale, PA29 6XD (01/10/2014) Ms Barbara McCormick, 10 Kintyre Gardens, Campbeltown, PA28 6DH (30/09/2014, 27/03/2015) Ms Helene Mauchlen, British Horse Society, Woodburn, Crieff, Perthshire, PH7 3RG (30/09/2014, 20/03/2015) Ms Dianne Roberts, An Acail, Glenbarr, Tarbert (23/09/2014, 01/04/2015) A E Roberts, An Acail, Glenbarr, Tarbert (23/09/2014, 29/03/2015) Mrs Emma Byers, 38 Cara View, Tayinloan, PA29 6XJ (29/09/2014) Mr Jeff Parkhouse, Inverea Cottage, Clachan, PA29 6XL (26/09/2014, 28/03/2015) Mr William Crossan, Gowanbank, Kilkerran Road, Campbeltown, PA28 6JL (26/09/2014) Miss Hannah O’Hanlon, Beacharr, Tayinloan, PA29 6XF (25/09/2014) Mr Henry O’Hanlon, Beacharr, Tayinloan, PA29 6XF (26/09/2014) Ms Rebecca Harvey, Achintien, Tayinloan PA29 6XG (01/10/2014) Mr Warren Harvey, Achintien, Tayinloan PA29 6XG (01/10/2014) Mrs Stephanie O’Hanlon, 8 Cara View, Tayinloan, PA29 6XJ (21/10/2014) Mr Aaron O’Hanlon, 8 Cara View, Tayinloan, PA29 6XJ (21/10/2014) Ms Heather McKinlay, Ballyshear, Southend, PA28 6RF (22/10/2014) Ms Francesca Fair, Glen Cottage, Glenbarr, PA29 6UT (10/04/2015)
Summary of issues raised
• Adverse visual impact on the coastal Area of Panoramic Quality and the wider area. The turbines will exacerbate the impacts of Beinn an Tuirc wind farm resulting in an industrial setting to the top of the glen.
Comment: Issues of landscape and visual impacts are fully addressed in appendix A below.
• The proposal will dominate the landscape in terms of overall size providing a scaling effect on the glen.
Comment: Issues of landscape and visual impacts are fully addressed in appendix A below.
• Adverse impact on the Barr Glenn road during construction works with road closures preventing residents and services from using it. Drawings have been submitted demonstrating the difficulties the applicant will face when trying to extend the road toward the Barr Water (south) and a representation stating that they (the landowner) will not allow for an extension of the road to the north. The supporting documentation provides a figure of 16,117 vehicle movement for months 6 to 18 but there are no details for months 1 to 5.
Comment: The applicant has provided some information relating to the works on the Barr Glen road specifically widening in various sections up to a temporary running width of 5.5m and then returned to 3.5m after completion of works. There will be an addition of 18 permanent passing places. With regards to land ownership the applicant has been made aware of this query and disputes this claim. It is not for the planning authority to involve itself with queries of land ownership and this is a legal, civil matter for the different parties to resolve with one another. The council’s Area Roads Engineer has not raised any concerns relating to the proposal. Nonetheless, the intention to access a construction project of this scale using an otherwise lightly trafficked and narrow public road serving the glen will introduce significant vehicle movements, disruption and detriment to amenity over the construction period.
• There are concerns over the safety of large vehicles turning into the village from the main road and speed of other vehicles on this road and the impact this will have on road safety.
Comment: The applicant has provided details of improvement works to the junction with the A83(T) with an additional 794m 2 of land take. Transport Scotland has been asked to comment on this proposal and have not provided any objection or concerns. They do however, in the event of an approval, request conditions.
• Adverse impacts on the existing equestrian business in the glen with specific reference to turbines 1, 5 and 9. The introduction of noise and shadow flicker will
create an unstable situation for beginners and young horses. The noise from the turbines will mean that voices will not carry from one end of the riding area to the other in some situations.
Comment: With regard to wind turbine development, comments from established equestrian associations have requested that developers consider equestrian users in the construction of their wind farms and the ability to use access tracks etc. With this in mind it is questionable how much impact the presence and operation of wind turbines will have upon horses on adjacent land. Nonetheless the developer has repositioned turbines 1, 5 and 9 further from the arena to reduce any impact.
• Excessive noise impacts on residents.
Comment: The Council’s Environmental Health officer has not raised any concerns in relation to noise and is confident that the ETSU noise standard of 35dB can be met. Should the application be approved a planning condition should be attached to ensure that this limit is required to be adhered to.
• Adverse impacts on tourism in the area.
Comment: There is no readily quantifiable link between the development of wind turbines and adverse impacts on tourism. Attitude surveys to date tend to indicate that few repeat visits are deterred by turbine development which has taken place thus far. Those attitudes might not necessarily remain the same of course if turbines were to be developed in greater numbers or in less suitable locations. However it is reasonable to assume that development with identified unacceptably adverse landscape and visual effects would not be in the interests of an area where tourism tends to be founded upon the scenic and natural qualities of the countryside.
• Adverse impacts on ornithology, specifically in terms of Red Throated Divers, Greenland Whitefronted Geese, Golden Eagles and Sea Eagles.
Comment: SNH and RSPB have both raised concerns with regard to the potential impacts on GWFG. The applicant has provided further information with respect to this species and further consultation comments are due and will be reported separately. In terms of impacts on other species SNH has not raised any specific concern.
• Adverse effect resulting from shadow flicker.
Comment: The Scottish Government’s planning advice sheet for onshore wind turbines advises that shadow flicker can affect properties within 10 x the rotor diameter. In this instance that distance would be 700m. The closest property is over this distance from the nearest turbine.
• Adverse impacts on wildlife and the environment in terms of noise and fumes during the construction period.
Comment: Construction activities and any nuisances occasioned thereby are not controlled via the planning system. However, in the event of permission being granted, a construction management plan should be required through a planning condition which would afford to help mitigate some of the impacts likely to arise on the environment and residents. Nonetheless, even with the use of best practice it is to be expected that a construction project of this scale would introduce significant disturbance and disruption during the construction period.
• Adverse impact on Arnicle Farm which is some 800m from the turbines.
Comment: Arnicle Farm is the closest property to the wind farm. However the Council’s Environmental Heath officer is satisfied that there will not be unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity as a consequence of over shadow flicker or noise. The turbines are set back from the ridge of the hill overlooking Arnicle and therefore despite the windfarm being readily visible, the potential for large turbines to unacceptably dominate the property and its immediate environs through size is reduced.
• Roads improvements for the approved Auchadaduie wind turbines have been agreed but not those for this proposal.
Comment: The approved Auchadaduie wind turbines (11/02525/PP) are up to 100m to blade and therefore a very similar height to these turbines. The road improvements required within Barr Glen will be very similar for both schemes. The only major difference will be the length of time of the construction period and the number of traffic movements.
• Adverse impact on peat and groundwater conditions including private water supplies.
Comment: The Council’s Environmental Health officer has not raised any concern relating to impacts on private water supplies. SEPA has raised concerns over the lack of information pertaining to peat management. The applicant has submitted further details in an effort to address this and a further consultation response from SEPA is due at the time of writing.
• The proposal would not add significantly to the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets given that renewable energy is already at 85% of the 2020 target and should all proposals in the planning system be granted then the figure would rise to 128% of that target.
Comment: There have been views expressed by Reporters assessing wind farms that Scotland’s renewable energy targets have already been achieved and therefore there is less need to consider favourably less suitable sites than might have been the case had consented capacity fallen well below those targets. However, given that renewable energy forms a significant element in the government’s drive to secure
sustainable development, the attainment of targets should not be regarded as a ceiling restricting the ability to continue to consent otherwise acceptable proposals.
• During the construction of An Acail (property opposite the entrance from the Barr Glen road to the site) the developer requested to site noise monitoring equipment in the garden. However, this request was refused but they were invited back to carry out this work upon completion of the house. This offer was never taken up.
Comment: The council’s Environmental Health officer has not raised any concerns in relation to either the methodology or the findings of the noise assessment section of the ES and has not requested any further monitoring points.
• Adverse impacts on local businesses as a result of the works to the public road and lack of information relating to those upgrades.
Comment: The public road will require to be improved and the necessary works will take some time as detailed in the ES. Several comments have been received with concerns to potential road closures and the implications for residents, businesses and emergency access. For the avoidance of doubt, the applicant cannot close the road for prolonged periods. Under the terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 public roads can be closed for up to 15 minutes at a time. The applicant has stated that they would expect any contractor carrying out the works to try and work with people as they require access and would advise residents of a proposed timetable of those periods when to expect delays. Detailed arrangements would require to be approved by condition in the form of a traffic management plan should the application be granted.
• Adverse impact on historic environment assets.
Comment: Historic Scotland considers that the level of impact on the settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) is not sufficient to warrant an objection on their part.
• The protected species survey work is out of date at 3+ years old and cannot be considered acceptable.
Comment: SNH has not raised any concern relating to the age of the survey work and consider the data fit for purpose.
• The land ownership map is inaccurate.
Comment: This matter has been raised with the applicant but they maintain the details they have submitted are correct. Issues of land ownership are a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.
• An objector has made representation citing a sensory medical condition which renders her especially susceptible to disturbance from external sources (in this case construction traffic at the entrance of the Barr Glen Road) to the point where it would be expected to seriously impact on the amenity of her roadside cottage, her welfare and her underlying medical condition. To that extent her circumstances are unique and extend well beyond the normal concerns a third party might have over the anticipated impact of construction traffic. This person has also raised questions about the extent to which access by emergency services might be inhibited during the construction phase of the development.
Comment: The planning system operates in the public interest rather than seeking to safeguard the particular interests of individuals. Nonetheless, the Equalities Act imposes a duty on public authorities generally to have regard to the circumstances of persons with protected characteristics in the exercising of their functions. With that in mind an Equalities Impact Assessment addressing the circumstances of this individual is prompted. Given that the objector has only recently agreed to her exceptional circumstances being aired in the public domain (necessary for them to be advanced a material consideration) it is intended to review these with professional advice and input from the applicants, which is not available at the time of writing. Accordingly, it is intended to address this matter by means of a Supplementary Report in advance of the meeting.
• Concerns have been raised over the possible disturbance and spread of Japanese Knotweed should works be approved. Concerns relate specifically to works that could impact on property, wildlife and habitats.
Comment: The control of Japanese Knotweed is regulated under separate liegislation from the planning system. It is an office to wilfully spread Japanese Knotweed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that material containing rhizomes must be disposed of as controlled waste. With this in mind should the application be approved the developer will be required to treat and dispose of the Japanese Knotweed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the above legislation.
Representation
Mr Stuart Winter of Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd, 7 Exchange Crescent, Conference Square, Edinburgh, EH3 8LL on behalf of Burcote Wind Limited (27/03/2015) has submitted comments which are summarised below but which are not to be construed as an objection.
• Burcote Wind Limited (BWL) have raised concerns with regard to comments contained within the ES SEI aimed at the Creggans wind farm proposal currently before Scottish Ministers for consideration under Section 36 of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1989. BWL note with some concern that the proposed Blary Hill Wind Farm has not achieved, in the view of SNH (The Scottish Ministers advisers on Natural Heritage including European Protected Species), an environmentally
acceptable position with regard to Greenland White Fronted Geese and the associated SPA. It is the view of BWL that due to the uncertainty over whether Blary Hill Wind Farm would be likely to result in significant effects, the precautionary approach should be applied.
In terms of the provisions set out within the SEI regarding the goose roosts on Loch Arnicle, BWL wish to note that the landowner of the proposed Creggan Wind Farm site, who is a local resident within the Barr Glen, has observed geese using all parts of Loch Arnicle as a roost with the exception of the extreme southern fringes of the loch. The southern fringes are open to a sheep grazing area. We consider, therefore, that the position taken within the SEI submission regarding geese not using the eastern side of Loch Arnicle is flawed. This is supported by local observations.
Comment: SNH and RSPB both initially objected to the proposal on the basis of impacts on GWFG and concerns over the Collision Risk Assessment. However, the applicant has sought to address these concerns and has submitted SEI which is out for consultation with both consultees. Their further responses in this regard will be reported separately.
• BWL do not consider there to be sufficient detail of the access proposals and the works required on the Barr Glen Road. It is not known how the works will affect the residents nor if third party land is required. The approval of Auchadaduie wind farm should not be taken for accepting works on this road given that there was little detail in the submission relating to the extent of the works required to upgrade the road.
Comment: The applicant has provided some detailing to works on the public road and the Council’s Area Roads Engineer has not requested further information as they are confident the works can be completed without the need access to third party land and that the works within the road corridor will be sufficient to cater for the transportation of turbine components and construction plant.
• Transport Scotland is a statutory consultee and should be consulted on this proposal. They have commented on the works for the associated application for a turning area to the north Glen Barr opposite the primary school but have yet to comment on this application.
Comment: Transport Scotland has been asked to comment on the application and at the time of writing a response is awaited. Their response in this regard will be reported separately. ______
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
(i) Environmental Statement: Yes
Introduction Planning Policy Context Site Selection, Design Evolution and Alternatives Description of Development EIA Process and Methodology Landscape and Visual Assessment Ecology Ornithology Historic Environment Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology Forestry Noise Electromagnetic Interference, Aviation and Shadow Flicker Traffic and Transport Socioeconomics Summary
Subsequent Supplementary Environmental Information February 2015:
Introduction Proposed Layout Changes Flood Risk Assessment and Peat Management Ornithological Interests Landscape and Visual Impacts Forestry Conclusions
(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:
(iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes
(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development Yes e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc:
Planning Statement 2014 ______
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
Is a Section 75 agreement required: Not in the event of the application being refused as recommended.
______
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No ______
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan ’ (March 2015)
LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing Our Consumption
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
• Scottish Planning Policy (2014) • Scottish Government Advice Note on Onshore Turbines (2012) • ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) • ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ SNH (2009). • ‘Control of Woodland Removal Policy’ Scottish Government (2009) • Planning Advice Note 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment ______
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ______
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application Yes consultation (PAC): ______
(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ______
(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______
(O) Requirement for a hearing: Not in the event of the application being refused as recommended.
Despite there being over 20 objections to the proposal it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing is warranted, given the recommendation. In the event that Members are minded to support the application, the representations from third parties, the objection from the community council, and concerns raised by other consultees would warrant a hearing being convened in advance of the determination of the application. ______
(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
The proposal is for the erection of 14 x 110m (blade tip) wind turbines on the forested southern slopes of the eastern (upper) end of Barr Glen. Access to the site is from the A83(T) via the lower part of the C20 Barr Glen road. The glen is already influenced by the presence of large scale turbines at the operational Beinn an Tuirc windfarm, which is situated beyond the head of the glen on the spine of Kintyre. There have also been three turbines approved, but yet to be constructed, at Auchadaduie on the southern flank of the glen, to the west of the application site. An Electricity Act application for further large scale windfarm development at Creggans, opposite this application site on the north side of the glen, is currently under consideration by the Scottish Government. A report recommending a Council objection to that application appears elsewhere on the agenda.
Barr Glen is one of the few ‘hidden glens’ in Kintyre, which run perpendicular to the coast and afford access to the interior of the peninsula for habitation, agriculture and so on, in contrast to the otherwise generally unfrequented upland spine, which is largely given over to commercial forestry, windfarm development and residual open moorland. The glen is a low lying, small scale, settled landscape which has more in common with the more regularly frequented margins of either side of the peninsula, where transport routes, development and other receptors tend to be concentrated, than it does with the otherwise more expansive and more remote interior. The flanks of the glen and the skylines which enclose it to the north and south are sensitive to the intrusion of inappropriately sited and/or inappropriately scaled development, which could undermine its intrinsic qualities.
To date, the Council has sought to direct large scale wind turbine development in Kintyre to the upland interior where it is generally capable of being removed from sensitive receptors and smaller scaled and more sensitive landscapes, where the appreciation of wind turbines tends to be at a distance in the context of expansive views. This approach has been important in reducing the influence of wind turbines on the scenic qualities of the coast and on settled and other regularly frequented areas. Although Beinn an Tuirc wind farm already influences the upper part of Barr Glen, it does so at a distance and in the context of the open moorland which is visible beyond the head of the glen. Committee has already accepted some further influence on Barr Glen by the approval of three 100m turbines on the upper flanks of the southern central section of the glen at
Auchadaduie. Further pressure for commercial windfarm development is now being exerted by this proposal at the upper end of Barr Glen and by the prospective development at Creggan on the opposite side of the glen. Given that Auchadaduie is situated on the southern flank of the glen to the west of this site, should both wind farms be developed it is likely that Auchadaduie will appear in some views as part of Blary Hill wind farm, given their relative close proximity
There are concerns relating to the visual impacts upon the hidden glen of Glen Barr which the Council’s approved Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) considers a landscape asset worthy of protection and a constraint on the development of further large scale turbines located in a manner which would undermine its key characteristics. The site lies within the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic landscape character type which is generally favourable for the exploitation of the wind resource, but its location on the skyline enclosing Barr Glen is such that it would exert significant influence over this settled, hidden glen. However, it should be recognised that due to its location above the upper part of the glen it would be sufficiently removed from the Rocky Mosaic LCT along the west coast of Kintyre, not to extend unwelcome influence into this sensitive and scenic landscape.
The primary impacts of the development visually are therefore short-range and largely confined to locations within the glen itself. Although developments of this scale will unavoidably produce adverse short-range adverse visual impacts, and the lack of more widespread visibility in this case is advantageous, there is nonetheless an issue as to the extent to which the character, inherent qualities and the residential environment of the glen should be sacrificed by the drive to secure additional renewable energy development beyond that which has already been consented.
In terms of visual impact Scottish Natural Heritage has advised that the proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) in that it will have significant and adverse impacts on the landscape character and visual amenity of the inner/eastern/upper glen of Barr Glen. Furthermore, the proposal will have significant and adverse landscape and visual impacts on combination with the currently under consideration by the ECDU Creggan wind farm.
Concerns have been raised by both Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB over the impacts of development and the operation of the wind farm on Greenland White-fronted Geese (GWFG), which are an Annex 1 European Protected Species. In response, the applicant has sought to address these by repositioning some of the turbines within the site which are closest to the nearby loch used for goose roosting purposes. Having considered the amended turbine locations, SNH advises that the proposal is generally outwith the 500m buffer they advocate to avoid disturbance. A single turbine is some 420m from the eastern end of the loch but SNH agree that this end of the loch is rarely used by GWFG. With this in mind, SNH has confirmed that on the basis of the revised layout it does not now object to the proposal.
Given the potential for significant impact on European Protected Species, in accordance with Wild Birds Directive requirements and informed by SNH advice, an ‘appropriate assessment’ has been carried out to inform decision-making. This appears as Appendix B to this report.
SEPA initially objected to the application on the grounds of lack of information relating to flood risk and peat management. Following the submission of additional information both grounds of objection have been resolved, with Scottish Environmental Protection Agency expressing its content with the draft Peat Management Plan and the details of the flood risk assessment.
The Council’s Area Roads Engineer has not requested further information and is content that the required road improvement works in the glen can be completed within the road corridor without the use of third party land. Transport Scotland has expressed its satisfaction with the means of access from the trunk road.
There have been objections submitted by a Ward Councillor, the West Kintyre Community Council and 34 third parties raising a variety of material considerations. ______
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______
(R) Reasons why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be refused
1. The application site is located on the southern ridge of the upper end of Barr Glen, which constitutes one of the ‘hidden glens’ of the Kintyre peninsula. The proposed wind turbines by virtue of their scale and proximity to frequented areas in the glen would be prominent in views from the minor road through the glen and from the vicinity of the settlement of Glenbarr. At 110m in height they would frequently skyline in available views and would, by virtue of the size and rotation, distract from the small scale and settled nature of the glen and the composition of elements which contribute to the intrinsic character of Barr Glen. The proposal does not share the locational advantages of consented wind turbine developments in Kintyre which have been generally sited to exploit the topographical advantages of upland spine locations inland, where they shed comparatively little influence upon the more settled and sensitive landscapes of the peninsula which are associated with the coast and with ‘hidden glens’. The proposal is not in accordance with the recommendations of the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) which specifically advises that turbine development should be kept off the sensitive ridges of Barr Glen. The proposal imposes itself on its immediate surroundings by virtue of its scale and proximity to sensitive landscapes and receptors to the detriment of the visual qualities of the small scale settled landscape of the glen. The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected benefits which a development of this scale would make to the achievement of climate change related commitments considered along with short- term economic benefits associated with construction. The proposal by virtue of its
inappropriate location and its significantly adverse visual effects would be inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development with the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 5: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9: Development Setting, Layout and Design and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption, of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015) and does not accord with the guidance published by the Council in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009).
2. Barr Glen is already subject to the influence of wind turbine development as a consequence of the presence of Beinn An Tuirc wind farm which is visible on elevated land beyond the head of the glen. There is also an unimplemented permission on the south eastern slopes for 3 x 100m turbines at Auchadaduie. The proposal would result in the proliferation of large scale turbines on the southern side of the glen, where by virtue of their location, scale and movement they would constitute inappropriately conspicuous development with significantly adverse cumulative impacts which would not conform with the approach advocated in the Council’s approved ‘Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’, which seeks to build upon the locational advantages of the upland spine interior of the peninsula in accommodating further large scale turbine development, in order to avoid inappropriate influence being exerted upon more sensitive coastal landscapes, transport routes and communities. The development would be separate from the existing focus of wind energy development on the spine of Kintyre, where it would cast an unwelcome additional influence over the glen, which is sensitive to this scale of development, and where it would, in conjunction with existing and consented wind turbines, contribute to the experience of simultaneous and sequential views of large scale turbines from within the glen. It would therefore give rise to unwelcome cumulative impacts upon the glen by virtue of its association with Beinn an Tuirc and Auchadaduie windfarms and would contribute to the visual encirclement of the glen by wind turbines in the event that the current undetermined Section 36 application for the Creggan windfarm on the opposite side of the glen were to be approved by the Scottish Government. The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected benefits which a development of this scale would make to the achievement of climate change related commitments considered along with short-term economic benefits associated with construction. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development with the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 5: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9:
Development Setting, Layout and Design and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015) and does not accord with the guidance published by the Council in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009). ______
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan
N/A ______
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ______
Author of Report: David Love Date: 14/04/15
Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 15/04/15
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/01978/PP
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY
For the time being the Council’s adopted Local Development Plan does not include a wind farm spatial strategy. That proposed as part of the draft plan pre-dated the revision of Scottish Planning Policy in November 2014 and was accordingly deleted by the Reporters conducting the subsequent examination into the plan. Future supplementary guidance will address this by proposing a strategy which will be SPP compliant. The application therefore falls to be considered against the criteria set out in Policy LDP 6 which themselves are derived from SPP. Despite the absence of a spatial strategy, the policy set out in SPP and reflected in the LDP is very up to date and should be accorded significant weight in the determination of the application.
The proposal is located within a mixture of Rural Opportunity Area, Countryside and Very Sensitive Countryside as delineated by the LDP maps for South Kintyre. The access from the public road is located within ROA; the internal access tracks are located in a combination of Countryside; Very Sensitive Countryside and Rural Opportunity Area; and the turbines, crane hardstandings, and all other ancillary development will be located in a combination of Countryside and Very Sensitive Countryside where they are subject to the effect of LDP policies LDP DM 1. This policy is generally supportive of the principle of renewable energy proposals in these development management zones.
LDP DM 1 requires proposals to be consistent with all other Development Plan Policies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that the scale and location of the proposal, in combination with other existing and consented large scale turbines, will integrate sympathetically with the landscape, without giving rise to adverse consequences for the visual amenity of its surroundings. For the reasons detailed below in this report, it is considered that this proposal does not satisfy development plan policy or associated guidance in respect of windfarm development.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the SPP (2014); Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms and Policies LDP DM 1 Development Within the Development Management Zones, LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 9: Development Setting, Layout and Design of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.
B. LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposal is for the erection of a 14 turbine wind farm and ancillary development on forestry land south of the C20 Barr Glen road. The site lies approximately 4 km north east of the village of Glenbarr. The site is most readily appreciated from the C20 which runs through Barr Glen along with some transient visibility from the A83(T). Each wind turbine would have an electrical generation capacity of 2MW, providing a total maximum
generating capacity of 28MW. The maximum hub height of the turbines would be 70m, with a rotor diameter of 80m, producing an overall height to the vertical blade tip of 110m.
The following elements are included in the planning application:
• Nineteen three bladed horizontal axis turbines with associated external transformers and switchgear; • Upgrade of existing access from the A83(T) to the C20 Barr Glen Road which includes a temporary widening of the minor road to 5.5m with 18 permanent passing places. Upon completion of construction works the road will be narrowed to 3.5m; • Formation of internal access tracks with 3.1km to be upgrade and 6.5km of new tracks; • The erection of a sub-station compound and control building, and installation of underground cabling; • Crane hard-standing areas and a construction compound[ • Temporary enabling works compound measuring some 30m x 30m and construction compounds measuring some 30m x 30m and 50m x 60m both of which will be reinstated once construction works are completed; • 6 x 70m temporary met masts and a permanent met mast 69m tall; • Connection to the national grid at Carradale is also proposed and • Use of 2 x borrow pits measuring some 3,850m 2 and 4,250m 2 which do not form part of this application and would need to be consented separately.
The general design of the turbines and ancillary structures follows current wind energy practice. The design of the sub-station building is considered acceptable in terms of its design and appearance. It measures some 609m 2. It is assumed that the size is generally accurate of the final requirement. Subject to appropriate detailing and finish this could integrate well with the landscape and have the appearance of a traditional, if fairly substantial, agricultural building.
During the course of the application the applicant has amended the proposal in an attempt to address the concerns raised by the planning authority, consultees and third parties. Below is a summary of these amendments:
• Relocating turbines and associated infrastructure to reduce the perceived visual prominence of the turbines on the front (north-side) of Blary Hill where these overlook Barr Glen, • Relocating turbines and associated infrastructure so that these are beyond identified Ground Water Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE), • Relocating turbines and associated infrastructure so that these reduce the potential barrier and disturnace effects for the Greenland White Fronted Goose (GWFG) roost at Loch Arnicle, • A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) of the Barr Water around the proposed bridge crossing (as requested by SEPA),
• An updated draft Peat Management Plan (as requested by SEPA), • An updated Collision Risk Assessment for GWFG (as requested by SNH), • Revised photomontages for selected viewpoints to reflect the likely effects of a proposed revised site layout, • A more comprehensive technical justification for woodland removal of a large part of the forested parts of the site associated with the wind farm project (in response to comments offered by Forestry Commission Scotland)
Whilst the overall design and layout of the proposal is appropriate for a wind farm of this scale, its intended location is not due to the adverse impacts detailed in this report, and therefore in terms of the overall sustainability of the proposal, it is considered that it would have unacceptably adverse landscape, visual, and cumulative impacts upon the receiving environment which would demonstrably outweigh the sustainability and other benefits associated with the development of onshore renewables.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms and policy LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Local Development Plan.
C. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Landscape impacts may be considered in terms of the disturbance, damage or loss of individual features of landscape character, such as streams, woodlands and open moorland. Landscape character is a fundamental starting point for assessing whether a landscape is suitable for assimilating wind energy development successfully, without giving rise to unacceptable impacts upon the countryside.
According to the ‘Argyll and the Firth of Clyde Landscape Character Assessment’ (SNH 1996) the site is located within the ‘Upland Forest Moor Mosaic’ Landscape Character Type (as detailed in the ES).
Landscape Character
Scottish Natural Heritage considers that the proposal is contrary to the guidance set out in the recommendations of the LWECS although it is acknowledged that the ES does take the findings of the LWECS into account as part of the LVIA. The LWECS cites Barr Glen as a constraint to development:
“The narrow settled glens which extend into these upland – for example Barr Glen….would be sensitive to larger typologies sited on the edge hills and ridges which provide immediate skylines to these smaller scale landscapes”.
The application is sited above the upper glen of Barr Water, in the ‘Upland Forest Moor Mosaic’ landscape character type (LCT 6 of the LWECS). The western or lower mouth of the glen lies within the adjacent ‘Rocky Mosaic’ (LCT 20) landscape type as it extends from the coast into the glen. The boundary between the two LCTs is rarely abrupt and
the change from one to the other is gradual and transitional. The ‘Rocky Mosaic; Barr valley is wide, shallow and open which is not typical of a glen, while the valley floor topography and land cover blends with its sides and shoulders. Further east of the “pinch point” where the topography pushes the C-road to touch the Barr Water by the bridge to Auchadaduie, the glen loses its coastal connection and becomes a part of the uplands ‘UFMM’ LCT. The fields are noticeable smaller; the valley is narrower and deeper, with a pronounced valley floor and a distinct topographic break of slope at the base of the valley sides. The topography is emphasised by the contrast between lower improved grassland (and distinctive riparian woodland) and higher rough grazing.
Scottish Natural Heritage considers that the proposal will adversely affect the experience of the Barr Glen landscape – mainly as it is experienced by local residents, as it is not promoted for walking cycling, and there are few opportunities for vehicle occupants to stop and enjoy the views. It introduces large scale moving industrial development on the rural skyline of the settled Barr Glen, and impinges visually upon its small scale floor.
Chapter 6 of the ES provides the following commentary and recognises the adverse impact the proposal would have upon the glen:
“The viewpoint (VP15) occurs in the UFMM LCT which, at this location within the glen is considered to have a High sensitivity to the type of development proposed due to the scale and linear form of the glen and the prominent skylines formed by the glen sides. Given the substantial change predicted as a result of the development, the effect would be Major and significant. The key effects would relate to the establishment of additional large scale engineered forms and movement to what, even with Beinn an Tuirc wind farm, is essentially still. The felling of forest cover, as depicted in the photomontage for this viewpoint, would also alter the character of the landscape, increasing the proportion of the moorland on the escarpment overlooking the glen. However, this is considered to be broadly consistent with the character of the escarpment which is subject to rotational felling in any event”.
In addition to the windfarm, other indirect impacts will arise from forming the access to the site. SNH notes (at figure 4.4 Site Entrance) that the “ Existing Barr Glen road is to be upgraded and widened as part of Blary Hill windfarm construction works. Extent to be confirmed through detailed design work and consultation with Argyll and Bute Council ”. The upgrading as far as the bridge over Barr Water for Auchadaduie (and the windfarm by that name) and the Blary Hill forestry plantation is an essential pre-requisite to the wind farm development, to allow the removal of timber and the delivery of the turbine components on vehicles up to 43m long. There is little assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the road widening (loss of characteristic features, additional of uncharacteristic features etc) in chapter 14. These are the indirect impacts of the windfarm development.
The LVIA notes only “… it is anticipated that there may be a significant effect on landscape and visual amenity at some locations in close proximity to the development site, the roads and footpaths in the area, arising from the construction of the access tracks and turbine installation ”. SNH agrees that upgrading this road may have an
adverse and permanent impact on the character of the lower Barr Glen due to the cut and fill, the road widening, the installation of urbanising kerbs, and the loss of roadside vegetation. However, LVIA paragraph 459 notes “… no significant effects are anticipated as a result of off-site highway improvements”. The conclusions about these indirect but permanent landscape impacts vary within the ES, so SNH strongly recommend that the necessary improvements are known and assessed by the Council before the application is determined.
The Council’s LWECS seeks to position turbines within the spine of Kintyre where they are generally situated away from centres of population and in a large simple landscape that can accommodate large scale turbines. Examples of consented large scale turbine developments within the spine of Kintyre include Beinn An Tuirc I and II, Deucheran Hill and Cour Wind Farms. Each of these has minimal impact on the coast and other small scale landcapes which is something the LWECS seeks to promote in the development of future wind farms in Kintyre. The only exception to this is Tangy Wind Farm which can be viewed from certain locations in a coastal context but generally at a distance and short-range views are limited.
Accordance with recommendations in the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’
The proposal is not in accordance with the recommendations of the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) which considers the smaller scale and settled Barr Glen would be sensitive to larger typologies sited on containing hills and ridges which provide immediate skylines. Significant intrusion in the setting and views from the adjacent settled and small-scale Rocky Mosaic should be avoided by larger turbines being set well back into the interior of these uplands. This would also accord with the established pattern of existing wind farm development within the Kintyre Peninsula, thus limiting cumulative landscape impacts.
It is the view of both officers and SNH that the Blary Hill wind farm proposal is not set well back into the interior, but is close to the edge of the upland area where the uplands are transected by the glen. In this location it would impinge on the setting and views from the small- scale settled Rocky Mosaic character type with significant adverse short range visual impacts in relation to the small settled glen, and part of the west coast of Kintyre in the vicinity of Glenbarr.
Scale
It is considered that the height of the turbines (110m) is broadly appropriate to the height of the hill (c.200m) on which they sit (Blary Hill top c.270m, Arnicle c.70m AOD), although SNH generally recommends a one third to two thirds ratio between urbine size and landscape elevation. However, due to the proximity of the turbines to the valley floor which is frequented and occupied by people, it is considered that the turbine scale is likely to dominate the head of the glen in a manner which will give rise to an unacceptably detrimental effect on visual amenity within the glen. These short-range visual impacts are a consequence of large scale development being sited inappropriately
on the edge of the otherwise expansive UFFM LCT, where it intrudes unnecessarily on smaller-scaled settled landscapes. Although the overall visual influence of the development in Kintyre is relatively well contained, the magnitude of the short-range visual effects upon the glen warrants refusal of the application, notwithstanding the sustainability benefits of securing increased electricity generation from onshore renewables.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that this proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1 Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1 Development Within the Development Management Zones, LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10 Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption, and the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study. It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.
D. VISUAL IMPACT
Visual impact relates to the proposal’s visibility and its impacts on views, as experienced by people. In determining the proposal’s visual impact, the layout of the wind farm has been assessed from key viewpoints. Visually sensitive viewpoints include those where there are views to, or from, designated landscapes; however, sensitivity is not confined to designated interests. Visually sensitive viewpoints can include those which are frequently visited by people (such as well-used transport corridors, tourist roads, or picnic spots), settlements where people live, other inhabited buildings or viewpoints which have a landscape value that people appreciate (and which they might visit for recreational pursuits or areas for hill walking, cycling or education).
In order to assess the visual impact, the developer assessed a series of viewpoints agreed in advance with the Council and SNH to reflect the distribution and sensitivity of receptors. These are located in local settlements, transportation corridors, places of cultural/historical interest and known popular viewpoints. It is accepted that photomontages and other visual information can only give an indication of the relative scale of the proposals in relation to the surrounding landscape. There is no disguising the visual impact of the proposal, as 125 metre tall structures will be clearly seen in the surrounding area.
List of viewpoints assessed:
1) B8024, Knapdale Peninsula 2) Meall Reamhar, Knapdale 3) Loch Na Naich 4) Cnoc a Bhaille, Shios 5) Beinn Bharrain 6) Sgreaden Hill 7) Beinn Ghuilean 8) Skeroblin Cruach near Lussa Loch
9) South of Stewarton 10) Glenbarr 11) Claggan Bay, Islay 12) Islay Ferry – Port Askaig to Kennacraig 13) Jura, A845 near Cabrach 14) Gigha South Pier 15) Barr Glen Road 16) Gigha Ferry 17) Port Mor
It is considered that the visual influence of Blary Hill is localized, but as indicated in the applicant’s Environmental Statement and in the previous section of this report, visual effects upon Barr Glen will be significantly adverse. Short-range views are demonstrated in VPs 10 and 15. This indicates a significant impact on settlement in the glen. The LWECS cites this glen as a specific constraint upon large scale turbine development. This proposal by virtue of being situated on a skyline which encloses and defines the glen would exert an unacceptable visual impact on the settled glen and the smaller scaled Rocky Mosaic. The wind turbines would be prominent features in available views from Glenbarr and the scattered settlement pattern of those properties throughout the glen. It is accepted however, that there would be little influence exerted upon the coastal edge and the associated APQ other than in some transient views from the A83(T).
It is worth noting that the Blary Hill turbines are seen in views from the glen southwards to the sun, a direction that is more important and therefore more sensitive to visual intrusion than views north. In this context he turbines would, more often than not, be seen in dark profile against a paler sky.
In the context of a relatively sparsely populated glen it should be noted that there has been significant third party objection to the development, particularly in terms of scale, visual impact and the overbearing effect of the proposal on people living and working in the glen.
Officers agree with the position adopted in the LWECS and endorsed by SNH that the proposal will have visual effects which would be significantly adverse upon a glen which is already subject to the influence of turbines at Beinn an Tuirc, and where three further turbines have already been consented at Auchadaduie. The glen is subject to further pressure for turbines both at this site and at Creggans on the opposite side of the glen, and cumulative visual effects are therefore an important issue in the consideration of this application, which is addressed in the following section.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1 Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1 Development Within the Development Management Zones, LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10 Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption, and the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity
Study. It also fails to accord with other guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.
E. CUMULATIVE IMPACT
Cumulative impact is often difficult to assess but can have significant land use planning implications, particularly in relation to noise, visual, aviation, landscape, ecological, and hydrological impacts. The Cumulative Impact Assessment considers other existing and approved wind energy developments and those proposals subject to an EIA scoping opinion (where information about the development was available). The principal cumulative concerns in respect of this proposal would be in terms of visual effects.
Existing wind farm development is a key characteristic of the UFMM character type which extends along the spine of Kintyre. These developments have been well sited and as a result can be accommodated in the landscape without significantly detracting from the character, experience and enjoyment of the peninsula.
Barr Glen is already subject to the visual influence of Beinn an Tuirc I and II wind farms part of which is visible on elevated moorland outwith and beyond the head of the glen. VP 15 demonstrates that the northern most group of 23 turbines is visible in the same view as this application. The Blary Hill proposal is grouped on the hill in an approximately circular cluster, broadly mirroring the domed shape of the hill on the southern flanks of upper/eastern Barr Glen, which is almost enclosed by watercourses. This dome continues the line of the long ridges occupied by Beinn an Tuirc wind farm, and Blary Hill windfarm will be seen in association with this existing development in views from up towards the head of the glen. However, it would introduce larger scale turbines with an influence over the more sensitive smaller scaled area of the glen below the higher upland ridges. The LWECS cautions that “ Extensions to operational wind farms may extend or exacerbate visual intrusion on sensitive skylines…within the narrow settled Barr Glen…within this character type”.
The approved Auchadaduie turbine cluster will be sited at a similar height to Blary Hill on the southern flanks of western Barr Glen, close to the transition between the upland UFMM and coastal Rocky Mosaic landscapes. Based on the cZTV the gap between its eastern-most turbine and the western-most of Blary Hill is similar to the distance between Blary Hill turbines T10 and T13, and continues their linear appearance at a similar contour height above the shoulder of the glen. The location, orientation, spacing and similar height o the turbines, therefore, may well create the impression of Auchadaduie being an extension to Blary Hill windfarm in views inland from the west (VP10), and the north (VP15).
It is important to note that there is a Section 36 (Electricity Act) application for Creggans windfarm to the north on the opposite side of the glen (18 x 110m turbines). SNH considers that in the event that either Blary Hill or Creggans wind farms were to be approved, there would be no opportunity for a further wind farm without seriously compromising landscape capacity..
Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of cumulative effects the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1 Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1 Development Within the Development Management Zones, LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10 Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption, and the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study.
F. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
Habitats
The habitats recorded in the development footprint are generally of limited ecological value due to their small scale and age category. They consist of 209ha of coniferous plantation forestry all of which will be removed to facilitate the development comprising 98% of the total habitat loss. The long term forest management can be dealt with via a planning condition should the proposal be approved. Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) have accepted this approach, but will require the developer to demonstrate that they have explored all the options for on-site retention/replanting rather than clear felling and providing compensatory planting elsewhere in Scotland. Should the applicant receive permission, then they intend to provide an enhancement, management and restoration of 53ha of land that will provide a habitat mosaic of greater ecological and biodiversity value than currently present. Overal,l the proposal will have a negligible adverse impact on habitats and biodiversity.
Wet Modified Bog - There will be 1.5ha of wet modified bog that will be permanently lost as a result of the development. This habitat is common and widespread in the area. SNH has not raised any concern over the loss of this habitat.
Marshy Grassland - A small area of 1.3ha of marshy grassland will be lost to the development. Again, this habitat type is common across the area and SNH has not raised any concern over this element of the proposal.
Barr Glen Road Habitats – the road-widening and improvements works will result in the loss of some predominantly agricultural habitats including 0.27ha of arable land, 0.2ha of improved grassland and 0.01ha of semi-improved grassland. Such habitats are not considered to be of particularly high value.
Approximately 0.02ha of gorse scrub and 0.04ha of species poor marshy grassland will also be removed to facilitate works to the Barr Glen road. There will be some 355m of gorse hedgerow removed to allow for widening works but this will be reinstated at the new road boundary resulting in no overall net loss.
Mammals
Bats - The ES identified a possible two species of bats in the area but overall use was considered low. Mitigation measures include ensuring turbines remain at least 50m from
any possible structure considered attractive for bat roosts and a pre-commencement survey of the existing bridge of Barr Water by a suitably qualified ECoW.
Red Squirrel – Although no evidence of Red Squirrel was recorded within the Terrestrial Ecology Survey Area, there is some potential for the species to be present. Should the application receive approval then a pre-commencement survey will be undertaken of any potential habitat areas.
Otter – Otters are known to be present in the development area and a lying-up site was identified within the survey area and is located more than 190m from all site infrastructure. In terms of mitigation a pre-construction survey will be undertaken before works commence. This survey will include a repeat survey of all watercourse crossing including a 100m zone upstream and downstream.
Water Vole – Although not found on site mitigation measures will be put in place to avoid impact on water voles. For example, water crossing points will be re-surveyed prior to the commencement of works.
Badger - Although not found on site mitigation measures will be put in place to avoid impact on badgers. For example, water crossing points will be re-surveyed prior to the commencement of works.
Advice provided by SNH in relation to mammals would be required to be incorporated into relevant planning conditions in the event of permission being granted.
Freshwater Fish
The ES indicates that tributaries to the Barr Water are suitable for Atlantic Salmon and Brown Trout. The applicant proposes various mitigation measures including pre- commencement surveys.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent, from the point of view of ecological interests, with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
G. ORNITHOLOGICAL IMPACT
Greenland White-fronted Geese
GWFG are a European Protected Species listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive. SNH has advised that there is potential for building and operation of large turbines within 500m of a small loch to cause displacement or abandonment of the loch. They therefore raised initial objections on this point. The applicant refers to several studies carried out assessing
the potential disturbance from wind turbines on geese. In the absence of studies of roost use in relation to wind turbines close to roosts it is acceptable to use other disturbance studies to inform a precautionary view. SNH disagree that it is appropriate to rigidly apply some studies of pink-footed and barnacle geese to suggest Greenland white-fronted geese will habituate to the turbines closest to the loch, as the situations are not the same and, as Greenland white-fronted geese are noted as behaving/responding slightly differently to other geese in certain situations. In response, the applicants have reconfigured their layout in an attempt to allay SNH’s identified concerns. The amended submission attempts to address this point by the re-location of turbines. Previously two of the turbines were well within 500m of Loch Arnicle. A third turbine was at 520m from the eastern arm of Loch Arnicle. Scottish Natural Heritage advises that a minimum buffer of 500m be safeguarded to minimise disturbance to roosting GWFG.
In the applicant’s revised layout two turbines have been moved to 500m and just beyond, but a third is at a distance of 420m from the end of the eastern arm of Loch Arnicle. Whilst still within SNH’s recommended 500m buffer distance, at the point of the narrow eastern arm of the loch, SNH considers that this turbine is over 500m from the main body of the loch which is normally occupied by geese. It is considered unlikely that the Greenland white-fronted geese will make significant use of the narrow eastern arm of the loch, which is supported by the evidence of surveyed goose use which has been provided in the applicant’s Environmental Statement.
On this basis Scottish Natural Heritage has withdrawn its previous objection on this point. Nonetheless, In view of the potential for ‘significant effects’ upon an Annex 1 species, a Wild Birds Directive ‘appropriate assessment’ is appended as Appendix B to this report. This concludes that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the qualifying interests of the Kintyre Goose Roost SPA.
The RSPB has objected on the basis of the unknown impacts on GWFG and has advised that should the proposal be approved then an ‘appropriate assessment will be required. Survey data from the ES and that for Auchadaduie wind farm clearly show that geese from Glenbarr regularly use Loch Arnicle as a roost. The information demonstrates that disturbance to GWFG can occur beyond the 300m buffer and concludes that disturbance is likely within 500m of Loch Arnicle. It also notes that the geese become alert at 650m and take flight at 448m. RSPB recommend adopting a precautionary approach and providing a greater buffer of 500-600m. It is considered that the applicant’s revision of the layout and Scottish Natural Heritage’s acceptance of such provides sufficient reassurance that the conservation interests of this species will not be adversely affected to a degree which warrants refusal of the application on nature conservation grounds.
Golden Eagle SNH considers that the low collision rate risk figure predicted by modelling of 1% and 2% is in any event unlikely. It is clear though that the birds from Beinn an Tuirc are occasionally using upper Glen Barr and may use some of the Beinn an Tuirc mitigation area close to the proposal. In longer term, with forestry management, there may be some scope for eagle
foraging closer to the wind farm, but overall use is still likely to be low and not a significant concern.
Hen Harrier A single breeding pair of Hen Harriers is to the west and are likely to remain in the general area, but SNH largely agree with the assessment that risk to harriers from the wind farm will be low.
The ES does not acknowledge that that forest felling is likely to increase habitat for harrier including close to the turbines and therefore poses an increased risk to hen harriers. Given this potential increase in risk any permission will require the development to provide details of mitigation measures prior to the commencement of works.
Black Grouse SNH accept that it is difficult to mitigation for this species when the lek sites hold small numbers and are potentially prone to moving around. For that reason the pre- construction surveys will be important should the proposal be approved.
Collision Risk Modelling SNH believe that the amended Collision Risk Assessment (CRA) calculations for geese are subject to a number of issues which will skew the final figure. Despite this, having examined the extra data, SNH believe it unlikely that the true figure will be so high that it causes concern regarding cumulative collision risk for the Kintyre population of GWFG. SNH initially objected on this basis but subsequently are prepared to withdraw this should the data be re-calculated. SNH believe that an accurate recalculation is important so that they and the Planning Authority can continue to monitor the cumulative impacts of various wind farm proposals on the Kintyre population of GWFG and other species.
Since SNH’s initial response, the CRM has been recalculated although it is still considered there are errors in the assessment. However, Scottish Natural Heritage has concluded that the collision risk figure will not be likely, on its own or in combination with other projects, threaten the population viability of the GWFG in Kintyre. Therefore, SNH withdraw this element of their objection subject to a recalculation of the collision risk model for monitoring purposes, which can be secured via a pre-start planning condition in the event of permission being granted.
Having due regard to the above and the conclusions of a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ it is considered that the proposal is consistent, from the point of view of ornithological interests, with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
H. HYDROLOGICAL & HYDROGEOLOGICAL IMPACT
In regard to pollution prevention and environmental management SEPA requests that a condition is attached to any grant of planning permission requiring a Construction Environmental Management Document to be agreed prior to the commencement of development and implemented in full. A condition to this effect would be required in the event of permission being granted.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of hydrology and hydrogeological impact the proposal is consistent with the provisions of: Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
I. MANAGEMENT OF PEAT/SOIL
SEPA initially objected to the proposed draft peat management plan that states ‘trackside screening bunds are proposed for minimising visual impact of the stone tracks’. No information has been provided in relation to the anticipated width, height and length of the bunds nor is there any justification for their creation. SEPA has requested more information on this element of the proposal.
The draft peat management plan submitted states that ‘any surplus peat could then be placed within the borrow pit restoration schemes along with excess soil’. SEPA require the PMP to assess whether the re-use is realistic. They do not consider this as an acceptable re-use of peat and would not constitute an environmental benefit.
The applicant has submitted a revised PMP to which SEPA has responded positively withdrawing their initial objection. Provided that the planning authority are satisfied that there is a clear planning need for proposals that have a requirement for landscaping, such as peat verges on floating roads and borrow pit restoration, then the peat management proposals would be acceptable from SEPA’s point of view.
The developer has identified ways to re-use excavated peat on site. There has been quantification of the amount of peat likely to be excavated at each location and proposed uses including details of construction methods. Material calculations (waste produced versus reuse) seem broadly in balance. Overall the Draft peat Management Plan appears reasonable and in line with SEPA’s recommendations on peatland development and associated guidance.
Detail of excavation methods, handling and storage of peat is to be developed in the final PMP and site specific considerations and environmental mitigation measures must be taken into account.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of the management of peat and soils the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and Scottish Planning Policy 2014.
K. BORROW PITS
The ES states that two borrow pits are proposed as part of the application. However, the applicant has been advised that the borrow pits will not be considered as part of this application and should permission be received then they will require separate minerals applications which would be assessed on their own merits.
L. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
Historic Scotland does not raise any objections to the proposal despite the impacts on certain assets within their statutory remit. It is considered the level of impact on the following Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) is not sufficient as to warrant an objection to the application:
• An Dunan, dun, WSW of Auchadaduie • Blary, dun ENE of proposal, • Garvalt, dun 500m SW of the site, and • Crois Mhic Aoide, standing stone 2,100m SW of Beinn an Turc, Saddell
Given HS’s lack of objection they do not recommend any form of mitigation.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; and LDP 9: Development Setting, Layout and Design.
M. TOURISM IMPACT
The degree to which wind turbines influence the decision as to whether tourists should visit or return to an area, is open to debate. In dismissing an appeal for a windfarm at Corlarach in Cowal, the Reporter was persuaded that resource based tourism founded partly on landscape and scenery was important to Argyll and Bute, in the context of a local economy which is heavily dependent upon the tourism sector and its associated employment. Accordingly, development with significantly adverse landscape and/or visual amenity impacts has been recognised as having potential to devalue the attraction of Argyll as a tourism destination.
Opinions and attitudes towards wind farms have been the subject of several public opinion surveys over the past 20 years. In particular, the report of the Sustainable Development Commission Wind Power in the UK (2005) summarises the findings of 24
surveys conducted between 1992 and 2005, and reports that across these studies, an average of 80% of respondents support the development of wind energy technologies. The ES also refers to the 2003 MORI survey undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government) which concludes that people were three times more likely to say they felt their local wind farm had a positive impact on the area (20%) than as they were to say it had a negative impact (7%). People living within 5 km of the local wind farm held the most positive views with 45% saying they thought the overall impact had been positive and only 6% saying they thought it had been negative.
In a more recent appeal decision (dismissed 11th July 2013), against refusal of a single wind turbine (84m to blade tip) on land north-east of Redesdale House, Skipness, the Reporter made a cogent point with regard to reference made by the appellant to research on the relationship of wind farms and tourism. He took the view that available surveys and research relate to a pattern of wind farm development which has come about under a fully developed planning system. They provide no evidence of the effect on tourists (and the tourism industry) had there been no such system in operation, or if it had been operated less carefully – for example by permitting an obtrusive turbine in a fine landscape traversed by important tourist routes. The Reporter therefore gave little weight in deciding the appeal to the conclusions of surveys referred to by the appellant in support of his proposal.
What is clear, is that appropriately sited and scaled developments with limited consequences for landscape character, scenic quality and tourism assets have less potential to influence the decisions of those who might prove sensitive to developments than those forms of wind power development which are more prominently sited and of larger scale, such that they are less readily capable of assimilation in their landscape setting.
There are a number of visitor attractions subject to the influence of the proposal: the Kintyre Way – a long distance walking route spanning 140 km across Kintyre; National Cycle Route 78 from Oban to Campbeltown, historical sites such as Glen Barr Abbey; along with Hotels, Bed and Breakfasts and holiday cottages across the area.
Whilst it is not possible to be conclusive about the extent of these impacts, or to quantify them in a manner which would warrant a specific reason for refusal based upon conflict with tourism economy interests, it is reasonable to conclude that any proposal which will impinge on important views and the landscape and scenic qualities of an area which is valued as a recreational and tourism resource, will not be in the interests of the tourism economy. That said, the main adverse effects of this development are largely confined to the glen itself which is not a popular tourist destination, so it is not expected that the adverse visual effects upon the glen and its occupiers will give rise to associated implications of significance for the tourism economy of Kintyre.
Having due regard to the above, as far as tourism interests are concerned, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP and Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 3: Protecting, Conserving and
Enhancing Our Outstanding Environment Together of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
N. NOISE & AIR QUALITY
Technically, there are two quite distinct types of noise sources within a wind turbine – the mechanical noise produced by the machine and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air. The Report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (Final Report, Sept 1996, DTI), (ETSU-R-97) describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, which should be followed to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments, until such time as an update is available. This gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise conditions.
A further report produced by Hayes McKenzie for DECC entitled “An Analysis of How Noise Impacts are Considered in the Determination of Wind Farm Planning Applications” suggested that best practice guidance is required to confirm and, where necessary, clarify and add to the way ETSU-R-97 should be implemented in practice. This report also concludes that there is no evidence of health affects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by turbines.
The most conclusive summary of the implications of low frequency wind farm noise for planning policy following on from the Hayes McKenzie report is given by the UK Government’s statement regarding the finding of the Salford University Report into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise (September 2011). This study concluded that although Aerodynamic Modulation cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of Aerodynamic Modulation resulting from wind farms in the UK is low. Out of the 133 wind farms in operation at the time of the study, there were four cases where Aerodynamic Modulation appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for three out of these four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent installation, investigations are ongoing.
Public Protection has considered the proposal and advised that the noise assessment within the ES is sound and that a planning condition could address any noise concerns of nearby residents to ensure compliance with the 35dB ETSU standard. In reaching their conclusions Public Protection has taken into account the cumulative implications of noise associated with other existing and proposed wind farms.
In terms of construction noise Public Protection offer no concerns relating to the construction phase of the proposal at the closest sensitive receptors.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of noise and air quality the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
O. SHADOW FLICKER & ICE THROW (EQUIPMENT SAFETY)
Government guidance advises that if separation is provided between turbines and nearby dwellings (as general rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not be a problem. The ES confirms that the separation between the wind farm and the nearest residential property is greater than 10x rotor diameter (10 x 70m = 700 metres). Under accepted good practice and guidance, this will ensure that shadow flicker will not present a problem and Public Protection has not raised any concern in this regard.
Ice throw is not a matter which falls under the auspices of Planning or Public Protection. This said, companies supplying products and services to the wind energy industry are required to operate to a series of international, European and British Standards and the operator has a duty of care not to prejudice the health and safety of site operatives or other persons frequenting the site.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of ice throw and shadow flicker the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
P. TELEVISION RECEPTION
Television reception can be affected by the presence of turbines although this has become less of a problem since the switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting. In the event that reception is impaired then it is the developer’s responsibility to rectify the problem. This would need to be secured by condition in the event that planning permission is granted.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of noise and air quality the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
Q. AVIATION MATTERS
There have been no objections to this element of the proposal from any consultees. However, HIAL has recommended that a red obstacle light be attached should permission be granted.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of aviation matters the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
R. ELECTRO-MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE TO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
Telecommunications operators have been consulted to determine whether their systems would be affected by electro-magnetic radiation associated with electricity generation. Scottish Planning Policy and local plan policy highlights telecommunications interference as a material consideration in considering the acceptability of wind turbines.
The Joint Radio Company has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal. The applicants’ ES details consultation with a number of providers none of whom raised concern. The applicant’s submission does not anticipate a loss in signal as a result of the proposal, however they are prepared to undertake appropriate mitigation and a planning condition can secure this.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of the above the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
S. ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT
The ES states that the proposed route to the site for the delivery of abnormal loads is the A83(T) north from the port of Campbeltown to the site. Construction traffic will travel up from Campbeltown to a point opposite Glenbarr Primary School where a new turning area has been applied for separately to this application. Vehicles would then drive south again and turn off the A83(T) and onto the Barr Glen Road. This road would then be upgraded to 5.5.m width and the access taken to the site would be via an existing field access approximately half way along the road (this is the same location as that intended to serve the consented Auchadaduie wind turbines). Upon completion of works the public road would be reduced in width to 3.5m with the provision of 18 permanent passing places.
The Council’s Area Roads Engineer has advised that they have no objection to the proposal but request the following as conditions:
• Traffic Management Plan to be submitted for approval by Roads & Amenity Services, prior to any work starting on site. The Traffic Management plan should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components and labour required during the construction, operation and decommissioning phase.
• A detailed Method Statement in relation to access and transport of materials, plant and equipment. Method statement to be submitted for approval by Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work starting on site.
• New passing places to be provided and existing passing places to be extended where required. Locations and construction details to be agreed with Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work starting on site.
• Carriageway widening to be carried out, locations and construction details to be agreed with Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work starting on site.
• The sections of temporary carriageway widening to be soiled and seeded on completion of construction works, to the satisfaction of Roads & Amenity Services.
• The applicant to inspect and submit a report which identifies areas of road which will be vulnerable to the proposed traffic loading. The report will include an assessment of any culverts or other structures. The report will include measures to mitigate against any likely damage. Details of the report to be agreed with Roads & Amenity Service prior to any work starting on site.
• A detailed condition survey to be carried out between the A83 and the application site prior to any work starting on site. The condition survey is to be recorded by means of video and photographs. A copy of the video and photographs are to be submitted to Roads & Amenity Services for approval.
• Public road between the A83 and application site to have inspections carried out on a weekly basis to ensure the carriageway remains in a safe condition. Details of inspection to be agreed with Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work starting on site.
Given the previous acceptance of this means of access to serve Auchadaduie wind farm and the engineers acceptance that access from the A83(T) as proposed is acceptable and that the improvements required to the Barr Glen road can be achieved within the confines of the road corridor, then the means of access proposed is acceptable. It is to be noted that in the context of a lightly trafficked route, which is however the sole means of access in and out of the glen, then the extent of the works required and the duration of the construction period would exert significant change on the lower part of the glen and protracted disruption for occupiers and businesses having to access to and from the upper part of the glen. Third parties are critical of this which forms part of their reasons for objecting to the proposal. The visual and other amenity consequences of the required means of access are therefore substantial, albeit that they are confined to the construction period only, given the restoration which is to take place once the development is commissioned.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.
T. INFRASTRUCTURE
No requirement for public water or foul drainage connection is identified. Environmental Heath has not raised any concerns over impact on private water supplies. In the event of approval, a condition should be required to secure a sustainable drainage strategy for
the roads, turbine hardstanding areas, and the construction yard to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water run-off during construction works.
However, both SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Technical Officer initially objected on the grounds of flood risk. The applicants have responded by preparing a Flood Risk Assessment. The main focus of the FRA is the bridge crossing of the Barr Water. The northern edge of the site boundary (by the Barr Water) lies within the indicative limits of fluvial flooding as shown upon the SEPA Flood Map. Localised areas on the site and adjacent to the northern edge of the site lie within the indicative limits of surface water flooding shown upon the SEPA map.
The FRA concludes that the bridge crossing of the Barr Water can be located above the 200 year flood level but that flooding of the access road to the bridge may still occur.
In response, SEPA has withdrawn their objection on the grounds that there is no historic risk of flooding at the site. Although there remains a possibility of occasional flooding of land by the bridge over the Barr Water at the site entrance, this does not pose any additional risk to the surrounding area over the pre-development position and any occasional interruption to the means of access to the site would be an operational matter for the applicants to consider. The Council’s Flood Risk Officer has also withdrawn his objection on the basis that further details can be sought as part of a planning condition should the application be approved.
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that in terms of drainage and water supply the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; and LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
U. WIND REGIME
In order to more accurately gauge the wind speed and direction, permission was sought for the erection of a 81.5m meteorological mast which was approved in October 2011 for a three year period. This has been erected on site and is operational. Data from the meteorological mast is not included in the ES and there is no requirement for it to be provided in support of the planning application. The ES simply states that the wind speed has been assessed as appropriate for wind energy generation and the site is accessible.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
V. GRID NETWORK & CABLES
Connection to the National Grid is not a matter of land use policy, however, it should be considered ‘in the round’ as part of the planning application process. The Environmental Statement states that: each turbine would be connected to the on-site control building by
underground cable and that the grid connection is likely to involve a 33kV overhead line connection to the substation near Brackley, north of Carradale. This connection will be the subject of an application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 to the Scottish Government, which will be the subject of consultation with the Council as planning authority.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
W. SOCIO ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT
During the development, construction and decommissioning phases it is considered that a minor positive impact would arise as result of direct and indirect employment. It is anticipated that a temporary workforce could vary between 10 and 50 people. On a construction site an average of 30 people could be utilized at any one time (equivalent to 2.25 FTEs). In direct employment as a result of supply chain benefits for local businesses, sub-contracted work relating to the transportation of labour and materials, expenditure by construction employees in the local economy is considered to represent a minor positive impact. In order to ensure positive benefits for the local area during construction of the development, RES would seek to use local labour, manufacturers and suppliers (including accommodation) where reasonably practicable.
Community Benefit is not considered to be a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications. In the event that permission were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process.
In reaching our conclusions we have had regard to those factors which weigh in favour of the development – the presumption in favour of sustainable development established by SPP, contribution to renewable energy targets, local economic benefits etc. but notwithstanding these benefits, when weighed in the balance against the local environmental shortcomings of the proposal and having regard to views expressed by consultees and third parties we are of the view that the scale of development proposed on this site remains, on balance, unacceptable.
X. DECOMMISSIONING
Should Members determine to grant permission for this proposal a requirement for decommissioning and site restoration should be included in the condition(s) and/or legal agreement, which will be triggered by either the expiry of the permission or if the project ceases to operate for a specific period. This will ensure that at the end of the proposal’s operational life the turbines would be decommissioned and principal elements removed; the site would be restored to its former use leaving little if any visible trace of the turbines; the foundations, new tracks and hard-standings would be covered over with topsoil and reseeded; the cables would be de-energised and left in place, and any cables marker signs removed; and, the electrical substation building would be demolished to ground level with the foundation covered with topsoil and reseeded.
Having due regard to the above, as decommissioning could be controlled by condition/Section 75 Legal Agreement it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in that regard in terms of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
Y. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICY & ADVICE
The commitment to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources is a vital part of the response to climate change. Renewable energy generation will contribute to more secure and diverse energy supplies and support sustainable economic growth (SPP). The current target is for 100% of Scotland’s electricity and 11% of heat demand to be generated from renewable sourced by 2020 (2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland).
SPP provides the government’s policy position on planning matters having regard to national priorities with the intended outcomes identified reflecting the strategic visions set out in NPF 3. An underlying theme is that of sustainability, a principle which has been accorded enhanced priority in this iteration of SPP through the introduction of a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. Whilst the statutory primacy of the development plan in decision-making is not undermined by this policy pronouncement, the intention is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should prevail other than in circumstances where there are ‘adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in this SPP’ (Para 33) .
Paragraph 29 of SPP sets out principles by which decisions should be guided. Those relevant to this case are securing economic benefit and good design, supporting delivery of energy infrastructure and climate change mitigation, and protecting the historic and natural environments and the amenity of existing developments. In terms of development in rural areas, SPP recognises the need to secure development which protects the character of the particular area and to support business whilst protecting environmental quality.
The delivery of a ‘Low Carbon Place’ is key ambition of SPP which aims to support the transformational change to a low carbon economy, focused on the reduction of greenhouse gases associated with fossil fuel electricity generation. It expresses support for renewable energy technologies, of which onshore wind remains the principal generator. As with the stance adopted in NPF 3, the support for wind farms as a component of an expanding renewables sector is not unqualified. There is recognition of the value and importance of the natural environment and an expectation that the planning system should facilitate positive change while maintaining and enhancing distinctive landscape character. Siting and design should take account of local landscape character and developers should seek to minimise adverse impacts through careful planning and design. Permission should be refused where the nature or scale of
proposed development would have an unacceptable impact upon the natural environment.
Overall, as a renewable energy proposal with considerable generating capacity the proposal gains support in principle from SPP in terms of the contribution it would be able to make to the achievement of national renewable energy targets and the ambition to move to a low carbon economy. That said, sustainability has to be considered in the round and developments which may benefit the wider environment may come at a price which is too high in terms of their more localised consequences for the receiving environment. So support for wind farms as a means of expanding the proportion of electricity produced from renewable sources is qualified by the need to have regard to the extent of local environmental impacts and whether they amount to ‘adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in this SPP’ (Para 33) .
The Council’s conclusion has been that the location and scale of the turbines proposed do not relate satisfactorily to the scale and character of the receiving landscape, and that they would exert an inappropriate visual impact upon Barr Glen. These negative effects, in the Council’s view, outweigh the benefits of the proposal, including the contribution it could make to the local economy and to the achievement of national energy generation targets.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
Z. ENERGY POLICY, THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS & ARGYLL & BUTE’S CONTRIBUTION
In assessing the acceptability of wind farm proposals, it is necessary to have regard to the macro-environmental aspects of renewable energy (reduction in reliance on fossil fuels and contribution to reduction in global warming) as well as to the micro- environmental consequences of the proposal (in terms of its impact on its receiving environment).
Installed onshore wind energy generation capacity in Scotland in 2012 was 5.8GW and is expected to continue to grow in response to the Scottish Government target of meeting 100% of demand from renewable sources by 2020. As a consequence, planning authorities have to consider more frequently turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, where design elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed (Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms).
The national and international drive to combat climate change by reduced reliance on fossil fuels is accepted, but this cannot be an over-riding reason to accept development where acknowledged interests of importance are significantly prejudiced. This is particularly the case given that the renewables sector is pursuing a large number of prospective sites across Scotland, so there remains an element of choice as to the most appropriate locations. There is therefore not such an imperative to develop a high
proportion of prospective sites as there might be if the sector had less sites under consideration, as in that scenario unsuccessful applications would clearly jeopardise the ability to meet renewable energy production targets. Secondly, the rate at which wind farm development have been approved in recent years is such that the Scottish Government’s ambitious target for renewables to satisfy the equivalent of 100% of gross annual consumption by 2020 is now well within reach.
In a recent appeal decision in the Scottish Borders (Barrel Law PPA-140-2046 19.08.14) the Reporter concluded that having regard to both operational and approved developments yet to be implemented, of the 16GW required to meet the target there was in 2014 only an additional 2.7GW shortfall, with 7.2GW in the planning system; more than two and a half times that required to close the gap. Although further capacity beyond the target is desirable, and there remains an element of uncertainty as to exactly what will be on stream by 2020, the absence of a significant shortfall relative to the target, and continued proliferation of prospective schemes is such that there is no over- riding imperative to secure additional development where it gives rise to unacceptable local impacts. Accordingly, given that there is no lack of proposals being pursued, as time goes on the increasing prospect of the target being satisfied allows planning decision-makers to be more stringent in their consideration of the respective merits of proposals, given that refusal of a particular development will not necessarily contribute to the prospect of the government’s stated target being missed.
Whilst the 28 MW maximum capacity of the proposal would add to Argyll & Bute’s contribution to Scotland’s renewable energy commitments, it is not considered that the macro-environmental benefits of the proposal in terms of renewable generating capacity are such as to warrant the setting aside of the other development plan policy considerations identified above which have prompted the recommendation for refusal.
APPENDIX B
APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT BY ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL
EC DIRECTIVE 79/409 ON THE CONSERVATION OF WILD BIRDS
THE CONSERVATION (NATURAL HABITATS AND C.) REGULATIONS 1994 AS AMENDED
In circumstances where European Protected Species could be subject to significant effects as a consequence of development proposals, the competent authority, in considering whether development should be consented, is required to undertake an appropriate assessment to inform its decision making process on the basis that where unacceptable effects are identified, or in cases of ‘reasonable scientific doubt’, then permission ought not to be granted. An ‘appropriate assessment’ is required to be undertaken in cases where any plan or project which: (a) either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site designated for nature conservation; and (b) is not directly connected with the management of the site.
It is considered by Scottish Natural Heritage that the above planning application (reference 14/01978/PP) has the potential to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA). As a consequence, Argyll and Bute Council has conducted an appropriate assessment, as per the Conservation (Habitats and C.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), having regard to the anticipated effects of development and the conservation objectives for the site’s qualifying interests. This assessment is detailed below.
Characteristics of the development
The proposal is for the erection of 14 x 110m (blade tip) wind turbines on the forested southern slopes of the eastern (upper) end of Barr Glen. Access to the site is from the A83(T) via the lower part of the C20 Barr Glen road. The glen is already influenced by the presence of large scale turbines at the operational Beinn an Tuirc windfarm, which is situated beyond the head of the glen on the spine of Kintyre. There have also been three turbines approved, but yet to be constructed, at Auchadaduie on the southern flank of the glen, to the west of the application site. An Electricity Act application for further large scale windfarm development at Creggans, opposite this application site on the north side of the glen, is currently under consideration by the Scottish Government.
The proposal presents potential consequences for the species Anser albifrons favirostris during the construction and decommissioning phases as a result of disturbance, and presents a collision risk and further disturbance during the operation phase.
The proposal has the potential to impact on Loch Arnicle which lies approximately 500m to the south of the site. This is seasonally occupied by over-wintering GWFG and forms part of a suite of designated locations which together constitute the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA) The appraisal considers the impact of the proposals on disturbance and abandonment. It has regard to the applicant’s Technical Appendix A8.1 to their Environmental
Statement, along with updated collision risk modelling post-dating the production of the Environmental Statement. It also has regard to advice provided by the RSPB and by Scottish Natural Heritage.
Assessment
Scottish Natural Heritage raised serious concerns about the submitted proposal on the basis that the wind farm would infringe their recommended buffer of 500m around Loch Arnicle. In SNH’s response to further information provided by the developer of 20th January 2015 they advised that:
“We are still of the view that there is potential for the building and operation of large turbines within 500m of a small roost loch to cause displacement or abandonment of the loch. We will, therefore, continue to object to this proposal on this point.”
In response the applicant’s have amended their wind farm layout in an effort to overcome thes concerns. The originally proposed layout included two of the turbines well within 500m of Loch Arnicle. A third turbine was to be located at 520m from the eastern arm of Loch Arnicle. In the new layout two turbines have been moved to 500m and just beyond, but a third is at a distance of 420m from the end of the eastern arm of Loch Arnicle.
Whilst still within SNH’s recommended 500m buffer distance at the point of the narrow eastern arm of the loch, SNH recognises that this turbine is over 500m from the main body of the loch which is where geese would be expected to be found based on past observation. It is considered unlikely that the Greenland white-fronted geese would make significant use of the narrow eastern arm of the loch, which is supported by the evidence of goose use provided in the survey information recorded in the Environmental Statement.
With the foregoing in mind Scottish Natural Heritage has withdrawn its original objection on this point. However, SNH has requested that should the Planning Authority be minded to grant permission, then they would recommend post-construction monitoring to assess whether the loch remains used by the geese, including a programme of early and late Vantage Point watches to check for geese using the site . This would be able to be secured by planning condition in the event of the development being approved.
The Kintyre Goose Roost SPA is recorded as hosting around 17% of the UK’s over-wintering population of GWFG. Its conservation objectives are to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and to ensure the following are maintained in the long term:
- Population of the species as a viable component of the site; - Distribution of species within the site; - Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; - Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species - No significant disturbance of the species
The potential impacts of the development in relation to the conservation objectives cited in the SPA designation have been considered in the light of the above and it has been concluded that with identified mitigation measures in place the impacts arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the amended development as proposed, in combination with other proposed wind farms nearby (Creggan and Auchadaduie) will not have a significant impact upon qualifying interests, and accordingly there is no reason to withhold permission on European nature conservation grounds.