00951 ROH Wind Turbine Auchentirrie Farm.Pdf

Argyll and Bute Council Development & Infrastructure 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: 15/00951/PP

Planning Hierarchy: Local

Applicant: Bute Community Power

Proposal: Installation of 2 wind turbines (47 metres high to tip height), formation of vehicular access, hardstanding and erection of substation building

Site Address: Auchintirrie Farm, Rothesay, Isle of Bute ______

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

 Installation of 2 wind turbines;  formation of vehicular access and hardstandings;  erection of substation building;  installation of 2 transformers.

(ii) Other specified operations

. Installation of underground cabling. ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations it is recommended that, subject to a discretionary hearing taking place, planning permission be refused for the reasons outlined in this report. ______(C) HISTORY:

There is no relevant planning history. ______

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

National Air Traffic Services (response dated 23rd April 2015) - No objections.

Scottish National Heritage (response received 23rd April 2015) - No intention to offer comments as the proposal falls below the threshold for consultation as outlined in the service statement.

Environmental Health Officer (responses dated 25th May and 23rd June 2015) - Initial request for further information relating to noise assessment. Upon receipt of this information, further response recommending no objections subject to noise level condition.

Infratil Airports Europe Limited (response dated 29th April 2015) - No objection.

Historic Scotland (letters dated 28th May 2015 and 16th June 2015) - Initial holding objection pending the receipt of a wide-angled photomontage showing the view from Barone Hill. Objection removed upon receipt of further information.

Bute Community Council (letter dated 24th June 2015) – Response verbatim as follows:

“Following his presentation to Bute Community Council at its meeting on 15th April 2015, Mr Boyd Alexander of Bute Community Power asked that Bute Community Council support the application for planning approval of this project.

However, after discussion, members decided to delay a decision on this for two months so that each Bute Community Council member could familiarise themselves further with this project, seeking the views of the community they represent before taking a vote on whether to oppose or support this application.

At our meeting on 17th June 2015, following a lively discussion with both Bute Community Council members and members of the public, a vote was taken by a show of hands from the Bute Community Council members. The result was as follows:

Support for the application – 5

Opposition to the application – 9

Abstention – 1 It is to be recorded that five members of the Bute Community Council, who are also members of Bute Community Power, took part in this vote”.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letters dated 2nd June and 29th June 2015) - Objects to the proposal on the grounds of its impact upon the setting of the fort at Barone Hill, which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

Area Roads Manager – (Report dated 10th August 2015)

In principle, there are no objections to this proposal and there is reasonable comfort that the two potential routes from both ferry terminals are capable of accommodating the transport of the materials required to support the construction. However, there is concern that the junction of the B881 (High Street) and the B878 (Russell Street) may be restrictive. On this basis, a full traffic management plan including vehicle swept path analysis would require being submitted and approved prior to any works starting on site.

Also, full details of the proposed junction of the existing farm access and the A844 public road will required before works start on site.

Ministry of Defence - No response received.

______

(E) PUBLICITY:

Regulation 20 Advert (closing date 22nd May 2015). ______

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

Representations have been received from a total of 244 sources, of which there are 148 objections and 96 expressions of support. Names and addresses are summarised in Appendix B. Summarised grounds of support and objection are listed below.

IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSAL

Energy Benefits

 Wind energy is a clean energy source and will assist in moving away from fossil fuels and combat climate change. It is also much safer than nuclear energy.

Tourism Benefit

 There has been significant opposition to the proposal based upon the projected adverse impact upon tourism on the island. These comments largely ignore the extensive literature that now exists on wind farms and tourism. Overall, the evidence is that wind farm developments have little or no adverse effect on tourism and, in some cases, have a positive effect. Visual Impact

 The current application is very different from the previous application that was lodged for a site in Ascog. The two turbines are significantly lower and the visual impact is, therefore, substantially diminished by comparison.

 Although the proposed two turbines will be visible from a few locations, the overall visual impact is relatively small. Although visible from Ettrick Bay, the two turbines would not appear in the field of view when looking out to Arran, which is the primary view that visitors seek. The owner of the Ettrick Bay tearoom has supported the proposal.

 The two turbines would not be visible from Rothesay other than dwellinghouses located at elevation and which face south west.

 The two turbines would not be visible from the major tourist attractions on the island such as Rothesay Castle or Mount Stuart House, nor by passengers on coaches traveling from Rhubodach to Mount Stuart. In terms of the view from the Wemyss Bay to Rothesay ferry crossing, they will have an almost negligible visual impact.

Community and Economic Benefit

 The proposal is being promoted by Bute Community Power and not a private landowner. The net revenues, which are projected at approximately £50,000 per annum, will be invested into a community pot whereby they will benefit the community of Bute directly. Whilst the format of this has still to be determined, the community benefit monies will probably result in job creation which, in today’s economic climate, is to be welcomed.

 The proposal would provide an alternative income stream for an independent Bute farmer.

Argyll and Bute Policies

 Given that the proposed turbines would be less than 50 metres in height, they would comply with the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study.

AGAINST THE PROPOSAL

Visual Impact

 It is noted that the applicants have sought to inform their assessment of the visual impact of the proposed turbines by a study of them from 11 viewpoints. They have asserted that the proposed turbines would not result in any significant changes to the physical landscape resources. It is contended that significant effects will be found at all of the viewpoints and that such effects have been seriously underplayed.

Tourism Impact  The proposed wind turbines would be clearly visible to sensitive and important receptors in the viewpoints and beyond. This will adversely impact on views and the recreational experience of the landscape by tourists. It must be concluded that the proposed development (if consented) would have an adverse impact on Bute’s fragile tourist economy.

 A previous decision by Argyll and Bute Council to refuse Planning Permission for two turbines at Newton Park, Toward (ref: 13/0004/PP) was primarily made on landscape and visual grounds but the potential impact on the enjoyment of the area by tourists was also a determining issue. This refusal was upheld on appeal.

Cultural Heritage Impact

 It is stated that the potential for adverse impacts upon the setting of heritage assets would be minimised due to their distance from the site of the proposed turbines. Given that the setting of these cultural heritage assets includes views from, to and over the assets, it is considered that further assessment is necessary.

Wildlife Impact

 The proposed turbines would have an adverse impact upon wildlife in the area.

Profit/Community Benefit

 The landowner is not local and is seeking to maximise his own personal financial interests. In addition, he will not have to suffer the disadvantages inherent in the proposed scheme.

Decommissioning

 Concern is expressed that the turbines will remain in place after their commercial life has ended.

Planning Policy

. The proposal would be contrary to the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study.

. The proposal does not conform to national, regional or local planning policies.

NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in this report, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are available on request. It should also be noted that the associated drawings, application forms, consultations, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll- bute.gov.uk

______

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation Yes (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:

Supporting Environmental Document  Introduction  The Wind Turbine Proposal  Planning & Environmental Policy  Work to Date  Landscape and Visual  Soils and Hydrology  Socieconomic  Cultural Heritage  Ecology  Noise  Shadow Flicker  Telecommunications  Aviation  Public Safety  Summary and Mitigation ______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ______

(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ______(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

‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan – Supplementary Guidance’

SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality SG LDP ENV 19 – Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments

(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 (2014). ______

(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Yes Environmental Impact Assessment:

A Screening Opinion (ref: 14/02074/SCREEN) was adopted by the Council on 24th September 2014 which concluded that the development did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment. ______

(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No 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: Yes

In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, the Council will consider how up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. In addition, consideration will also be given to the degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected set against the relative number of representations and their provenance. In this case, the balance of the representation received is from objectors and many of their concerns are shared by the Planning Officer assessment. However, a not insignificant number of representations from the local area are in support and, therefore, it is considered that a hearing would add value to the determination process. On this basis, it is recommended that Members undertake a hearing prior to the application being determined. ______

(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations

The proposal seeks the construction of two wind turbines with hub heights of 30 metres and a total height of 47 metres to blade tip, the formation of a new access track and ancillary development. The site is located on open moorland north of Auchintirrie Farm, approximately 3 kilometres to the west of Rothesay. The application has been submitted by Bute Community Power, which is a Community Benefit Society with aims to generate wealth, reduce carbon emissions and achieve resilience for community benefit on the Isle of Bute.

A total of 244 representations have been received, comprising 96 expressions of support and 148 objections. Objection has been lodged by Bute Community Council and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.

The principal issues in this case are the consequence of the presence of the development on: the landscape character of the site and for adjoining landscape character areas; visual impact; tourism impact; cultural heritage impact; noise impact; and road infrastructure impact. It has been concluded that the proposal is unacceptable due to its impact upon landscape character of the island of Bute it visual appreciation and the impact of development upon the landscape setting of archaeologically significant sites. The proposal is considered contrary to:

 Scottish Planning Policy;

 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 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);

 Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity; SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources; SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; and SG LDP ENV 19 – Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015);

 Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012);

 ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ Scottish Natural Heritage (2014).

It is considered that the contribution that this proposal could make towards combating climate change would be negligible. The turbines would produce an additional source of revenue for the landowner and would contribute to agricultural diversification, which would constitute an element of local economic benefit. Whilst the intended community benefit fund would also contribute to the delivery of local community ventures over the life of the development, this can only be accorded limited weight as a material planning consideration.

Overall the proposal would give rise to inappropriately adverse environmental consequences, which cannot, when weighed in the balance of relevant considerations, be offset by economic, social or climate change considerations which are of such magnitude as to justify the setting aside of these consequences.. ______

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______

(R) Reasons why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be granted

N/A ______

(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: Steven Gove Date: 10th August 2015

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 10th August 2015

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning & Regulatory Services REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 15/00951/PP

1. The proposed two wind turbines, inclusive of the means of access required, would be located on Cnoc-an-Coigreaich to the north of Auchintirrie Farm and approximately 3 kilometres to the west of Rothesay, within the ‘Bute Open Ridgeland’ Landscape Character Type as defined in the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012’ which is intended to guide the Planning Authority on the acceptability of further wind turbine developments in the landscape. The proposal would occupy a prominent location within a sensitive and highly valued landscape character type where it where it would be open to views from ferry and recreational boat traffic together and from roads and recreational destinations on the island of Bute. The particular value of the landscape surrounding the application site has been accorded regional status by being designated as an Area of Panoramic Quality in the Council’s adopted Local Development Plan.

The Landscape Capacity Study identifies that the visual sensitivity within this Landscape Character Type as being ‘high-medium’ for the ‘small-medium’ typology (i.e. between 35 metres to 50 metres to blade tip). This character type features steep-sided and defined hills in the north and lower rounded hills and undulating upland plateaux in the south. The higher ground of this character type is open and features rough pasture and moorland while small farms and enclosed pastures fringe lower hill slopes. These relatively low but open ridges and small hills are important in the contribution they make to the overall diversity of landscape found on the Isle of Bute.

At 47 metres in height to the blade tip, the proposed wind turbines would be out of scale with their immediate and wider landscape context. By virtue of their scale and eye catching rotation, they would introduce dominant features which would impinge on adjacent small scale and settled landscapes and adversely affect highly sensitive key panoramas and views. Approval of the proposal could establish a harmful precedent for inappropriately scaled renewable energy development in a relatively small scale landscape setting.

The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected direct or indirect local economic or community benefits which a development of this scale could deliver, or the limited contribution it could make towards the achievement of climate change related commitments.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that this proposal would have a significant adverse impact on Landscape Character, would adversely affect a number of key views and would degrade designated scenic assets including the ‘Area of Panoramic Quality’. It is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of the following:

 Scottish Planning Policy;

 Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms;

 Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015);

 ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012);

 ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ Scottish Natural Heritage (2014).

2. There is a scale disparity between the height of the turbines and the hill on which they site, as the turbines are 47 metres to blade tip height whilst they are sited on Cnoc-an- Coigreaich the summit of which is 107 m AOD. Inappropriately scaled development would have the effect of diminishing the apparent scale of the receiving environment to the detriment of the appreciation of the visual qualities of the landscape. The vertical scale of the proposal does not follow the guidance set out by Scottish Natural Heritage in ‘Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ (May 2014). Paragraph 3.33 of this document states “A key design objective for a wind farm will be finding an appropriate scale for the wind farm that is in keeping with that of the landscape. To achieve this, the siting and design of the development will need to ensure that the wind farm is of minor scale in relation to the key features of the landscape (typically less than one third)“.

The scale of the turbines overwhelms the distinctive skyline of the Isle of Bute contributes to inappropriate visual impacts upon a number of sensitive locations where the magnitude of change has been assessed to be significantly adverse; including locations recognised for the scenic value by inclusion within designated Areas of Panoramic Quality, key recreational assets and transport routes.

These adverse visual implications are illustrated in particular by the acknowledged ‘significant’ effects upon:

Viewpoint 1 – Greenan Loch ‘(moderate-major’ impacts on road users and recreational interests); ; Viewpoint 2 – Dunalunt (‘moderate-major’ impacts on road users and residential properties); ; Viewpoint 4 – Quogach (‘moderate–major’ impacts on road users); and Viiewpoint 6 – Ettrick Bay (‘moderate-major’ to ‘major’ impacts upon a particularly valued recreational asset on the island).

In view of the above, it is considered that the impact of the development on key views would be particularly detrimental, given the disproportionate scale of the turbines relative to their landscape setting and the overall sensitivity and scenic value of the receiving environment. The proposal is therefore, inconsistent with the provisions of the following:  Scottish Planning Policy;

 Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms;

 Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015);

 Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012);

 ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ Scottish Natural Heritage (2014).

3. Barone Hill Fort is located approximately 1.8km to the south east of the proposed development. It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument which, by its very nature, commands views over the surrounding landscape with its setting being characterised by a panoramic, long range, 360 degree visual envelope.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed turbines would not break the skyline in views from the fort, it is apparent that they would be visible against the backdrop of the adjacent landscape, which would be predominantly muted in colour. As the turbines of this size are typically white or light grey in an effort to reduce their contrast from locations where they are appreciated against the sky, it is considered that this would mean that they would be particularly prominent against such a background. The submitted photomontage would appear to support this interpretation, demonstrating that the hubs and whole of the circumference of the blades of the proposed turbines would be prominently visible against the relatively dark landscape backdrop when viewed for the fort. In addition, it is likely that the blades would be in motion for much of the time, meaning that they would tend to draw the eye more than a similarly sized static structure. Given the predominantly rural nature of the setting of the fort, it is considered that large-scale, light-coloured and mobile structures of the type proposed would represent a substantial alteration from the existing setting of the monument to its significant detriment.

In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would be inconsistent with the provisions of the following:

 Scottish Planning Policy;  Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms;

 Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 19 – Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015);

 Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012);

 ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ Scottish Natural Heritage (2014).

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 15/00951/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 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 Bute. The existing access from the public road is located within ROA whilst the new access tracks will be located in a combination of Countryside and Very Sensitive Countryside. The turbines, crane hard standings, and all other ancillary development will be located in 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, subject to other relevant policies being satisfied. In this case, it has been demonstrated that the proposal raises considerable concerns regarding its landscape and visual impact together with its effect upon the setting of valuable cultural heritage assets.

B. LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is for the erection of two wind turbines on moorland approximately 550 metres to the north of the complex of agricultural buildings at Auchintirrie Farm on the Isle of Bute.

The proposal includes the following elements:  Erection of two wind turbines with a hub height of 30 metres, rotor diameters of 33 metres and height to blade tip of 47 metres. The rated capacity of each turbine would be 225 kW;  There would be a foundation for each turbine with an expected dimension of 8 metres by 8 metres. Once constructed, the foundations would be backfilled so that the central area would integrate with the surrounding ground level;  Erection of sub-station building and turbine kiosks. It is expected that a building with dimensions of 5.0 metres in length by 2.45 metres in width by 2.5 metres in height will be required to house the transformer and the DNO’s equipment and a small building adjacent to each turbine with dimensions of 3.5 metres by 3.4 metres to house the necessary protection equipment;  The formation of a construction compound which would be a hardstanding area for the assembly of the cranes and rotors. In total, this would measure approximately 640 square metres;  An 11 kV cable connecting the turbines to a suitable grid connection point will be buried to minimise visual impacts.

The general design of the turbines and ancillary structures follows current wind energy practice. The ‘portacabin’ flat-roofed design of the sub-station building is however considered unsympathetic in the landscape were permission to be granted. As it is only an ancillary aspect of the wider proposal, however, it is not considered that it is appropriate to be included in the recommended reasons for refusal, as design could be controlled by means of a condition in the event of an approval.

It is considered that the scale of these turbines in such prominent and sensitive locations would not be appropriate due to the identified adverse landscape and visual impacts detailed in this report below.

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.

The ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’, March 2012 (LWECS) has been produced by SNH in association with the Council to identify those areas in Argyll which are likely to have capacity for wind turbines of various sizes, and those areas which do not have capacity either as a consequence of their particular qualities, or as a result of having no residual capacity given previous turbine consents. Whilst this study only addresses landscape considerations, following its approval by the Council, it is a significant material consideration in subsequent decision-making, albeit of lesser weight than development plan policy.

Section 2.24 of the LWECS states that it was necessary to prioritise funding for the study to address the main development pressures identified at the time of writing the brief and to fulfil the requirements of Scottish Government planning guidance. For this reason, it was decided that detailed assessment of turbines of over 50 metres to blade tip within NSAs and islands should not be included in the study. These assessments therefore focus on turbines up to 50 metres in height with smaller turbines between 12 – 20 metres high also being considered.

In the context of the LWECS, the turbines that are featured in this application would fall within the definition of “small/medium” as they are between 35 metres to 50 metres in height to the blade tip.

For the purposes of the LWECS, the application site is located within the Landscape Character Type (LCT) known as “Bute Open Ridgeland”. This character type features steep-sided and defined hills in the north and lower rounded hills and undulating upland plateaux in the south. The higher ground of this character type is open and features rough pasture and moorland while small farms and enclosed pastures fringe lower hill slopes. These relatively low but open ridges and small hills are important in the contribution they make to the overall diversity of landscape found on the Isle of Bute. The north-eastern hills could also provide a wider scenic backdrop to the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area. There would be ‘High-medium’ sensitivity to the small- medium typology and ‘Medium’ sensitivity for the small typology.

Within this landscape type, the constraints are as follows:

 The relatively low elevation of the southern hills, and the presence of nearby small buildings, which could be dominated by larger turbines.

 The prominence of higher hill tops seen in views from roads and settlement within Bute and also from the wider Firth of Clyde including the three peaks seen on the ridge between Barone and Kilmory Hills seen from the Ardlamont peninsula and the higher northern hills seen from key viewpoints within the Kyles of Bute NSA.

 The presence of extensive broadleaved woodlands and the setting this landscape provides to Ettrick Bay, Lochs Fad and Quien and the designed landscape of Kames Castle in the adjacent ‘Bute Rolling Farmland and with Estates’ character type (13a).

 The setting of archaeological features found particularly within the southern hills.

The opportunity for development within this landscape is described as the gentler hill slopes with a less diverse vegetation pattern which provide opportunities particularly for smaller typologies. The study goes on to state the following:

“There is likely to be very limited scope for the small-medium typology (i.e. between 35 to 50 metres in height to blade tip) to be located within this landscape type. Turbines should not be sited on prominent hill tops or steep slopes instead favouring gentler lower slopes and plateau-like areas where impact on sensitive skylines could be avoided. They should be set back from settlement to minimise potential conflicts of scale and principally relate to landform features. There are likely to be restricted opportunities for multiple turbines of this size to be accommodated in this landscape with groups of turbines likely to be limited to <5 to fit with the scale of more gentle hill slopes and undulating plateau areas.

There is some scope for the small typology (i.e. between 20 to 35 metres in height to blade tip) to be accommodated in this landscape. Turbines of this size should also avoid prominent hill tops, being sited on gentler lower hill slopes and natural dips or shelves where rising ground would provide a degree of backdrop able to minimise visual impact. There are increased opportunities for turbines below 20m height to be associated with farms and other buildings on the settled hill slopes of this character type.

All development typologies should avoid significant impact on the broadleaved woodlands and steep scarp slopes above Loch Fad, the prominent ‘three peaks’ on the ridge between Barone and Kilmory Hills, the steep hill sides which provide the backdrop to Kames Castle designed landscape and the higher northern hills and slopes which border the Kyles of Bute and provide the wider setting to the NSA. The setting of archaeological features would also be sensitive to development.”

Based on the guidance contained in the Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, it is considered that approval of the proposal could establish a harmful precedent in approving wind turbines that are too large for their receiving landscape settings. The Council has targeted areas for larger scale wind turbines, but the LWECS guidance suggests that only the smallest wind turbine typologies are likely to be appropriate in this general location.

It is considered that the siting of these two wind turbines at 47 metres in height to blade tip in such a prominent location would exert a disproportionate influence over the receiving environment, where they would appear to be out of scale with their landscape context. The scale, location and motion of the wind turbines would impinge on adjacent small scale and settled landscapes and adversely affect the highly sensitive Area of Panoramic Quality, which is recognised for its regional value and scenic qualities.

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.; Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012); and ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ Scottish Natural Heritage (2014).

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 turbines 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.

List of viewpoints assessed:

1) Greenan Loch – looking north west towards the site, the viewpoint is located alongside the B878 that leads from the centre of Rothesay and connects with the nearby A844. The loch, located approximately 150 metres to the east, provides an opportunity for recreational angling.

2) A844 at Dunalunt Cottages – looking east towards the site, the viewpoint is located alongside the A844. Considering the proximity of the nearby Dunalunt and Leafield Cottages and Upper Ardroscadale Farmstead, the viewpoint represents the views experienced by the residents of several nearby dwellings.

3) Barone Hill – looking north west towards the site, the viewpoint is located on Barone Hill and is representative of the views experienced by walkers visiting a nearby fort and those enjoying long distance views towards Arran the surrounding landscape.

4) Quogach – looking north towards the site, the viewpoint is alongside the A844 near to the Quogach farmstead. It represents the views of a moderate number of main road users, some of which would be visitors. 5) Straad – looking north towards the site, the viewpoint is located on northern fringes of the Straad, a small settlement to the north of St Ninian’s Bay. It represents the views experienced by the residents and visitors.

6) Ettrick Bay – looking south east towards the site, the viewpoint is located on the beach at Ettrick Bay and near to a busy café and car park. The viewpoint represents the views of recreational users along the beach and those visiting the café. The West Island Way is also located in the vicinity.

7) Canada Hill – looking west towards the site, this viewpoint is to the east of Rothesay. It is accessed via a short walk from the town and forms part of a short circular walk. It represents the views experienced by walkers and other recreational users, and there are fine views towards Loch Striven and across to Arran.

8) Toward Quay – looking south towards the site, this viewpoint is located at Toward Quay on the Cowal peninsula. The quay is home to a small sailing club and the Castle Toward Garden and Designed Landscape forms an impressive backdrop to open views across the Firth of Clyde towards Bute. It represents the views experienced by recreational users, visitors to the nearby castle and local road users.

9) Carry Point – looking south east towards the site, the viewpoint is located on the Kyles of Bute south of Kames and on the Ardlamont peninsula. Within an area of informal open space, the viewpoint is close to a local road with several scattered dwellings and a nearby caravan park/campsite.

10) Rothesay Ferry – looking towards the west, the viewpoint is taken on board the Wemyss Bay to Rothesay Ferry. The turbines would be visible from most of the journey and the view represents that of passengers, some of which would be travelling for recreational purposes.

11) Bell Bay – looking north west towards the site, the viewpoint is located at Bell Bay on the Island of Great Cumbrae, which forms part of a Sensitive Landscape Charater Area. It represents the view of visitors to a small nearby beach and road users travelling the coast.

The summary of the effects of the proposed turbines as assessed by the agent are contained under Section 5.9.1 of the ‘Supporting Environmental Document’ as follows:

 This Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in any significant changes to the physical landscape resources of the site or its surroundings during the construction, decommissioning and operational phases;  Short term significant visual effects during the construction and decommissioning phases are predicted on a small number of residents, road users and walkers in close proximity to the site where direct open views are experienced;

 Of the eleven viewpoints, significant visual effects are predicted on a range of sensitive receptors at viewpoints 1 - 4 and 6;

 Significant landscape effects are predicted on the Open Ridgeland and Coastal Plain LCTs and on parts of the Area of Panoramic Quality designation within approximately 4 km from the site;

 The residents of a relatively small number of dwellings at East Colmac and Townhead and some nearby scattered dwellings are predicted to experience significant visual effects;

 Localised significant visual effects are predicted on walkers from parts of the West Island Way, on road users from parts of the B878 and A844 and on passengers from part of the Wemyss Bay to Rothesay Ferry route;

 Localised significant cumulative effects are predicted on walkers from viewpoints 3 and 7.

Notwithstanding the conclusions of the agent, the Department has significant concerns regarding the proposal, as follows:

There is a scale disparity between the height of the turbines and the hill on which they sit, as the turbines are 47 metres to blade tip height and they are sited on the summit of Cnoc-an-Coigreaich which is generally 107 m AOD. The vertical scale of the proposal, therefore, does not follow the guidance of Scottish Natural Heritage contained within its document entitled “Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape (May 2014). Paragraph 3.33 of this document states “A key design objective for a wind farm will be finding an appropriate scale for the wind farm that is in keeping with that of the landscape. To achieve this, the siting and design of the development will need to ensure that the wind farm is of minor scale in relation to the key features of the landscape (typically less than one third)“. This scale disparity is illustrated by, for example, Viewpoint 1 – Greenan Loch; Viewpoint 2 – Dunalunt; Viewpoint 4 – Quogach; and Viewpoint 6 – Ettrick Bay.

The location of the proposal is highly prominent in the landscape and results in it being open to view from ferry and recreational boat traffic and from mainland roads and other key viewpoints. The layout and scale of the turbines overwhelm the distinctive skyline of the Isle of Bute as illustrated by Viewpoint 1 – Greenan Loch; Viewpoint 2 – Dunalunt; Viewpoint 4 – Quogach; Viewpoint 5 – Straad; Viewpoint 6 – Ettrick Bay; Viewpoint 9 – Carry Point; Viewpoint 10 – Wemyss Bay to Rothesay Ferry; and Viewpoint 11 – Bell Bay, and this does not accord with SNH’s guidance paragraph 3.29 which states that “design of a wind farm from key viewpoints and sequential routes should ensure a wind farm does not detract from the character of a distinctive skyline. Care should be taken to ensure that a wind farm does not overwhelm a skyline.”

It is considered that the impact of the development on key views would be particularly detrimental, given the disproportionate scale of the turbines relative to their landscape setting and the overall sensitivity and scenic value of the receiving environment.

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; Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (2015); the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012); and ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ Scottish Natural Heritage (2014).

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. Section 5.8 of the supporting statement puts forward the agent’s assessment of cumulative impact. It states that the emphasis of the cumulative assessment is on the additional changes that the proposed development may bring to the cumulative situation of other existing, consented and proposed wind farms and not the combined effect of all the wind turbines potentially visible.

There are three operational schemes within 15 km of the site and it is contended that these have the greatest potential to present significant cumulative effects with the proposed development. These are three turbines at Ardbeg Farm, Isle of Bute; one turbine at Point Farm, Ardlamont; and one turbine at Cluniter Farm, Innellan. The statement concludes that, in practice, the potential for cumulative effects would be limited.

There is also an assessment of the cumulative effect from the eleven selected viewpoints. It puts forward that there would be a moderate-major (significant effect) from Barone Hill and Canada Hill where the cluster of Stronachullin Farm turbines and the Srondoire turbines (when operational) that are located between Ardrishaig and Tarbert are evident on the distant skyline. It acknowledges that the proposed development would bring turbines much closer and introduce development onto a part of the island where no turbines currently exist. However, it concludes with the contention that that there would be a clear distinction between the scale of turbines in relation to their contrasting landscape setting. Officers would tend to concur with much of this analysis in terms of cumulative impact and it is not considered that there are either cumulative landscape or visual impact reasons for refusal in the circumstances of this case.

F. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT

Habitats

Annex B of the ‘Supporting Environmental Document’ relates to the impact of the proposal upon habitats and it makes the following comments:

“The proposed access track and turbine bases are in a part of the site that at the time of the survey supported extensive areas of disturbed ground due to cattle poaching and tractor tracks. These habitats are the least sensitive elements within a polygon coded as wet heath and acid grassland mosaic.

There are groundwater-dependant wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed access tracks and turbine bases. There could be some minor loss of M15 or M23 as components of the habitat mosaic where the tracks and turbine bases are proposed. These are common and widespread wetland vegetation types. There is considered to be limited scope for indirect effects on the less common wetland vegetation, because the proposed development is in an area that is topographically distinct from these areas.”

No habitat sensitivities have been identified by the applicants or during the processing of the application. SNH has not made any comment in the light of the location and scale of the development.

Protected Species

Annex B states the following:

“Bats

No bat roosts have been confirmed within the survey area. All buildings are located more than 300 m away from the proposed turbine locations. Habitat features that are potentially attractive to commuting, foraging and roosting bats, such as woodland edges, hedgerows and built structures, are located more than 50 m from the proposed turbine rotors. The development location, therefore, exceeds the 50 m avoidance zone for such features, as recommended by Joint Agencies guidance TIN059xi to minimise the risk of collision for bats.

Reptiles

Although reptiles may be present within the survey area, they are likely to be restricted to habitats such as semi-improved and marshy grassland and arable field margins that will not be affected by the development. Consequently, the risk of the development causing harm to reptiles is negligible and no specific mitigation is considered necessary.

Otter and Water Vole

No evidence of protected species was recorded in the survey area. The potential presence of otter and water vole is noted due to the presence of suitable habitat in the form slow flowing running water/wet ditches. As such, all excavations will be covered or fitted with mammal ramps to safeguard these species from becoming trapped/harm during the construction period, should they colonise the site.”

It is considered that the development would not be likely to have an adverse impact upon protected species.

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; and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats. Species and Biodiversity.

G. ORNITHOLOGICAL IMPACT

Annex B of the agent’s document states the following:

“Greylag and Greenland White-fronted Geese

Greylag goose flight activity was considered to be at a low to moderate level throughout the survey period, with Greenland white-fronted goose flight activity at a very low level. Only three greylag flights, all comprising very low numbers of birds, passed within 200 m of the turbine layout at risk height. No Greenland white-fronted geese flew within 200 m of the turbine layout. With consideration of the recent SNH review of avoidance rates for geese species, which has now been increased to 99.8 %xii it was considered that there was insufficient at risk flight activity to warrant collision modelling, and that a collision event is extremely unlikely to occur for either of these species.

Neither of these two species were recorded using Greenan Loch on any of the survey visits – but large numbers of feral Canada geese (up to 300 birds) were recorded in this location. The Greenland White-fronted goose Study Group website notes that despite the fact that the White-fronted Geese have been reported roosting on Greenan Loch (NS0663) and Quien Loch, the geese in all recent years since 1995 have used Dhu Loch (NS0661). Furthermore, it has been reported that greylag geese are now seldom using Greenan Loch either.

Greylag and Greenland white-fronted goose foraging activity was almost all confined to low lying fields to the west of the development site. The closest foraging groups were located approximately 700 m away from the development site and these groups are also obscured from the development by Auchintirrie Wood. As such, it is considered extremely unlikely that any foraging greylag or Greenland white-fronted geese will be displaced by the development during either its construction, operation or decommissioning phases.

Hen harrier

Hen harrier was the only species with sufficient at risk flight activity considered to warrant collision modelling. The results of this modelling indicate that it is extremely unlikely that there will be any collision events within the life of the development. Two hen harriers were recorded roosting at a location approximately 400 m to the north east of the proposed development between November and February, with no sightings recorded thereafter, indicating that they had likely moved on to breeding grounds off site. The birds were roosting in an area of rank vegetation dominated by rush vegetation over a wet substrate which is considered to be typical winter roosting habitat for this species. By contrast it is not considered to be suitable breeding habitat as birds typically nest in areas of established heather on a dry free draining soil/peat layer – Colin Nisbet Pers. Obs.

Hen harrier are listed on Schedule 1A of the WCA and are protected from harassment throughout the year. As such to avoid an offence and safeguard the winter roost, it is advised construction works are scheduled to occur outwith the winter period (October – March inclusive).

Breeding Birds

Although a breeding bird survey has not been undertaken for the Development, the habitats present do have the potential to support common breeding farmland and wading species. If construction occurs during the breeding season (mid-March – July inclusive), it is possible that breeding birds would be disturbed or displaced from areas near to construction works. If birds were to be displaced, the short-term loss of breeding opportunity for a small number of common species around the construction works would have no detectable effect on their local or regional populations in the long term.

However, to minimise this potential effect and to avoid potential legal offences relating to potential harm to birds’ nests, eggs or dependent young, it is recommended that construction is either timed to avoid the breeding season, or timed to commence before the breeding season begins. If site clearance and construction activities are scheduled to occur within the breeding season is also recommended that suitable habitat is checked by a suitably experienced ecologist prior to removal.”

SNH has determined not to make any comment on the application. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has been consulted on the proposal and their comments are awaited. However, based upon the information submitted by the agent, there would appear to be little conflict with ornithological interests. If Members were minded to approve the application, it would be appropriate consider the imposition of conditions to ensure that the construction works did not have a significant impact upon Hen Harriers or breeding birds.

Having due regard to the above, 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; and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

H. HYDROLOGICAL & HYDROGEOLOGICAL IMPACT

Chapter 6 of the agent’s ‘Supporting Environmental Document’ relates to soils and hydrology and a series of mitigation measures are identified in Section 6.4 including:

Soils – risk assessment, method statement and site-specific environmental management plan to be prepared by suitably qualified persons, consulted upon with relevant bodies and then those persons will oversee the works. earthworks/excavations will be scheduled to be carried out during favourable weather conditions only.

Surface Water – Mitigation measures identified to avoid chemical/oil spillages and pollution of water from concrete and from other sources of contaminated run-off, including a programme of regular inspections. Cabling to be laid in small trenches parallel to access tracks as far as possible and backfilled as quickly as possible. Dainage measures to be detailed within the construction method statement to accord with best practice in the SUDS manual C697. No work will take place on site during severe weather conditions.

Groundwater & Hydrology - Risk can be satisfactorily mitigated through use of best practice construction methods. This will require compliance with all of the guidance contained in the submitted Pollution Prevention Guidance. An assessment of groundwater levels at the turbine locations will be carried out prior to construction. In the unlikely event that groundwater is present at this depth it will be necessary to temporarily lower the ground water level to avoid any contamination from materials used for the turbine foundations.

Based upon the information submitted, and with the intention to employ best construction practice, it should be possible to protect groundwater satisfactorily. If Members were minded to approve the application, it would be necessary to impose conditions requiring the implementation of the mitigation measures identified by the agent. Having due regard to the above, it is considered that, in terms of hydrology and hydrogeological impact, the proposal, with mitigation measures set out in planning conditions (should permission be granted), 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

Section 6.2.1 of the ‘Supporting Environmental Document’ states the following:

“SNH have released a consultation document detailing locations of Carbon Rich Soils and Priority Peatland Habitats in Scotland which, in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy, would be considered as an area of significant protection.

From an assessment of the Carbon and Peatland Map, the Auchintirrie development site is within a Class 4 area which is stated as an area unlikely to be associated with peatland habitats and unlikely to include carbon rich soils”.

Since the publication of SSP 2014 the protection of carbon rich soils has assumed greater importance. As the applicants point out, SNH sensitivity mapping has been published for consultation purposes. Although not yet approved this gives good indication of those areas likely to be most sensitive to development, which do not include the location proposed for development.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of the management of peat and soils the proposal is 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; Scottish Planning Policy 2014; and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

K. BORROW PITS

The agent states that “the contractor will consider sourcing materials on site to obtain suitable stone for the access track and hardstandings”. The extraction of such material may require separate minerals applications which would be assessed on their own merits.

L. CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT

Chapter 8 of the ‘Supporting Environmental Document’ assesses, from the agent’s perspective, the impact of the proposed turbines upon Listed Buildings and recorded archaeological features within the immediate area (5 kilometres) of the site (including Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Gardens and Designed Landscapes). The assessment contains a rating of, amongst other things, the theoretical impact upon the cultural heritage assets and states that, in their opinion, there would be a ‘major/moderate’ impact upon four of the assets, as follows:

“Cists north east of Auchintirrie Farm

These cists are located to the east of the proposed new access track for the turbines. The cists themselves are not visible and the cover stones are only partially visible. There are no visible traces of any cairns or other assets associated with the cists.

It is understood that the location of these cists would not have been in place to be seen from a distance nor were they intended to have wide views over the landscape. As they are only partially visible from a short distance, they do not contribute to their surroundings as prominent features within the landscape. As such, the setting of these cultural heritage assets is considered to be limited to the immediate surrounding area within the field boundary.

As the cists or cover stones are not visible from the surrounding area, the sensitivity of the impact to their setting can be reduced from a theoretical level of Medium to Low. As such, the impact on their setting is considered to be Moderate and Not Significant.

Enclosure at Cnoc an Duin

Consultation from WoSAS has highlighted the presence of this enclosure to the west of the turbine site. No site reports for this location are available online.

As there is no visible evidence of the enclosure, the sensitivity of the setting of this asset can be reduced from the theoretical level of Medium to Low. As such, the overall potential impact on setting is considered to be Moderate and Not Significant.

Any impacts on these sites would be of a physical nature and not related to the setting of the site. It is acknowledged, through consultation with WoSAS, that unrecorded remains may be present beneath the development area. It is proposed that an archaeological monitoring program is implemented to mitigate any potential negative impacts from construction.

Stewarthall, Conservatory, West Pavilion and East Pavilion

Stewarthall is an A listed building located approximately 1.6km to the south of the Auchintirrie wind turbines. There is significant screening surrounding the building and views to the north towards Auchintirrie Farm. It is therefore considered that the setting of this Listed Building is limited to the surrounding grounds and views to the south towards Arran. The Auchintirrie turbines will not be viewed from the building or surrounding grounds due to screening.

The magnitude of impact of the turbines can therefore be reduced from the theoretical Medium level to N/A. The overall potential impact is therefore considered to be None and Not Significant.

Barone Hill, Fort

Barone Hill Fort is located approximately 1.8km from the Auchintirrie development …. Historic Scotland describe the fort as follows:

The fort occupies a commanding position on the summit of Barone Hill. It comprises the remains of an oval stone wall (enclosing an area 62.0m NE-SW by 42.0m) with an outer stone wall on the W and S whilst rocky precipitopus slopes form an additional defence on the E. The oval wall survives on the W and S where it is 3.0m wide and up to 1.0m high with many facing stones in situ but there are only faint traces of it on the E. The entrance, though not apparent, was most probably at the 4.0m gap on the S side, which is now utilized by the modern wall. There is no evidence of the vitrification mentioned by Hewison. The outer wall now commences 20.0m from the oval wall on the W side and runs due S for 90.0m before petering out in rocky terrain. It is 0.5m high and spread to 3.5m with several large inner facing stones in situ. In the SW there is a 2.0m wide entrance lined with several large stones. The wall cannot be traced to the S and E but the top of the steep slopes clearly define this side of the fort.

By their very nature, forts command views over the surrounding landscape. Therefore, the setting of the scheduled monument is defined by a panoramic, long range, 360 degree visual envelope. Although forts command long range views, the prominence of Barone Hill is only apparent within the local landscape.

The wireframe view from the hill fort shown in Drawing BCP022 illustrates that the Auchintirrie turbines will be viewed within the middle ground of the landscape. The turbines will not be seen to break the skyline in views from the hill fort. This somewhat reduces the magnitude of the visual impact as it still allows the viewer to appreciate the full panoramic view of the surrounding area and the historical purpose of the fort.

Furthermore, considering the panoramic nature of the views that define the setting of the fort, the magnitude of impact is considered to be lower than the theoretical level as the proposed turbines occupy a single element viewed in context with the wider landscape setting. The magnitude of impact of the turbines can therefore be reduced from the theoretical Medium level to Low. The overall potential impact is therefore considered to be Moderate and Not Significant.”

Historic Scotland in their consultation response have intimated no objections on the grounds of the impact upon Stewart Hall. They have acknowledged that photomontage submission indicates that the proposed turbines would be clearly in views from Barone Hill. However, they do not consider that the scale of the impact on the setting of the monument would be sufficient to raise issues of national significance. Ultimately, therefore, they have not objected. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) has also been consulted on the proposal. They have identified two major issues with the proposal: the impact upon the setting of the enclosure at Cnoc an Duin, and upon the setting of the fort on Barone Hill. WoSAS had initially pointed out that the agent had not provided sufficient information to support their assertion that the potential impact of the construction of the turbines on the historic environment fell within acceptable levels and, as a consequence, a recommendation of refusal was put forwards.

Cnoc an Duin

In terms of the enclosure, the agent has provided a response to WoSAS’s initial comments. Whilst the response (letter dated 16th June 2015) acknowledged that “the surrounding topography suggests that views to the north, west and south of the enclosure would have an important contribution to the wider setting of the enclosure”, it stated that visibility in these directions is compromised by the presence of dense vegetation. The letter goes on to say that “the Auchintirrie turbines will be outwith these key views and will also likely be screened from vegetation when viewed from within the enclosure.”

In their letter of 29th June 2015, WoSAS offered the following critique of these comments:

“Notwithstanding the scope for debate over whether visibility eastward from the enclosure towards the turbines would represent a ‘key’ view from the monument, I would say that we would not necessarily consider that the presence of vegetation to be sufficient to mitigate a potential setting impact in the long term, particularly in instances such as this where the vegetation appears to be unmanaged and may not be under the control of the landowner. It is possible that this vegetation may be removed at some point during the operational lifespan of the turbines, either through deliberate action or as a result of natural processes, which would result in the turbines being prominently visible in the setting of the enclosure. It is also likely that the vegetation may be lower at certain times of the year, again removing or reducing the extent to which it might provide visual screening of the turbines.”

Based upon the above, there is an argument to be made that the proposal might have an impact upon the setting of the enclosure, but that this impact is open to interpretation. On this basis, officers have concluded that this particular issue alone would not be sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal of the application.

Barone Hill Fort

Both Historic Scotland and WoSAS had requested the submission of a wide-angled photomontage in order to illustrate the view of the site from this Scheduled Ancient Monument. As mentioned above, Historic Scotland does not consider that the impact raises issues of national importance. WoSAS, however, do have significant concerns and they have made the following comments in their letter of 29th June 2015: “In terms of the effect of the turbines on the setting of the scheduled fort on Barone Hill, Locogen state the following: ‘from the photomontage, it can be seen that the wind turbines will be present within the middle ground of the view towards Auchintirrie, they do not appear visually dominating and are present below the skyline of the view, furthermore, the turbines will only be present in a small section of the 360 degree view that would have been commanded by the fort. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the wider setting of the fort would not be significantly impacted and it would not affect the viewer’s ability to understand and appreciate the historical significance of the fort’.

I would disagree with the conclusion that as a result of these factors, construction of the turbines would not have a significant effect on the setting of the scheduled fort …. As was noted in my original response, the fact that the turbines would not break the skyline in views from the fort means that they would be visible against the backdrop of the adjacent landscape, which would be predominantly green or brown in colour. As the turbines of this size are typically white or light grey, I suggested that this would mean that they were likely to be more visually prominent than would be the case were they to be skylined. The photomontage would appear to support this interpretation, demonstrating that the hubs and whole of the circumference of the blades of the proposed turbines would be prominently visible against the relatively dark landscape backdrop when viewed for the fort. As was noted in my original response, it is likely that the blades would be in motion for much of the time, meaning that they would tend to draw the eye more than a similarly sized static structure. Given the predominantly rural nature of the setting of the fort, I would consider that large-scale light-coloured and mobile structures of the type proposed would represent a substantial alteration from the existing setting of the monument ….

…. I would say that this recommendation that planning consent be refused relates to the proposal as it is currently constituted. It is not necessarily the case that there would be no scope for a renewable energy development in the vicinity of Auchintirrie; it may be that the effect of the proposal on the setting of the scheduled fort could be reduced were smaller turbines to be employed, as these are frequently available in darker colours that would not be so visually prominent against the landscape backdrop”.

Whilst it is acknowledged that Historic Scotland have not objected to the proposal, it is considered that the West of Scotland Archaeology Service has put forward a compelling case that the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the setting of the fort at Barone Hill, which is a scheduled ancient monument, and accordingly this has been cited amongst the recommended reasons for refusal.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP 19: Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. M. TOURISM IMPACT

The Landscape Assessment for Argyll and the Firth of Clyde (1996), undertaken by Environmental Resources Management on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage comments that:

“Tourism is a very important part of the rural economy throughout the Argyll and the Firth of Clyde and in some areas may be the largest single sector of employment. Most visitors come to enjoy the region's stunning scenery and there is a close relationship between the development of tourist activity and the environment. Developments related to tourism and recreation are generally concentrated on narrow coastal areas, often in the region's most scenic and sensitive landscapes. Most tourists are car-based and the vehicular traffic generated by new developments is an important consideration. All developments are subject to the formal development control policies set out in the Structure and Local Plans, with particular consideration given to safeguarding landscape quality and scenic interest”.

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.

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.

In the particular case of Auchintirrie, the value of the landscape within which the turbines are proposed has been recognised by its inclusion within a designated Area of Panoramic Quality which is a scenic designation of regional importance. The proposal would be clearly visible to sensitive receptors in locations surrounding the proposal as demonstrated in the ZTV. The image of the wind turbines will vary from full turbines, reducing to rotors and blades moving on the hillside; varying between back-dropped, partially back-dropped and sky-lined. This will adversely impact on views and the recreational experience of the landscape. In light of this proposal’s anticipated adverse impacts upon its landscape setting, it must be concluded that its presence would be likely to have some adverse impact on tourism within Argyll & Bute, much of which is resource based.

Given that the magnitude of the likely effect upon tourism cannot be estimated reliably, it has not been cited specifically as a recommended reason for refusal, but clearly adverse landscape and visual impacts are likely to impinge upon the tourism sector, which is of particular importance in the context of the Argyll and Bute economy.

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 have considered the proposal and advised that the noise assessment within the supporting statement and relevant Annex C is valid, and that a planning condition could address any noise concerns of nearby residents to ensure compliance with the 35dB ETSU standard.

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 with the imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal would be 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 supporting information from the agent indicates that a shadow flicker assessment was completed using windfarm software to quantify the areas of potential impact. The model was run using conservative, worst case assumptions, and it confirmed that all properties are outwith the 10 rotor diameters of the development.

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 were to be granted.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of television reception 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 relevant consultees.

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

Chapter 12 of the ‘Supporting Environmental Document’ advises that the agent initially provided details of the development to the Office of Communications (Ofcom), who are the agency tasked with addressing the potential impacts of wind energy proposals on the civilian radio network (consists primarily of mobile phone operators and communications systems for public sector and utility companies). Scottish Planning Policy and development plan policy highlights telecommunications interference as a material consideration in considering the acceptability of wind turbines.

Ofcom, Atkins and Joint Radio Company were asked to give details of telemetry and microwave links within a 500 metre radius of the development. Responses were received from all the parties and no telecommunications links were found in the vicinity.

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 supporting statement states that it is intended that the wind turbine components will be delivered to the island either via the ferry at Rothesay or Rhubodach and via the A844 road directly to the site entrance. No B roads or private roads will be used for the delivery of the turbine components and the public road network leading to the site entrance at Auchintirrie Farm is considered to be suitable with no pinch points or weight restrictions identified on the route.

There may be a requirement for ground works at the access to Auchintirrie Farm connecting to the public road, which will require a Road Opening Permit. The design of the junction and details of any necessary traffic management would be agreed with the Roads Department as part of the decision process. A hardened area at the site entrance may also be required in order to assist the removal of mud from tyres and equipment prior to entering the public road. It is expected that the access road will be hard surfaced for 8 metres from the edge of the public road.

The Roads Department have been consulted on the proposal and an officer has visited the site and has considered the intended route for construction traffic. There are no major issues associated with the delivery of the materials; however, there is a slight concern that the junction of the B881 (High Street) and the B878 (Russell Street) may be restrictive. On this basis, it is recommended that a full traffic management plan including vehicle swept path analysis should be submitted and approved prior to any works starting on site. In addition, there are also conditions regarding visibility sightlines, junction standard and access gradients.

If Members were minded to approve the application, conditions relating to the necessary road safety mitigation works would be required.

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. If Members were minded to approve the application, a planning condition would 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.

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. 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 supporting statement indicates that a point of connection has been agreed with the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) and this is located within the Auchintirrie Farm land ownership.

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. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT Chapter 7 of the supporting statement addresses the perceived socio economic and community benefits of the proposal. In summary:

 The baseline assessment indicates that the immediate area has a relatively low rural population and has been declining in recent years. Tourism is of high importance to the region; however, the island has received fewer visitor numbers in recent years;

 It is acknowledged that wind turbine developments have the potential to result in adverse impacts to the local population in terms of visual impacts, noise and shadow flicker. However, through careful siting of the Auchintirrie farm turbines, these impacts are considered to be negligible;

 Due to the importance of tourism on the island, the potential impact of the turbines on local attractions has been assessed. The potential visual impact to these attractions is considered to be insufficient to cause detrimental effect on the attraction of these sites to visitors. This is due to the relatively small scale of the turbine development and the siting of the turbines outwith of key views. Furthermore, the community fund set up by Bute Community Power could help to encourage visitors to the island through improvements to local attractions and services;

 The Auchintirrie development has been assessed as having an overall positive socio-economic impact on the local area. The turbine represents a strong example of diversification for a local farmer and is a significant source of revenue. The potential community benefit fund of over £1 million over the lifetime of the project will also directly benefit the local economy and, through funding community projects throughout Bute, will go some way in improving the socio- economic profile of the area.

Ordinarily, planning gain advanced in the form of payments on offer to the community is not considered to be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would be expected to take place outside the application process. However, in this case the fact the development is being promoted by a community focused organisation with the intention of income supporting a community fund is one that must be acknowledged, especially given that the Scottish Government has expressed particular support for home-grown renewable energy ventures over those being promoted by absentee developers. Nonetheless the socio- economic benefits associated with the proposal may only be accorded limited weight, and they should not deflect attention away from identified environmental shortcomings of acknowledged importance.

Whilst there may be benefit from the relationship with Bute Community Power, it is not considered that the benefits of this relatively small project 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.

W. DECOMMISSIONING

The supporting statement indicates that the operational period will be set at 25 years (unless further permission is sought and granted) and, upon cessation of wind turbine operations, the turbines will be decommissioned, dismantled and removed, leaving no visible trace of the development. The site will be completely restored to its present use and there will be no lasting implications on the land usage/character. The turbine components will be dismantled and removed from site. The foundation will be broken down and removed to a licensed off-site facility. A decommissioning programme will be agreed with the Council prior to the commencement of the decommissioning works.

Should Members determine to grant planning permission for this proposal, a requirement for decommissioning and total site restoration should be included in the planning 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.

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 this regard in terms 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.

X. 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).

Given all of the foregoing, it is considered that this proposal will have an adverse impact in regard to landscape and visual considerations. The small amount of electricity generated by these two turbines, along with any local social and economic benefit derived during construction and operation would not outweigh the significant visual impact that they would create on the surrounding landscape and the setting of significant cultural heritage assets. Approval of development in the knowledge of the extent of these effects could establish a harmful precedent for the erection of further wind turbines of an inappropriate scale for their sensitive countryside locations.

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. Y. ENERGY POLICY, THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS & ARGYLL & BUTE’S CONTRIBUTION

In assessing the acceptability of wind farm/turbine 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 renewable energy generation capacity in Scotland in 2014 was 7.1GW with an additional 8.7GW of capacity either under construction or consented, the majority of which is accounted for by wind generation (although for various reasons not all consented projects will progress to commissioning). The drive for additional wind farms is expected to continue to grow in response to the Scottish Government target of meeting 100% of demand from renewable sources by 2020, with an interim target of 50% by 2015 (renewable generation at 45% in 2013). 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 fewer 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. In the particular case whilst the 458 kW rated 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 this relatively small project 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 - REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

OBJECTORS: Total 148:

A Cunningham 9 Scaur O Doon Road 17/05/2015 O Ayr KA74EW

Aike Burke Ascog Hall 17/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU

Alastair McKie Anderson Strathern LLP 22/05/2015 O 1 Rutland Court Edinburgh EH3 8EY

Alex Pelling 64 Dalkeith Road 19/05/2015 O Edinburgh EH16 5AE

Alexander Steven Dunagoil Farm C3 Plan Road 17/05/2015 O Kingarth Isle of Bute PA20 9LX

Alicja Dwojaczny 82 Abbeville Road 19/05/2015 O London SW4 9NA

Alison Johnston 2 Ian Villa 10/05/2015 O Academy Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0BG Alison Ramsay 42 Shore Road 07/05/2015 O Port Bannatyne Isle of Bute PA20 0LQ Amy Thomas 2 Voguebeloth 27/05/2015 O Illogan Cornwall TR16 4EX

Andrew C. Reid 27 Belmont Road 15/05/2015 O Reigate RH2 7ED

Andrew Campbell Flat 1 07/05/2015 O 18 Victoria Place High Road Port Bannatyne Isle of Bute PA20 0LH

Andrew McLaughlin 1 Highfield Park 22/05/2015 O Stockport SK4 3HD

Angus Middleton Marnock 21/05/2015 O Glenburn Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JP

Annette Wrafter 22 Winstree Close 05/06/2015 O Layer de la Haye Colchester CO2 0JR

Anns Leung Chelsea Cloisters 22/06/2015 O Hollywood Road London SW10 9NF

Anthony Burns Flat 2/2 10 The Terrace Ardbeg Road 30/04/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0NP

Belinda Steffen 69 Princess Street 17/05/2015 O Ramsey PE26 1JW

Beryl Harrison The Huf Haus 15/05/2015 O Balmory Road Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LL

Billy Finlay Otterburn 21/05/2015 O 40A Argyle Street Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0AX

Brian Davidson 13 Crichton Road 19/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JR

Carole Edward No Address Given 21/05/2015 O

Cathy Tully 2 Farnham Court 05/06/2015 O Holmleigh Road London N11 2PD

Chris Reid 82 Abbeville Road 17/05/2015 O London SW4 9NA Christine Carley Clyde House 28/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU

Christine Morrison Dun Eistein 15/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9LH

Colin Sharp 18 Mountstuart Road 20/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9DY

D Brown 3 Cumbrae View 22/05/2015 O Kingarth Isle of Bute PA20 9NP

David Daniels Ardencraig House Apartments 07/05/2015 O Ardencraig Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute Argyll And Bute PA20 9EP

David Gardner 8 Bishop Terrace 14/06/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9HF

David Irving Stewarthall 22/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0QE David Reid Kildavannan Farm 12/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0QX

Denise Dowd No Address Given 22/05/2015 O

Douglas Lindsay 3 Tarfside 17/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU

Douglas Sutcliffe 11 Main Street 19/05/2015 O Ashby St Ledgers Warwickshire CV23 8UN

Els Kamst Flat 2/2 01/05/2015 O 10 The Terrace Ardbeg Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0NP

Emma Irving Lady Margaret Hall 19/05/2015 O Norham Gardens Oxford OX2 6QA

Frank Garner 55 Bath Vale 19/05/2015 O Congleton CW12 2HF

Gail Foster Seal Lodge 27/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU George Herraghty Lothlorien 02/06/2015 O Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8LD

George MacDonald No Address Given 27/07/2015 O

George Morrison Dun Eistein 15/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9LH

George Robinson 32 Rosset Drive 20/05/2015 O Davyhulme Manchester M41 8DY

Graham Alcorn No Address Given 27/05/2015 O

Graham Walker 43 21/05/2015 O Hilda Avenue Tottington BL8 3JE

Harry Reid Millburn Cottage 14/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9ET

Hazel Lindsay Flat 2/1 17/05/2015 O Beechland Kilchattan Bay Isle of Bute PA20 9NG

Helen Rothwell No Address Given 26/05/2015 O Iain Cochrane 5 Sheriffs Croft 21/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0DS

Iain Hollywood 2 Castle Hill 21/05/2015 O Pulford Chester CH4 9EY

Iain Paton Flat 3 19/05/2015 O 9,Park Circus Glasgow G36AX

Ian Hare 22 Winstree Close 04/06/2015 O Colchester CO2 0JR

Isabel Sharp 18 Mountstuart Road 20/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9DY

Jacqueline McMellin 112 Croxted Road 13/05/2015 O London SE21 8NR

James Mitchell St Ninians Cottage 09/05/2015 O Straad Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0QF

Jane Saker Norwood 11/08/2015 O Kilchatten Bay Isle of Bute Jean Moffat The Hermitage 07/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LN

Jean Reid Millburn Cottage 19/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9ET

Jennifer-Anne Sutcliffe Upper Ardroscadale 12/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0QG

Joe O'Loughlin 32 Jordanvale Ave 22/05/2015 O Glasgow G14 0QP

John Crawford 4 Marine Place 21/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0LF

John Hogarth St Margarets 25/05/2015 O 2 Royal Terrace 46 Mountstuart Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9EB

John Thomas Balmory Hall Balmory Road 22/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LL

Joseph Thomas No Address Given 26/05/2015 O Joyce Rae 11 Pointhouse Crescent 16/06/2015 O Port Bannatyne Isle of Bute PA20 0LG

Julian Hankinson Craigielea Cottage 18/05/2015 O 34 Ardbeg Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0NL

Julie Howard 72 05/06/2015 O Aldresbrook Road London E11 4RT

Karen Brooks Kiln Cottage 05/06/2015 O Kiln Lane Grayshot GU20 0PD

Karen Hollingsworth 25 Bywater Street 18/05/2015 O London SW34XH

Karen Irvan 1 Marine Place 21/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0LF

Karin Burke Ascog Hall 16/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU

Keith And Joan Rowley No Address Given 20/05/2015 O

Kirsteen Morrison Flat 3/1 16/05/2015 O 7 Chapelhill Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0BJ

Kristina Theis 1 Highfield Park 22/05/2015 O Stockport SK4 3HD

Laura Jones Castle Naze farm 18/05/2015 O Combs High peak SK23 9UX

Lawrence Stevenson No Address Given 20/05/2015 O

Leon Zubrzycki 14 Haslemere Court 04/06/2015 O 26 Palace Road London SW2 3NH

Lewis Currie 54 Ardmory Road 21/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0PG

Linda Johnston Otterburn 22/05/2015 O 40A Argyle Street Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0AX

Linda Robertson 1 Cnoc An Raer 17/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0QT

Lisa Boyes The Windmill 05/06/2015 O Hale Road Swavesey CB24 4QP Lorna Mitchell St Ninians Cottage 10/05/2015 O Straad Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0QF

Lorna Rae 38 Ardmory Road 15/06/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0PG

Louisa Davidson 13 Crichton Road 19/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JR

Malcolm Johnston 21 Bishop Street 22/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9DH

Margo Hollywood No Address Given 14/05/2015 O

Margo Macdonald No Address Given 22/05/2015 O

Marion Fitzgerald Lane Head Farmhouse 20/05/2015 O Bolton Low Houses Wigton CA7 8PA

Marjorie Falconer Hawkstone Lodge 13/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU

Mary Davidson 13 Crichton Road 19/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JR

Melville Curry 3/3. 8 Haggs Gate 18/05/2015 O Pollockshields Glasgow G41 4BB

Michael Burke No Address Given 13/05/2015 O

Michelle Hollingsworth 11 Herman Hill 05/06/2015 O Wandstead E11 0NX

Morag Devlin Flat 2A 22/06/2015 O Bearsden Glasgow G61 3JW

Mr Jan Sumara No Address Given 21/05/2015 O

Mr Kris Bezouihdout 24 Bywater Street London SW3 4XH 10/07/2015 O

Mr Mark Willmott The Old Farmhouse Bunnison Lane, 01/06/2015 O Colston Bassett Nottingham NG12 3FF

Mrs E Lofting Dykenamar 21/05/2015 O Shore Road Kilchattan Bay Isle of Bute PA20 9NW

Mrs Marion Holliday 17 Eastlands Park Rothesay Isle of 30/05/2015 O Bute PA20 9EG Mrs Robin Chandler Rowanlea Ministers Brae Rothesay Isle 30/05/2015 O of Bute PA20 9BG

Ms Janet MacPherson 10 Queens Court, Glasgow Road 17/06/2015 O Milngavie G62 6QA

Ms Katrin Kandel 22Cresswell Place London SW10 10/07/2015 O 9RB

Neil Pendreigh 7 Bellevue Road 21/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0DT

Niall Currie 54 Ardmory Road 21/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0PG

Norman Foster No Address Given 27/05/2015 O

Norman New 11 Wyndham Park 07/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0NT

Norman Sutcliffe No Address Given 14/05/2015 O

Oliver Irvine 2 Voguebeloth 23/05/2015 O Illogan Cornwall TR16 4EX Pam Foster No Address Given 22/05/2015 O

Pamela Stevens The Windmill 05/06/2015 O Hale Road Swavesey CB24 4QP

Paul Jones Castle Naze Farm 27/05/2015 O Combs High Peak SK23 9UX

Paul McKay Tigh Na Ceol 11/05/2015 O Kingarth Isle of Bute PA20 9NP

Paul Thomas Meikle Ascog 20/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LL

Paula Cavanagh 27 Belmont Road 16/05/2015 O Reigate RH2 7ED

Peter Slepokura Top Flat 08/05/2015 O 5 The Terrace Ardbeg Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 0NP

Philip Kirkham Crofton Cottage 20/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LN

Rae McNab 36 Moorville Drive South 19/05/2015 O Carlisle CA3 0AW Rhod Lofting DL Crossbeg 21/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9PB

Richard Carley Clyde House 11/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU

Robert Currie Westland Farm 05/05/2015 O Westlands Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0RA

Robert Currie Jnr Westland Farm 08/05/2015 O Westlands Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0RA

Robert McFarlane 2 Woodlands Grove 11/06/2015 O Kilmarnock KA3 1TZ

Robert Minshull Timbersbrook House 26/05/2015 O Tunstall Road Congleton Cheshire CW12 3PW

Robert Turnbull 6 Eaglesham Terrace 20/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9HL

Ronnie Falconer Hawkstone Lodge 12/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU

Ross Irving 19 Marine Place 13/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0LF

Ruth Garner 55 Bath Vale, 18/05/2015 O Congleton CW12 2HF

Ruth Irvine No Address Given 20/05/2015 O

S Alcorn 17 Scott St 08/05/2015 O Largs KA30 9NR

Sandra Lindsay 3 Tarfside 17/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9EU

Stanley Gaston Flat 1/1 22/05/2015 O 31 Battery Place Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9DU

Stephen J Foster No Address Given 20/05/2015 O

Steven Cameron 26 Wyndham Road 10/05/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0NR

Steven MacCalla Flat 27 21/06/2015 O Prince Albert Drive London SW11 4DX

Steven Smith 2 Craignethan 11/06/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9LF

Svava Sigbertsdottir Flat 8 22/05/2015 O 2 Antrim Grove London NW3 4XR

Terence Hollingsworth 11 Herman Hill 05/06/2015 O Wandstead E11 0NX

Theresa Nelson Flat 3/1 04/06/2015 O 23 Argyle Place Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0BA

Timothy Stobart 69 Ardbeg Road 29/04/2015 O Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0NN

Tony Harrison The Huf Haus 08/05/2015 O Balmory Road Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LL

Una Dingwall 25 Bywater Street 05/06/2015 O London SW3 4XH

Violet Figes 14 Norwood Park, 17/06/2015 O Bearsden, Glasgow G61 2RF

Will Beresford No Address Given 06/07/2015 O

William Finlay Senior Lower Floor 21/05/2015 O Otterburn 40 Argyle Street Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0AX

William MacPherson 77 Neuk Crescent 17/06/2015 O Houston Renfrewshire PA6 7DS

William Walker No Address Given 27/05/2015 O

William Wren Flat Ground/1 18/05/2015 O Kiln Villa Kilchattan Bay Isle of Bute PA20 9NW

Yvonne Thomas Balmory Hall 19/05/2015 O Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LL

Zoe Robinson 32 Rosset Drive 21/05/2015 O Davyhulme Manchester M41 8DY

SUPPORTERS: Total 96 Adrian Tear Ascog Farm 25/05/2015 S Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LL

Ailsa Clark 13 Dell Road 21/05/2015 S Campbeltown PA28 6JG

Alan Thomson Ground Flat 10/05/2015 S 5 Crichton Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JR

Alex and Sandra Gibson Ettrick Bay Tearoom 19/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0QT

Alison MacGuire Brookvilla, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute 27/07/2105 S

Alison Clark 18 Mountpleasant Road 19/05/2015 S Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 9HJ

Alison Clarke Ground Flat 21/05/2015 S 35 Ardbeg Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0NL

Andy Walters 17 Ardmory Road 21/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0PG

Anne Shaw 42 Mount Pleasant Road 22/05/2015 S Rothesay PA20 9HJ Anne Susan Paton Brookvilla 21/05/2015 S Bannatyne Mains Road Isle of Bute PA20 0PH

Anthony Coia 5 Glen Royal 01/05/2015 S Glenburn Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JP

Anthony Coia 5 Glen Royal 21/05/2015 S Glenburn Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JP

Barham Chisholm 01/67 Castle Street 21/05/2015 S Port Bannatyne Isle of Bute PA20 0LZ

Boyd Hagart-Alexander Basement Flat, 5 Bishop Terrace, Brae 03/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9DW

Branwen Common Park Cottage 11/05/2015 S Upper Quay Street Port Bannatyne Isle of Bute PA20 0PN

Caroline Speirs No Address Given 30/04/2015 S

Catherine Benton MBE 4 Eastlands Park 21/05/2015 S Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 9EG

Chris Stewart 5 Rowallan 23/05/2015 S Glasgow G11 7LH

Christopher Reay Stevenson House 22/05/2015 S Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9ET

Colin Renfrew 54B Crichton Road 15/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JT

Colleen Magennis 1/1 22/05/2015 S 15 Castle Street Port Bannatye Isle of Bute PA20 0ND

Craig McFarlane Flat 2/2 05/05/2015 S 32 Battery Place Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9DU

Craig Middleton 22 Auchnacloich Rd, Rothesay 29/07/2015 S

David And Chris Peveril No Address Given 19/05/2015 S

David Rennie Lower Straad Cottage 20/05/2015 S Straad Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0QF

Denise Marinucci 2 King Street 06/05/2015 S Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 0DB

Douglas Cochrane 6C Macnabs Brae 21/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0BB

Dr Murray Doyle 33 Shore Road Port Bannatyne Isle of 06/06/2015 S Bute PA20 0LQ

Duncan Oswald Fliskmillan Steadings 15/05/2015 S Newburgh KY14 6HN

Eileen Duke 1 Abbey Drive 26/06/2015 S G14 9JX

Elizabeth Adams Schoolhouse South 29/04/2015 S Mount Stuart Isle of Bute PA20 9LP

Elspeth McVey Ascog Farm 21/05/2015 S Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9LL

Fay Davidson 31 Roslin Crescent 21/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9HT

Fiona Zavaroni No Address Given 21/05/2015 S

Gerald Hogan Flat 1/1 23/05/2015 S 21 Keir Street Glasgow G41 2NP Gerard Doherty 1/2 26/05/2015 S 4 Columshill Place Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 0DL

Graeme Stevenson 31A 18/06/2015 S Errol Gardens Glasgow G5 0RA

Ian McLachlan 6 Glen Royal 22/05/2015 S Glenburn Road Rothesay PA20 9JP

James No Address Given 14/05/2015 S

Janet Menzies 17 Lindsay Road 28/06/2015 S East Kilbride G74 4HZ

Janet O'Sullivan Rhoda House 01/05/2015 S Hydro Road, Isle of Bute PA20 0PQ

Janice Soane 15 Crichton Road 21/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JR

Jim Osborne 4 Eastlands Park 27/04/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9EG

Joan Walters 17 Ardmory Road 30/04/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute John B Dewar Brookvilla 21/05/2015 S Bannatyne Mains Road Isle of Bute PA20 0PH

John Duncan 19 Crichton Road 20/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JR

John Rushworth 10 Regal Place 27/04/2015 S 30 Argyle Street Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0AX

Jude Barber 21 Kier Street 25/05/2015 S Flat 1-1 Glasgow G41 2NP

K Molloy Flat 7 19/05/2015 S 10 The Terrace Ardbeg Road Isle of Bute PA20 0NP

Kenneth Wardrop 1 Abbey Drive 21/06/2015 S Glasgow G14 9JX

Kenny Lomax Flat 2/2 22/05/2015 S 12 West Princes Street Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9AF Kieran Paterson Leafield Cottage 21/05/2015 S Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 0QG

Laura Edwards Flat 2/1 5 And A Half, Argyle Place 21/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0AZ

Liam Baird 112 Jerviston Road 18/06/2015 S Glasgow G33 5QL

Lloyd Henry 21 Crichton Rd, Rothesay, Isle of Bute 29/07/2015 S

Maggie Catlin 42 Crichton Road 23/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JT

Martin Catlin 42 Crichton Road 19/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JT

Mary C Davies Arinacraig 26/05/2015 S 5 Shore Road Innellan Dunoon PA23 7TD

Mick Common Park Cottage 27/04/2015 S Upper Quay Street 19/05/2015 Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute 06/06/2015 PA20 0PN

Michael Mitchell 44 St Brides Road 26/05/2015 S Rothesay. Isle of Bute PA20 0JP

Monica Brooks Stevenson House 22/05/2015 S Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9ET

Mr Anas Hassan Flat 1/212 Castle Street, Rothesay, 22/06/2015 S Isle of Bute, PA20 9HA

Mr Duncan Dewar 3 Crichton Road, Rothesay, Isle Of Bute 02/06/2015 S PA20 9JR

Mr Michael Campbell 13 Low Road Castlehead Paisley 17/07/2015 S PA2 6AQ

Mrs Natalie Stevenson 31a Errol Gardens New Gorbals 28/06/2015 S Glasgow G5 0RA

Nancy Winfield No Address Given 22/06/2015 S

Nathan Kernaghan 36 Ballochgoy Road 21/05/2015 S Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 9HX

Nicola Jones 63B Castle Street 22/05/2015 S Port Banntyne Isle of Bute PA20 0LZ

Nina McDonald 6 Crichton Road 21/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JR Pamela Coia 5 Glen Royal 21/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute

Patrick O'Sullivan Rhoda House 19/05/2015 S Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute PA20 0PQ

Peter McDonald 6 Crichton Road 10/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JR

Professor Gokay Deveci 28 21/05/2015 S Ferryhill Place Aberdeen AB11 7SE

Raymond Boyle 6 Ardmory Road 20/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0PG

Reeni Kennedy-Boyle 6 Ardmory Road 23/04/2015 S Rothesay 15/06/2015 Isle of Bute PA20 0PG

Robert Cairney 26 Ardmory Road 22/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute

Robert Duff 22A Marine Place 26/05/2015 S Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 0LF

Robert Dunn 15 Mount Pleasant Road 21/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9HQ

Rod Shaw 42 Mount Pleasant Road 26/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute

Ronnie Armstrong 13 Church Lane 26/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9BE

Ronnie Hair No Address Given 22/05/2015 S

Sam Parkins Flat 1 05/05/2015 S 7 King Street Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0DD

Sandy McIntyre No Address Given 09/06/2015 S

Sara Clarke Stevenson House 26/05/2015 S Ascog Isle of Bute PA20 9ET

Sean Armstrong 13 Church Lane 26/05/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9BE

Sharon Taylor 34 St Brides Road 19/06/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0JP

Sharon Taylor No Address Given 22/05/2015 S

Sheila Murray Janette Cottage 27/05/2015 S Townhead Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9JH

Stuart Thomas No Address Given 06/05/2015 S

Sylvia Jardine Upper Floor Flat 28/06/2015 S 62 Mountstuart Road Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 9LD

Terry Molloy Flat 7 19/05/2015 S 10 The Terrace Ardbeg Road Isle of Bute PA20 0NP

Tim Saul 40 Ardmory Road 28/04/2015 S Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0PG

Timothy Chisholm 01/67 Castle Street 21/05/2015 S Port Bannatyne Isle of Bute PA20 0LZ

Tony Edwards Flat 2/1 21/05/2015 S 5 And A Half Argyle Place Rothesay Isle of Bute PA20 0AZ

Victoria Hughes 464 St George's Rd 23/05/2015 S Glasgow G3 6JP

Wendy Brownlie Flat 1/1 20/05/2015 S Park Cottage Buildings Upper Quay Street Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute PA20 0PN

Yennie Van Oostende Lower Straad Cottage 21/05/2015 S Isle of Bute