THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 06 ON THE AGENDA
PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL CORPORATE OPERATIONS
24 FEBRUARY 2015 NOT EXEMPT
ERECTION OF SEVEN WIND TURBINES OF UP TO 125 METRES IN HEIGHT (TO BLADE TIP), EACH WITH AN EXTERNAL TRANSFORMER AND ASSOCIATED HARDSTANDINGS; A METEOROLOGICAL MAST; A CONTROL BUILDING; A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND; FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS TRACKS AND TWO BORROW PITS FOR THE WINNING AND WORKING OF AGGREGATES; AND OTHER ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT. AT LAND 2 KILOMETRES NORTH WEST OF WESTER CRINGATE, POLMAISE ROAD TO CARRON RESERVOIR, STIRLING - FORCE 9 ENERGY LLP AND EDF ENERGY ER - 13/00728/FUL
1 SUMMARY
1.1 The planning application is a major development. Previously the application was recommended for refusal through the Council’s weekly Planning Schedule on 26 March 2014. At this time the agent requested that a decision on the application not be issued and additional time be given to allow a response to the recommendation. This request was accepted. The agent submitted a case in relation to planning policy, the landscape and visual impact and proposals for mitigation to resolve the objection from the National Air Traffic Service which has been taken into account. The previous objection from the National Air Traffic Service has now been withdrawn.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)
2.1 The Panel agrees to Refuse the application for the following Reasons::
1. The proposal is contrary to the Stirling Local Development Plan Policies – Primary Policy 12 (Renewable Energy), Policy 12.1 Wind Turbines and Policy 9.1 Local landscape Areas in that:
(a) The scale of the turbines proposed, particularly turbines 1, 2, 5 and 6 (a height of 125 metres), would be located in close proximity to the hill edges and would therefore have visually dominant impact on the overall scale of the hills. The effect of the proposed development would be to diminish the scale of the Touch-Gargunnock and Fintry hills range.
(b) The proposed turbines have been arranged in two clusters and would appear incohesive with overlapping and stacked up turbines and overlapping blades. This is demonstrated by Viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
(c) The landscape sensitivity study for wind energy indicates that the scope for large scale turbines is typically limited by small scale landform features at the local level and the overall extent of the Touch- Gargunnock and Fintry hills range. It is considered that the impact on the landscape of the proposed scale of the development in terms of height and numbers of turbines is not appropriate and the visual harm is significant and unacceptable.
(d) In combination with Earlsburn (built), Earlsburn North (consented) and Craigengelt (built), the proposed Craigton and Spittal Hill wind farms will extend development across the skyline of the Touch-Gargunnock- Fintry Hills which will be visible from the carseland to the north and will detract from the important landscape quality and setting of the Touch- Gargunnock and Fintry hills range.
(e) The addition of the proposed wind farm at Craigton and Spittal Hill to the above, would result in an unacceptable overall cumulative visual and landscape impact and have an adverse effect on amenity because it would be situated within the same hill range as the following built and consented wind farms - Earlsburn, Earlsburn North (consented), and Craigengelt wind farm. Furthermore, the Braes of Doune (36 turbines) lies about 22.5 kilometres to the north east. If Craigton and Spittal Hill were to be developed then 31 turbines in total (varying in height from 110 to 125 metres) would be sited in the hills north of the Carron Valley, approaching the scale of the 36No. 100 metres turbines at Braes of Doune. The proposal falls within areas where there is considered to be no capacity for large wind turbines in relation to landscape scale, distinctive hill edges (turbines 2 and 3 only) and iconic landscape features (1,2,3,5 and 6 only).
3 CONSIDERATIONS
The Site
3.1 The application site is hill land used for open moorland and rough grazing in the Fintry Hills.
The Proposal
3.2 The proposed wind farm site is described as 'Craigton and Spittal Hill' in the Environmental Statement. The application site is located within the Fintry Hills, located to the west of Hart Hill where the Earlsburn wind farm is built and to the west of Ling Hill where Earlsburn North wind farm is approved. The application is for planning permission for:
(a) Seven wind turbines ( including external transformers) of up to 125 metres to tip and a blade diameter of 45 metres; combined output of 21 megawatts;
(b) Crane hard standings;
(c) A control building;
(d) A permanent meteorological mast;
(e) A temporary site construction compound/laydown area;
(f) Two areas from which rock for the wind farm construction will be won (borrow pits);
(g) Approximately 5 kilometres of on-site access tracks.
It is proposed that the development area will be accessed via the existing Earlsburn Wind Farm access which connects with the B818 road adjacent to the house at Todholes to the south. The period of consent sought is 25 years.
Previous History
3.3 Detailed Planning Permission was approved for the erection of 14 wind turbines (115 metres to rotor tip), sub-station and access road at Hart Hill, Fintry ref: 03/00936/DET. Detailed Planning Permission for erection of wind turbine at Hart Hill, Fintry ref: 05/00474/DET. These two planning permissions were for the total of 15 turbines currently developed at Hart Hill – known as Earlsburn Wind farm.
3.4 Full planning permission for erection of 9 wind turbines, permanent 70 metre wind monitoring mast, crane hardstandings, new internal access tracks, control building, borrow pits and car parking area Land At Ling Hill North West Of Earlsburn Wind Farm, Fintry ref: 08/00104/FUL – approved as an extension to Earlsburn Wind farm.
3.5 Full planning permission for the formation of wind farm comprising 8 turbines (125 metres to blade tip), access track, bridge crossing over the Buckie Burn, sub station, borrow pits, temporary met mast, cabling and temporary construction compound Land At Craigengelt Hill Stirling - ref: 06/01052/FUL.
3.6 Refusal of Planning Permission (Appeal Decision) for erection of 6 wind turbines (around 12-18MW total installed capacity) together with a control building, ancillary infrastructure and temporary ground works on Land Some 885 Metres North West of Craigannet Farm Fintry - 12/00056/FUL.
3.7 Refusal of Planning Permission (Appeal Decision) for erection of 25 year operation and subsequent decommissioning of a wind energy development comprising fifteen wind turbines, each with a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 126 metres, and ancillary development including new access tracks, modification to existing tracks and improved site access, temporary construction compound, hard standing areas, substation building and cabling, anemometry mast and temporary borrow pits Land Some 1100 Metres North Of Cairnoch Polmaise Road To Carron Reservoir Stirling - ref; 12/00515/FUL
Development Plan Policy and Material Considerations
Development Plan:
Stirling Local Development Plan (adopted September 2014):
3.8 Primary Policy 12: Renewable Energy
The Scottish Government’s target is to meet an equivalent of 100% demand for electricity from renewable energy by 2020, as well as the target of 11% renewable heat. The Plan area has the potential to contribute to energy generation through most of the renewable and low-carbon technologies currently being developed.
Wind turbines may have specific implications for landscape character and visual intrusion, particularly with regard to larger scale developments, in terms of both overall height and numbers of turbines. Other renewables and low carbon energy developments will be considered where they are to be sensitively introduced. Renewable energy generation projects will therefore require to accord with Policies 12.1 (where appropriate) and 12.2.
3.9 Policy 12.1: Wind Turbines
(a) Proposals for the installation of wind turbines will be assessed against:
(i) National planning policy and guidance current at the time of determination of applications. (ii) Current locational and design guidance of Scottish Natural Heritage. (iii) Stirling Council’s ‘Areas of Significant Protection’ and ‘Areas of Search’, as detailed in SG33. (iv) The findings of the Stirling Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development’ (March 2008).
(b) Developments will be permitted if they are of a scale, layout and nature such that adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, are avoided or minimised to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Proposals will be assessed against the following criteria: -
- landscape and visual impact, - effects on the natural heritage and historic environment, - contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets, - effect on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests, - benefits and disbenefits for communities, - noise and shadow flicker, and - cumulative effect.
[New Supplementary Guidance (SG33) will be prepared and adopted within one year of the adoption of this Local Development Plan that will comprise Stirling Council’s spatial framework for onshore wind. The adopted spatial framework will then be incorporated into the Local Development Plan at the first review. See also Policy 4.2 for criteria relating to the protection of carbon-rich soils].
3.10 Policy 9.1: Protecting Special Landscapes
Decisions on development proposals within designated landscapes will take into account the level of importance and qualities of the designated area and the nature and scale of development (see SG27). In all cases the siting and design of development within designated landscapes should be of very high quality and respect the special nature of the area.
(a) National Scenic Area (NSA): Development proposals in the NSA will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that:
(i) It will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or (ii) Any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance.
(b) Local Landscape Areas (LLAs): Development proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that: -
(i) The landscape character, scenic interest and qualities for which the area has been designated will not be adversely affected; or (ii) There is a specific nationally recognised need for the development at that location which could not be satisfied in a less sensitive area, and any adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of local importance.
[SG27 supports this policy by providing locations and citations for designated landscapes which identify the special qualities, sensitivities to change, development guidance and landscape enhancement potential for these areas].
3.11 Documents that are Material Considerations:
1. Stirling Council Supplementary Planning Guidance Interim Locational Policy & Guidance for Renewable Energy Developments (Wind Turbines) (adopted March 2011) with due recognition given to various shortcomings identified in the Examination Report and disparities with the current SPP. This Guidance is based in the landscape sensitivity study. The proposed turbines are 125 metres high and are classed as very large.
2. Stirling landscape sensitivity and capacity study for wind energy development published November 2007, adopted by the Council in March 2008 as a 'material consideration' for the purposes of determining planning applications. The proposed turbines fall within the Landscape Character area type 3 - Smooth Hills.
In relation to wind farms the key landscape characteristics are:
(a) This landscape character type is characterised by broad hills of a smooth texture that are sharply defined by their distinctive scarp edges. The hills form distinctive landmarks, emphasised by the contrast of their form and elevation with surrounding lowland areas. In this way, the hills tend to provide a simple visual backcloth to
views from surrounding areas, emphasised by their simplicity of colour, texture and pattern.
(b) These hills typically appear very large in scale, although they are actually not very great in elevation (generally between 250 and 600 metres AOD). This effect occurs largely because of an absence of definite scale indicators within the hills. In addition, their elevation tends to appear further exaggerated due to direct comparison to adjacent low-lying and flat areas.
(c) On account of the scale, elevation and openness of the hills, they typically provide open and panoramic views. On account of the simplicity of the hills and the typical absence of dominant foci, these views tend to extend beyond the hills themselves to more prominent features in the distance, such as the intricate pattern of adjacent lowland landscapes, wind farms upon other hills and the distinctive profile of the Trossachs.
(d) The overall extent of these hills tends to be fairly small, generally forming a narrow range where outward views can usually be gained. However, within some locations, interior plateau or hill areas occur. Within these areas, there tends to be a distinct sense of remoteness and refuge with predominantly inward views.
(e) This landscape type contrasts to adjoining character areas on account of its simplicity of land use and land cover, predominantly used for extensive grazing and/or game shooting. In some places, however, local character is dominated by coniferous forest plantations that typically contrast in colour, form, texture and line.
(f) Marginal areas of this character type typically contain patches of native woodland and small-scale settlement, resulting in a more fragmented composition.
Key guidance for wind farm development where capacity may exist:
(g) This character type has very limited capacity to accommodate wind energy development, mainly because of the impacts of existing and consented wind farms within this and adjacent landscape character types, both individually and cumulatively. The existing Braes of Doune wind farm occurs within one area of this landscape character type, while the Earlsburn wind farm occurs partly within another and partly within landscape character type 6. In addition, the Burnfoot wind farm has been consented within an area of this character type within the Ochil Hills. Collectively, this means that every unit of this landscape character type within the study area and immediate surroundings will contain a wind farm. Further wind farm development would thus be likely to seem to cumulatively dominate this character type as no significant 'wind farm free' area would then occur. Nevertheless the following paragraphs describe guidance on key landscape issues if any capacity is found to occur within the landscape character type.
(h) If capacity exists, a key issue of wind farm development within this landscape character type concerns the relative vertical scale of the turbines. Principally, it is important to ensure that the wind farm seems to be of greatly inferior scale to the hills. The size of the hills is typically most easy to discern at their edge, so apparent dominance of a wind farm's scale tends to be reduced where turbines are located further within the hill interior.
(i) Given the distinctiveness of the hill edges in relation to adjacent lowland landscapes, it is important that a wind farm relates very carefully to these features. Locating a wind farm either above or below the hill edges will typically seem to impinge upon these features; thus it is important to ensure that a wind farm does not appear in close proximity to distinct hill edges and is read as being of greatly inferior scale.
(j) Given the simplicity of land cover within this landscape character type, it is important that any wind farm layout appears simple and clear, including access tracks and other infrastructure. Visually, it is also important that the design of the wind farm avoids views of overlapping blades. These concerns are particularly relevant near to the edges of this landscape type where the characteristic simplicity of the area has already been partially eroded in places, for example, with the presence of forest plantations, telecom masts and access tracks.
Wind farm types
(k) As described above, the capacity of this landscape character type to accommodate additional wind farms is very limited. For although this landscape character type possesses some characteristics to which a wind farm could relate, existing and consented wind farms already occur within this landscape character type and thus the capacity of this landscape to accommodate a wind farm and the appropriateness of this would be strongly influenced by the impacts of existing wind farms.
(l) If capacity does exist, a key issue will be the scale of a development in terms of both wind turbine height and numbers. Despite the fact that the hills possess an overall large scale and sense of wide openness that might suggest that taller wind turbines and larger developments might be accommodated, scope for this is typically limited by small scale landform features at the local level and the overall small extent of these hill ranges.
(m) Where capacity does occur, the layout of wind turbines should generally relate to the simplicity of the landscape character type and avoid seeming confusing or to 'sprawl' over the open landscape. To achieve a simple image of a wind farm in this landscape, whose variation of landform results in views changing while moving through the landscape, a single row of wind turbines may appear most appropriate in relation to a ridge or flattish area. If this is not possible, a concentrated cluster of wind turbines sited at consistent elevation may be appropriate.
3. Scottish Planning Policy:
Para 169 states “Proposals for energy infrastructure developments should always take account of spatial frameworks for wind farms and heat maps where these are relevant.” Various considerations are then identified that ‘…will vary relative to the scale of the proposal and area characteristics….” Those relevant to the present application include:
• Net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities; • The scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets; • Effect on greenhouse gas emissions; • Cumulative impacts – Planning Authorities should be clear about likely cumulative impacts arising from all of the considerations below, recognising that in some areas the cumulative impact of existing and consented energy development may limit the capacity for further development; • Impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker; • Landscape and visual impacts, including effects on wild land; • Effects on the natural heritage, including birds; • Impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator; • Impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings; • Impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording;
It therefore remains the case that the range of assessment criteria set out in the adopted Local Development Plan remain valid and that the adopted SPG and the findings of the 2008 Capacity study can also be used subject to due recognition being given to shortcomings highlighted at the Examination stage. In particular the adopted ‘Spatial Framework’ is no longer SPP compliant, in so far as 'Areas requiring Significant Protection' can no longer include '….. areas where the cumulative impact of existing and consented wind farms limits further development.'. Nevertheless, as noted above, SPP continues to identify cumulative landscape impacts as a valid consideration.
Assessment
Landscape and Visual Impact:
3.12 The site falls within the area identified as the 'Smooth Hills' in the above Landscape and Sensitivity Study. The key landscape characteristics of the 'smooth hills' is described in the section above under material considerations.
3.13 The landscape study gives guidance on wind farm development, where capacity may exist - it states that the character of the smooth hills area has 'very limited capacity to accommodate wind energy development, mainly because of the impacts of existing and consented wind farms within this and adjacent landscape character types, both individually and cumulatively.'
3.14 The guidance states - principally, it is important to ensure that the wind farm seems to be of greatly inferior scale to the hills. The size of the hills is typically most easy to discern at their edge, so apparent dominance of a wind farm's scale tends to be reduced where turbines are located further within the hill interior. Given the distinctiveness of the hill edges in relation to adjacent lowland landscapes, it is important that a wind farm relates very carefully to these features. Locating a wind farm either above or below the hill edges will typically seem to impinge upon these features; thus it is important to ensure that a wind farm does not appear in close proximity to distinct hill edges and is read as being of greatly inferior scale.'
3.15 The landscape study describes the character of the hills as appearing 'very large in scale, although they are actually not very great in elevation (generally between 250 and 600 metres AOD). This effect occurs largely because of an absence of definite scale indicators within the hills. In addition, their elevation tends to appear further exaggerated due to direct comparison to adjacent low- lying and flat areas.' The scale of the turbines proposed, particularly turbines 1, 2 5 and 6, (height of 125 metres), would be located in close proximity to the hill edges and would therefore have visually dominant impact on the overall scale of the hills and would not appear as inferior.
3.16 The landscape guidance for wind farms in the area sets out that 'given the simplicity of land cover within this landscape character type, it is important that any wind farm layout appears simple and clear, including access tracks and other infrastructure. Visually, it is also important that the design of the wind farm avoids views of overlapping blades.' The proposed turbines have been arranged in two clusters and appear as incohesive with overlapping and stacked up turbines and overlapping blades. This is demonstrated by Viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
3.17 The landscape study finds that the scope for large scale turbines is typically limited by small scale landform features at the local level and the overall extend of these hill ranges. It is considered that the impact on the landscape of the proposed scale of the development, in terms of height and numbers of turbines is not appropriate and the visual harm to the landscape is significant and unacceptable.
3.18 The consultation reply from Scottish Natural Heritage considers that the proposal does not comply with the landscape sensitivity study.
3.19 There is potential for landscape and visual impacts to be cumulative where more than one wind farm exists in an area. The Earlsburn wind farm (15 turbines) is built to the east, the approved Earlsburn north extension (9 turbines) is to the south-east, and Craigengelt wind farm as built (8 turbines) is to the east. The Braes of Doune (36 turbines) lies about 22.5 kilometres to the north east. There would be an unacceptable overall cumulative landscape and visual impact from the development.
3.20 The proposed site is located on the Fintry Hills. To the east is Ling Hill which is the site of the consented but not built wind farm at Earlsburn North -this was supported on the grounds of being an extension to the original Earlsburn. Earlsburn wind farm is built on Hart Hill. Earlsburn North extension (consented) and the original Earlsburn as built will result in a total of 24 turbines. It is clear from a plan view, viewpoints submitted in the Environmental Statement, and site visits that the proposal will appear as a
distinct group of turbines and that there will be a degree of separation of the proposed 7 turbines at Craigton and Spittal Hill from the 9 turbines as approved at Earlsburn North extension and 15 built at the original Earlsburn site. In relation to the proposed location Fintry Hills the proposal would appear as a distinct group of 7 turbines. Also, given the spatial relationship with the original Earlsburn wind farm, the proposal is a separate wind farm and is not an extension of the original Earlsburn wind farm as built.
3.21 In combination with Earlsburn (built), Earlsburn North (consented) and Craigengelt (built), the proposed Craigton and Spittal Hill will extend development across the skyline of the Touch-Gargunnock-Fintry Hills which will be visible from the carseland to the north and will detract from the important landscape quality and setting of this hill range.
3.22 The proposal would be situated within the same hill range as the following built and consented wind farm - Earlsburn wind farm (15 turbines) is built to the east, the approved Earlsburn north extension (9 turbines) is to the east, and Craigengelt wind farm as built (8 turbines) is 6 kilometres to the south- east. Furthermore, the Braes of Doune (36 turbines) lies about 22.5 kilometres to the north east. If Craigton and Spittal Hill were to be developed then 31 turbines in total (varying in height from 110 to 125 metres) would be sited in the hills north of the Carron Valley, approaching the scale of the 36No. 100 metres turbines at Braes of Doune. The addition of the proposed wind farm at Craigton and Spittal Hill to the above, would result in an unacceptable overall cumulative visual and landscape impact, particularly in relation to the Carron Valley.
3.23 Locational Guidance and Criteria within Supplementary Planning Guidance - The Supplementary Planning Guidance March 2011 addresses local guidance and criteria on the basis of the landscape capacity study referred to above. The proposal falls within an area where there is considered to be no capacity for large wind turbines in relation to landscape scale, distinctive hill edges and iconic landscape features. The landscape study identifies maps/figures in relation to these considerations -
Figure 5a - which is a Landscape scale constraint, the site is within an area where there is no capacity for turbines between 51 - 140 metres i.e. a turbine should not be higher than 50 metres - the proposed turbines at 125 metres high exceeds this acceptable landscape scale capacity which only allows up to 50 metres.
Figure 6 defines where there is no capacity for turbines in relation to Distinctive Hill Edges, Turbines 2 and 7 lies within this area. The proposal would be harmful to the hill edges formed by the northern escarpment of the Gargunnock Hills, when looking both southwards from the Carse and northwards from the plateau.
Figure 7 No Capacity Iconic Landscape Feature (Touch/Gargunnock Hills Escarpment). Turbines 1,2,3,5 and 6 lie in this area and would diminish the landscape quality of the escarpment particularly when looking southwards over the Carse and rising ground towards the escarpment and the indented corrie over which cascades the Boquhan Burn, are deemed to be particularly important. Based on site visits within the surrounding area, assessment of the photomontages, diagrams and maps in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the upper parts of the towers, hubs and blades of turbines 1, 2,
5 and 6 and the blades of turbines 3, 4 and 7 will be visible from south looking views from the Carse and in the vicinity of Kippen, as demonstrated in Viewpoints 5 (B822 at Kippen Muir) and 7 (B8034 at Arndale Park and Gardens) and the ZTV maps. The introduction of such prominent engineered features disrupts and undermines the perceived scale of hill edge and diminishes, to an unacceptable degree, the character and intrinsic qualities of the identified iconic feature of the Touch/Gargunnock Hills Escarpment. The above landscape study states 'The quality of the Hills surrounding the Forth Valley partly relies on a perception of great scale. This perception, however, relates to an existing lack of features upon the hills that act as a clear size indicator. In addition the hills play an important role as a simple visual backdrop to adjacent areas of distinct landscape pattern.'
Figure 11 Capacity Sensitivity - Sense of Remoteness. The addition of another wind farm to this hill range would detract from the distinct sense of remoteness and refuge that is a part of landscape character.
Consultation Reply from Scottish Natural Heritage:
3.24 The consultation reply from Scottish Natural Heritage assesses the visual effect and extent to which the proposal relates to the landform/landscape and existing pattern and siting of wind farm development. There is concern expressed that the proposal will appear as being incohesive and as two clusters. Reference is made to the proposal appearing as skyline in relation to existing wind farms. In terms of wind farm scale and layout, the reply does state that the proposal is contrary to the landscape sensitivity and capacity study referred to above. The comments on the relationship to landscape and visual characteristics refers to the site being on a fault line/valley which demarcates the division between the Fintry and Gargunnock Hills - in combination with Earlsburn (built), Earlsburn North (consented) and Craigengelt (built), the Craigton and Spittalhill turbines would extend wind farm development across the skyline, taking it down from the Touch and Gargunnock Hills and into this valley on the edge of the Fintry Hills. The turbines would appear in a valley-side context rather than hill top-related and towards the interior of the Lowland Hills and this would conflict with the existing pattern of development in the Lowland Hills.
3.25 Whilst valid points are raised about the design of the proposed scheme as appearing as two clusters with overlapping and stacked turbines, and overlapping blades, it lacks assessment as to the cumulative impact of existing and approved wind farms in the vicinity of the Gargunnock, Touch and Fintry Hills, and Braes of Doune, and the effect on the Gargunnock-Fintry Hills escarpment when viewed from carse to the north which is identified in the landscape study.
3.26 The mitigation proposed is to either omit or reposition 3 turbines (number 3,4 and 7 that are lower down the valley) so as to address the concerns over turbines sited on the fault line and improve the layout to a simpler and more cohesive design.
3.27 The mitigation does not take into account umulative impact and the visual dominance of the 125 metres high turbines that would diminish the scale of the Gargunnock-Fintry Hills which is contrary to the above landscape study.
3.28 Conclusion on Landscape and Visual impact: In view of the above, the application is contrary to the Stirling Local Development Plan Policies 12 (Renewable Energy), Policy 12.1 Wind Turbines, Policy 9.1 Local Landscape Areas, the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Farms March 2011, and is at variance with the findings of the Council's Landscape Sensitivity Study for Wind Energy Development (adopted).
Noise Impact on Residential Property and Shadow Flicker:
3.29 The consultation reply from Environmental Health advises on noise impact - there are no objections. The Supplementary Planning Guidance advises on a 2 kilometre buffer between the site and villages and a 500 metre buffer with residential properties. The nearest house is over 2 kilometres away from the nearest turbine. Shadow Flicker may occur for residential property located within 10 rotor diameters which in this instance is 450 metres, and so the proposed turbines are outwith the range for shadow flicker to affect housing. Subject to compliance with noise thresholds, there would no significant harm to residential amenity.
3.30 Economic Impact: The application states that between 10 and 30 temporary jobs will be created during construction and 1 full time job. The economic benefit of the application has been considered and has merit.
3.31 Contribution to renewable energy: The application sets out that the generating capacity of the development would be 21 megawatts. The proposed development would make a valuable contribution to national energy supplies and to the Government’s renewables targets and that this counts in favour of the proposed development.
3.32 Effect on greenhouse gases: The carbon balance assessment has calculated that the expected payback time – the length of time the development will be a net avoider rather than a net emitter of carbon is 24 months. Within a 25 year operational life, this would mean the development would save over twelve times the carbon emissions generated making a positive net contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
3.33 The merits of economic impact, contribution to renewable energy, and effect on greenhouse gases have been taken into account. However, Government support for wind turbine development is not unconditional. In relation to such development, environmental and cumulative impacts must be capable of being satisfactorily addressed.
Previous Appeal Decisions:
3.34 Two appeal decisions on wind farms are material considerations - appeals were dismissed and planning permission refused for wind farms on the Cairnoch Hill and Craiganet Hills (situated to the north of Carron Valley Reservoir) and within the Area of Significant Protection.
Consultation reply from NERL- National Air Traffic Service:
3.35 When the application was recommended through the weekly Planning Schedule in March 2014, the consultation reply from the National Air Traffic Service objected to the application on the grounds the development will cause an adverse impact to the Lowther Hill and associated air traffic operations of
NATS without suitable mitigation. An agreement has been entered into between NATS (En-Route) PLC, NATS (Services) Limited and Force 9 Energy Partners LLP dated 9 November 2014 for the design and implementation of an identified and defined mitigation solution in relation to the development that will be completed under agreement. NATS is therefore prepared to withdraw its objection to the proposal.
Effect on Visitor Experience in the Carron Valley Area:
3.36 Whilst there are policy and landscape and visual impact objections to the application, and this may detract from the experience of visitors using the B818, as referred to in the consultation reply from Falkirk Council, this is not considered to be an issue of such weight that it could be deemed to be a material consideration.
Ornithology:
3.37 The proposal will not have an adverse impact on the ornithology of the area. Two turbines (turbine nos. 4 and 7) are within 500 metres of the LEK site, as shown on Figure 4.16 of the Environmental Statement. Following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, it is advised that a condition is applied requiring the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to protect Black Grouse.
Special Area of Conservation - Appropriate Assessment:
3.38 The proposal is likely to have a significant effect on Atlantic salmon, River and Brook lamprey as qualifying interests of the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation. Consequently the Council is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site's conservation objectives for its qualifying interests.
The assessment considers the impact of the proposals on the following factors:
(a) The construction of the 7 turbines and the associated infrastructure and access track is within the Endrick Water catchment. The proposal could affect the qualifying interests of the Endrick Water SAC through particulate and chemical pollution from the construction, maintenance and decommissioning of the turbines and the associated infrastructure.
(b) Particulate pollution could be caused from sediments being washed into watercourses during the construction and decommissioning of the turbine bases and construction and maintenance of the access forest track. Siltation of watercourses could damage salmon spawning redds and could lead to suspended sediments in the water-body which could in turn reduce water quality and kill or displace salmon and lamprey.
(c) Chemical pollution could be caused by fuel oil spillages from machinery associated with construction, maintenance and decommissioning of the turbines and the construction of the access track. Chemical pollution could also be caused by spillages of concrete slurry associated with construction of the turbines and the
associated infrastructure and access track. Oil and concrete are toxic to freshwater fish and if allowed to enter the Endrick Water in sufficient qualities would result in fish mortality.
(d) Pollution of the Endrick Water could potentially affect the conservation objectives by causing a deterioration of the habitats and significant disturbance to the qualifying species. The effects are unlikely to cause long term damage to the populations or distribution of the qualifying species within the site, or distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species, or maintenance of the long-term structure, function and supporting processes of the habitats supporting the species.
Scottish Natural Heritage has advised that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation.
Conclusion:
3.39 By virtue of the proposed location in the Fintry Hills, the proposal would appear as a separate group of 7 turbines and given the spatial relationship with the original Earlshill wind farm, the proposal is a separate wind farm and is not an extension of the original Earlsburn wind farm as built. The proposal would result in a total of 31 turbines (varying in height from 110 to 125 metres) over a range of 4 kilometres on the Touch-Gargunnock-Fintry Hills and their escarpments approaching the scale of the 36No. 100 metres turbines at Braes of Doune. The vertical scale and visual dominance of the 125 metres high turbines, would diminish the scale of the 'iconic' northern escarpment of the Touch-Gargunnock-Fintry hills and detract from the role of this feature as a hill edge. Due to the harmful cumulative landscape and visual impact of the proposed development, the application is contrary to Local Development Plan relating to wind farm development, development within Local landscape Area, The Landscape and Sensitivity Study, Supplementary Planning Guidance on wind farms March 2011.
Objections
3.40 Twelve objections have been received, which may be summarised as follows:
(a) The application site in the Carron Valley area falls within an Area of Significant Protection within the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Interim Locational Policy & Guidance for Renewable Energy Developments (Wind Turbines). There is no area within Stirling Council that has capacity for very large turbines at a height of 110 metres plus.
(b) The proposal and height of the turbines would have a significant negative impact on the landscape including cumulative effect of more turbines in this area. There are already significant wind farms adjacent to the site and adding to this proliferation of turbines can only make matters worse.
(c) Potential detrimental impact health of humans for people living near to turbines.
(d) Loss of property value.
(e) Detrimental effect on birds and bats.
(f) Noise disturbance between 0100 hours and 0600 hours.
(g) Shadow flicker - effect on residential property.
(h) The 20 metres neighbour notification boundary is inadequate.
(i) Stirling Council has implemented in their policies a 500 metre buffer zone to protect rural properties. The proposed turbines are very large at 125 metres - any house situated less than a 2 kilometre buffer zone would not give sufficient protection to local dwellers from the significant noise pollution.
(j) Two previous schemes for Carron Valley area were refused by the Council and following planning appeals both were dismissed and permission refused - this scheme has little to distinguish from earlier applications. It would be a problem for the Council to uphold its present balanced stance on wind farms if this were to go forward.
(k) The proposal is in breach of Local Plan Policy E15 (Areas of Great Landscape Value) - the proposal would in effect extend the wind farms in-site.
(l) Industrialisation of the rural landscape around Fintry.
(m) The proposal goes against the Stirling Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development.
(n) The area to the west of Stirling has done its bit in meeting the Government's policy on renewables - there are sufficient wind turbines in the west Stirlingshire area and enough is enough.
(o) Would withdraw objection if this is developed as a pumped storage system and the turbines are of a modest height.
(p) Detrimental noise pollution to nearby dwellings.
3.41 Two letters of support on the grounds that:
(a) The present changes in the climate and weather of the past years are attributable to the ever increasing amounts of atmospheric pollution.
(b) The developer’s willingness to consult with local communities and to offer better than average mitigation amounts.
4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
Policy Implications
Equality Impact Assessment No Strategic Environmental Assessment No Single Outcome Agreement No Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) No Effect on Council’s green house gas emissions Decrease
Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes
Equality Impact Assessment
4.1 The application has no implications for equality and therefore an equality impact assessment is not required.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
4.2 The application required an Environment Impact Assessment on a strategic scale which has been taken into account.
Single Outcome Agreement
4.3 The recommendation does not apply to any of the 7 objectives of the single outcome agreement.
Other Policy Implications
4.4 None.
Resource Implications
4.5 None.
Consultations
4.6 Planning & Policy dated March 2014:
National and Local Planning Policy and Guidance
From February 2010 onwards National and Local Planning Guidance has been modified and updated on several fronts, as follows:-
National Planning Guidance
Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010) includes advice that:- i) the design and location of any wind farm development should reflect the scale and character of the landscape and, ii) when considering cumulative impact the planning authority should take account of existing wind farms, those for which have planning permission and valid applications for wind farms that have not been determined. SPP also stipulates that Planning Authorities should set out a spatial framework for onshore wind farms that, amongst other things, should identify '... areas of significant protection because they are '...... areas where the cumulative impact of existing and consented wind farms limits further development....'. SPP is currently being reviewed and it is expected an update version will be published in June/July 2014.
Planning Advice Note no. 45 - Renewable Energy Technologies, includes a specific advice sheet on Onshore Wind Turbines (updated January 2012), and amongst other matters, notes that Planning Authorities are more frequently having to consider turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, where design elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed.
Local Planning Policy and Guidance In March 2011 the Council formally adopted Interim Locational Policy & Guidance for Renewable Energy Developments (Wind Turbines) (from now on referred to as 'the Guidance.') Amongst other matters this designates three separate 'Areas of Significant Protection' where, for reasons of cumulative impact, discrete wind farms will not be supported. The southernmost area covers those parts of the Campsie Fells and Carron Valley within the Stirling Council area, and also the Fintry- Gargunnock-Touch Hills, and includes the Craigton and Spittalhill site. This Guidance is founded on the "Stirling Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development" (from now on referred to as 'the Study'). In March 2008 the Council endorsed the findings of the Study as a 'material consideration' in determining planning applications.
The Proposed Stirling Local Development Plan (LDP), published for public consultation in October 2012, included Policy 12.1 - Wind Turbines, which cross references to proposed Supplementary Guidance 33 - Wind Farms and Wind Turbines, which is a consolidated version of the Guidance.
The formal Examination of the Plan has now been completed and the report was received on 7 March 2014. With regard to wind energy developments the report highlights what are seen as a number of significant discrepancies between the proposed SG and national policy and guidance. Consequently, amongst other modifications to the Plan, the Council is obliged to " ... bring forward a refreshed spatial framework for wind farms within no more than one year. That spatial framework must meet the requirements of the Scottish Government's planning policy and advice, which includes SPP and the
guidance for onshore wind turbines, as well as the "Process for preparing spatial frameworks for wind farms". The spatial framework must also demonstrably and fully engage the entire range of stakeholders, including the Scottish Government, other key agencies, the development industry and the wider public. The refreshed spatial framework must then be approved and brought into the Local Development Plan Spatial Strategy at first review."
Given the LDP is likely to be formally adopted by June/July 2014 then a 'refreshed strategy' needs to be completed by June/July 2015.
Notwithstanding the above conclusions of the Examination, it seems appropriate to continue to assess current applications against the adopted Guidance, pending the finalisation and adoption of a 'refreshed' Strategy, particularly as it cannot be predicted at this point in time as to whether a refreshed strategy would be more supportive or, indeed, more restrictive towards wind energy developments, particularly larger scale wind farms.
Regarding the overall planning merits of this proposal the principal issue is landscape and visual impact. The Guidance also sets out various other environmental criteria that require to be satisfied in relation to wind turbine developments, though it appears these matters have been largely addressed in the Environmental Statement, can be resolved through design changes or controlled via planning conditions.
In an interim response of 10 February 2014 the following considerations were highlighted:- i) The site lies in an Area of Significant Protection (ASP) as defined in the Guidance, as acknowledged in the Planning Statement and Environmental Statement. ii) Relative to the landscape capacity study there are a range of capacity constraints and sensitivities applying to this site, with implications for the proposed development:-
1. Figure 5a - Landscape scale constraint No Capacity 51 - 140 metres.
Effectively no turbines should above 50 metres.
2. Figure 6 - No capacity Distinctive Hill Edges Turbines 2 and 7 lies within this area.
In the case of Craigton it is important that turbines close to the edge do not detract from the key characteristics of 'edges'. It is therefore necessary to assess how the Craigton wind farm will be viewed against the edge formed by the northern escarpment of the Gargunnock Hills, when looking both southwards from the Carse and northwards from the plateau.
3. Figure 7 No Capacity Iconic Landscape Feature (Touch/Gargunnock Hills Escarpment) Turbines 1,2,3,5 and 6 lie in this area.
This is one of several prominent landscape features with distinct associations with the Stirling Council area. The key issue in relation to wind turbines is their potential relationship to these features - whether they complement or diminish their character and intrinsic qualities.
4. Figure 11 Capacity Sensitivity - Sense of Remoteness There are various considerations, including cumulative impact and relationship to edges.
5. Landscape Character Type no. 3 Smooth Hills This Character Type has very limited capacity to accommodate wind energy development, mainly because of the impacts of existing and consented wind farms within this and adjacent landscape types, both individually and cumulatively.
Following from the above and bearing in mind matters common to the above mentioned constraints, sensitivity and landscape character types, two key landscape and visual impact issues have been identified and are considered in more detail below.
1. Though located in an Area of Significant Protection the SPG does state that 'Sensitively designed additions to wind farms may be acceptable'.
The LVIA therefore seeks to demonstrate the proposal is an 'extension' rather than a discrete or free standing wind farm. It is necessary therefore to take a definite view on this matter.
If Craigton were to be developed then 31 turbines in total (varying in height from 110 to 125 m) would be sited in the hills north of the Carron Valley, approaching the scale of the 36 no. 100m turbines at Braes of Doune.
Having visited the site, viewed the development from the surrounding locality and assessed the photomontages, diagrams and maps in the LVIA it is concluded the Craigton wind farm will be viewed as a distinct group of turbines, rather than as yet a further addition to the already added to Earlsburn (built)/ Earlsburn North (approved but not yet built) grouping.
A key conclusion on the Capacity study was that, taking account of the approved Earlsburn wind farm, that various other wind farms proposed at the time (August 2007) are individually likely to exceed identified capacity. These proposals included the now built Craigengelt and now approved Earlsburn North. On account of the well founded concerns regarding adverse cumulative impacts of further wind farms in the Carron Valley and surrounding hills the Guidance designated an extensive Area of Significant Protection. Given that there is no identified capacity for further discrete wind farms the present proposal is considered contrary to the Guidance's Policy 3 - Cumulative Impacts, in so far as it relates to the Areas of Significant Protection, clearly exceeds the identified capacity to the detriment of wider visual amenity, landscape scale and sense of remoteness.
Cumulative impact considerations were given significant weight in the recent determinations to dismiss appeals for wind farms at Cairnoch and Craigannet.
2. In terms of other capacity constraints potential impacts on the 'distinct hill edges' and 'iconic escarpment' feature, particularly when looking southwards over the Carse and rising ground towards the escarpment and the indented corrie over which cascades the Boquhan Burn, are deemed to be particularly important.
Having viewed the development from the surrounding locality and assessed the photomontages, diagrams and maps in the LVIA, the upper parts of the towers, hubs and blades of turbines 1, 2, 5 and 6 and the blades of turbines 3,4 and 7 will be visible from south looking views from the Carse and in the vicinity of Kippen, as demonstrated in Viewpoints 5 (B822 at Kippen Muir) and 7 (B8034 at Arndale Park and Gardens) and the ZTV maps. The introduction of such prominent engineered features disrupts and undermines the perceived scale of hill edge and diminishes, to an unacceptable degree, the character and intrinsic qualities of the identified iconic feature of the Touch/Gargunnock Hills Escarpment. As the Capacity Study notes: ' The quality of the Hills surrounding the Forth Valley partly relies on a perception of great scale. This perception, however, relates to an existing lack of features upon the hills that act as a clear size indicator. In addition the hills play an important role as a simple visual backdrop to adjacent areas of distinct landscape pattern.'
With reference to the Guidance's Local Guidance and Criteria - Section 1 Appropriate scale, design and layout for the location, it is considered the proposal will have an unacceptable detrimental impact on these key features of the Stirling area.
It is acknowledged that the cumulative LVIA also show the blades of a number of the turbines in the yet unbuilt Earlsburn North Wind farm will be seen in the same southerly views, though it is considered these have substantially less visual impact than the more prominent static features of the towers and hubs of the Craigton proposal.
Further comments from Policy and Planning Section dated January 2015:
The April 2014 Schedule Report highlighted the following key considerations relative to the status of the emerging Local development Plan and Scottish Planning Policy 2010.
• The proposed LDP was published for public consultation in October 2012. Policy 12.1 - Wind Turbines cross references to proposed Supplementary Guidance 33 - Wind Farms and Wind Turbines, which is a consolidated version of the adopted (March 2011) SPG.
• A report on the formal Examination of the Plan was received on 7 March 2014.
• The report highlighted a number of significant discrepancies between National Policy and Guidance and Policy 12.1 - Wind Turbines and associated Supplementary Guidance.
To address these concerns the Council is required to :-
• Include in the Local Development Plan criteria that will be considered in determining applications for wind farms, with the criteria from Scottish Planning Policy (June 2010) deemed suitable for this purpose.
• " .. bring forward a refreshed spatial framework for wind farms within no more than one year. That spatial framework must meet the requirements of the Scottish Government's planning policy and advice, which includes Scottish Planning Policy and the guidance for onshore wind turbines, as well as the "Process for preparing spatial frameworks for wind farms" (Issue 3 – Spatial Strategy – Examination Report Stirling LDP
The Council formally adopted the LDP on 24 September 2014.
Scottish Planning Policy (June 2014) Between the publication of the examination report and LDP adoption, a review and update of SPP was published in June 2014. With regard to onshore wind to guide developers and communities SPP requires Planning Authorities to set out in the Development Plan a spatial framework identifying those areas that are likely to be most appropriate for onshore wind farms. There are three ‘Groups' :-
• Group 1: Areas where wind farms will not be acceptable - National Parks and National Scenic Areas.
• Group 2: Areas of significant protection - Includes Natura 2000 sites; Inventory Battlefields and Designed Landscapes; SSSIs; Wild Land; Peat and Carbon Rich Soils and Community Separation (2.0 km maximum subject to local topography).
• Group 3: Areas with potential for wind farm development - Beyond Groups 1 and 2, wind farms are likely to be acceptable, subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria.
SPP further states: - "Recognising the need for significant protection, in these [Group 2] areas wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further consideration will be required to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation."
It is important to note that compared with the previous SPP (2010), Group 2 no longer includes the Green Belt or "…areas where the cumulative impact of existing and consented wind farms limits further development." This second point is one of the key factors that justified the designation of extensive areas of significant protection in the Council’s existing Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Updating of the Spatial Framework and Supplementary Guidance
Following from the above to meet the requirements of both the Examination Report and the updated SPP, the following work is underway:
• Production of a refreshed Spatial Framework in accordance with SPP. Essentially this will comprise of a map showing areas where wind farms will not be acceptable, areas of significant protection, and areas with potential for wind farm development, as per the SPP 'Groups'. Initially this will form interim Supplementary Guidance but will eventually be incorporated into the Local Development Plan Spatial Strategy as part of the early review of the Plan.
• Updating of the Stirling Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study which dates from November 2007. General advice from the Scottish Government is that to bridge the gap between the spatial framework and development management decisions, Planning Authorities may wish to update their landscape capacity studies in order to: -
• establish a better view of local landscape sensitivities; • identify acceptable levels of landscape change; • identify cumulative issues and set management objectives and guidance; and • identify scope for further development.
The updated study will be delivered by 31 January 2015.
• Preparation of new Supplementary Guidance (SG33) to include advice on the landscape considerations identified by the updated landscape sensitivity and capacity study and other relevant criteria identified in SPP.
In order to comply with the aforementioned one year deadline public consultation on all three documents will commence in June 2015, with a view to formal adoption by September 2015.
• Onshore wind energy has been identified as a main issue in the early review of the LDP. The Main Issues Report is also due to be published for public consultation in June 2015.
Current Development Plan Context
Decisions on planning applications require to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The current Development Plan context for determining this application is deemed to be:-
Stirling Local Development Plan (adopted September 2014), particularly Primary Policy 12 (Renewable Energy) and Policy 12.1: Wind Turbines.
Stirling Council Supplementary Planning Guidance Interim Locational Policy & Guidance for Renewable Energy Developments (Wind Turbines) (adopted March 2011) with due recognition given to various shortcomings identified in the Examination Report and disparities with the current SPP.
Stirling Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for wind energy development (published November 2007, adopted by the Council in March 2008) as a 'material consideration' for the purposes of determining planning applications .
Relevant guidance in the updated SPP will also be a key material consideration. Para 169 states “Proposals for energy infrastructure developments should always take account of spatial frameworks for wind farms and heat maps where these are relevant.” Various considerations are then identified that ‘…will vary relative to the scale of the proposal and area characteristics….” Those relevant to the present application include:
• net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities;
• the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets;
• effect on greenhouse gas emissions;
• cumulative impacts – Planning Authorities should be clear about likely cumulative impacts arising from all of the considerations below, recognising that in some areas the cumulative impact of existing and consented energy development may limit the capacity for further development;
• impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker;
• landscape and visual impacts, including effects on wild land;
• effects on the natural heritage, including birds;
• impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator;
• impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings;
• impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording;
It therefore remains the case that the range of assessment criteria set out in the adopted LDP remain valid and that the adopted SPG and the findings of the 2008 Capacity study can also be used, subject to due recognition being given to shortcomings highlighted at the Examination stage. In particular, the adopted ‘Spatial Framework’ is no longer SPP compliant, in so far as 'Areas requiring Significant Protection' can no longer include '…. areas where the cumulative impact of existing and consented wind farms limits further development.'. Nevertheless, as noted above, SPP continues to identifies cumulative landscape impacts as a valid consideration.
4.7 Archaeology : The proposed development has no physical impact on any known archaeological remains, however, it does have the potential to accidentally damage an upstanding enclosure (CH14) in the immediate vicinity of the works and previously unknown remains in close proximity to it. In addition, the wind farm will have an impact on the setting of a number of Scheduled Monuments.
The various known monuments (both designated and undesignated) are detailed in Chapter 11 of the applicant’s Environmental Statement and the route has been subject to a Walkover survey ensuring that are no upstanding previously unknown monuments.
The undesignated remains comprise a mixture of prehistoric settlement and more recent agricultural remains. The 19 Scheduled Monuments are a mixture of settlement and burial features of various periods.
We agree with the Environmental Statement's assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development on the setting of the Scheduled Monuments: that the impact is minor and not grounds for objecting to the development, however, this is primarily an issue for Historic Scotland.
With regard to undesignated assets the mitigation proposed by the Environmental Statement: marking out of CH14 to prevent accidental damage during the construction of the access track and the maintenance of an archaeological watching brief for 150m to either side of the enclosure during the construction of the access track.
No objection to the development, however, if it does proceed, would recommend that an experienced and suitably qualified archaeological contractor undertake the following programme of archaeological works by way of mitigation regarding the potential loss of the site:
1) A photographic record of the current site conditions in the vicinity of CH14; 2) The marking out of CH14 to prevent accidental damage during the construction of the access track; 3) The maintenance of an archaeological watching brief for 150m to either side of the enclosure during the construction of the access track.
If this exercise identifies archaeological finds of merit would recommend that these be subject to some or all of the following: excavation, post-excavation analysis, archiving and publication in an appropriate academic journal.
The following condition is recommended:
"Negative Suspensive Condition - Programme of Archaeological Works (PAN 2/2011, SPP, SHEP)
No works shall take place within the development site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the Stirling Council Planning Officer (Archaeology), and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the Stirling Council Planning Officer (Archaeology). Such a programme of works could include some or all of the following excavation, post-excavation analysis, publication in an appropriate academic journal and archiving.
Reason: to safeguard and record the archaeological potential of the area."
4.8 Access Officer : No objection. The effect on the local area and the visual impacts that it might have from further afield has been taken into account. Interestingly, despite noting the presence of the nearby right of way and core path the application documentation makes no reference to the recent work by Scotways and others to install a bridge across the Burnfoot Burn as part of the Heritage Paths project or the effect the proposal might have on people that are using the route. There is also no reference to the effect on users of the National Cycle Network route 7, but the Rob Roy Way is mentioned and both are the same route.
It is considered that the visual effect on users of the neighbouring core path and right of way will be no worse than the view of the existing turbines on Cringate and Hart Hills. While it will reduce the wildness of the area and introduce another manmade feature, the impact on the path already affected by the other turbines, would not be sufficient to refuse the application.
Our main concern for this proposal relates to the comments in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Impact Assessment and also where these are duplicated in other documentation. The report correctly identifies the right of way and core path just north of the site, it also notes that the Cringate Hill wind farm access track passed Todholes farm is popular with people accessing the hills. The report goes on to say that there would be no public access to this track during the development phase, but no reasoning is given for this. The report is not proposing to close down the public road network from Grangemouth to the site during the construction phase so why would this section of wind farm track need to be closed?
The report does not identify any works happening along the track and any that are should be, and can be, managed in such a way as to retain public access along it at all times. The reports proposed approach is contrary to access rights created under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and against the Scottish Natural Heritage Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction which states that access should only be restricted for the minimum amount of time where building operations are currently active, not the whole developer's site.
In view of the above, if it is granted, a condition should be included requiring public access along the existing wind farm track to be retained and any suitable management measures to be agreed in advance with the Council's Access Officers.
4.9 Roads Development Control (Stirling Council): The applicant has stated in their Environmental Statement that turbine components and construction traffic will access the site via the M9 Motorway (exiting at junction 9 Pirnhall Interchange), then southwards along the A872 towards Denny before travelling west along the B818 to the already established site entrance. This is the same route that was used when the adjacent Earlsburn Wind Farm was developed, and as such the principle of transporting wind turbine components along this route has already been established.
It is recommended that a road Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be developed by the applicant to help ensure that all construction traffic can access the site in a safe and efficient manner. The TMP should be incorporated in a Section
75 Agreement, with any required road infrastructure improvements being delivered prior to the commencement of the site works, under Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
The following conditions should form part of a Section 75 Agreement and be attached to any consent granted:
1. A road Traffic Management Plan (TMP) should be developed and submitted for approval by the Roads Authority prior to construction works commencing on site. The TMP will detail how traffic associated with the site will be managed including permitted delivery times, traffic control measures and any mitigation measures required to accommodate the passage of abnormal loads. The Plan will include provision of temporary speed restrictions and appropriate traffic management measures.
(a) Temporary 30mph limit on the C10, for 120m each side of the B818/C10 junction at Carron Bridge Hotel.
(b) Temporary 30mph limit on the B818, for 120m each side of the B818/C10 junction at Carron Bridge Hotel.
(c) Temporary 30mph limit on the B818, for about 470m straddling the bend where access is taken to Drum Farm.
(d) Temporary 30mph limit in Carron Valley, for about 400m through the settlement.
The TMP, which will need to be incorporated in a Section 75 Agreement and any road improvements required shall be delivered under Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
2. Prior to commencement of construction works, the developer will undertake a local road condition survey in the presence of the Road Authority. The survey should include an assessment of any structures along the route along with video evidence of the roads condition prior to commencement of any works. Deterioration of the local road network shall be monitored and the developer shall be responsible for all costs of repair work required as a result of development traffic. A Legal Agreement should be in place between the developer and Stirling Council in order to recover any extraordinary expense incurred in repairing roads damaged by construction vehicles associated with the site, through the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 Section 96(3) or 96(1).
3. Any road improvements required to be undertaken within the Stirling Council area highlighted within the Road Traffic Management Plan shall be made via an application/s under Section (56) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 for a Road Opening Permit for the formation of any improvement works to allow for the safe passage of large vehicles, HGVs or abnormal loads prior to the works commencing on site. All works shall be carried out in accordance with this Service’s Development Roads Guidelines and Specification. A Swept Path Analysis showing the largest delivery vehicle accessing the site via the public road within the Stirling Council boundary should be used to identify the improvements required in order for vehicles to access egress the site, these improvement works shall be completed prior to the commencement of any on-site works.
4. Section 140(6) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 entitles a Roads Authority to recover expenses reasonably incurred in inspecting work to which a Road Opening Permit relates. Road Opening Permits for the above development will therefore be subject to inspection fees to recover the actual costs of inspections carried out on site by Stirling Council staff.
4.10 Environmental Health : No objection - the applicant has provided information to show that the predicted noise levels at all residential properties are below the ETSU-R-97 simplified noise limit of 35 dB LA90.
The following conditions are advised:-
Noise: 1) The turbine model used shall be: a) The Vestas V90 3MW, 85m hub height with maximum warranted sound power level of 109.0 dB or,
b) An alternative turbine of the same or better noise characteristics as agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
In proceeding with option b) above, full results of the updated noise modelling must be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development. The sound power levels must be clearly indicated, as well as a statement made on 'measurement uncertainty' and 'tonal correction' used in the calculations. Any data used relating to the turbine(s) must be warranted by the manufacturer and the appropriate technical document attached with the final submissions.
2) At wind speeds not exceeding 10ms-1, as measured or calculated at a height of 10m above ground level; the wind turbine noise level at the facade of any dwelling or other noise sensitive premises shall not exceed the following level(s):
a) A noise level of 35 dB LA90, 10min, or the Background Noise Level plus 5 dB(A), whichever is the greater for wind speeds standardised to a reference height of 10m up to a wind speed of 10 metres per second.
"wind turbine noise level" means the rated noise level due to the effect of the wind turbine, excluding existing background noise level but including any tonal penalty incurred under the methodology described in ETSU-R- 97 and a good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 for the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise May 2013.
"Background Noise Level" means the ambient noise level already present within the environment (in the absence of noise generated by the development) as measured and correlated with Wind Speeds.
"Wind speeds" means wind speeds measured or calculated at a height of 10 metres above ground level at the site.
"Noise Sensitive Premises" means premises, the occupants of which could be exposed to noise from the wind turbine.
3) Should any complaints be received concerning noise levels, the operator shall fully investigate these complaints and, to establish noise levels at any affected property, shall undertake noise monitoring which shall be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant previously agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. This shall be carried out by the method statement stated in section 2.0 - "Procedure to be followed in the event of a complaint" on page 102 of the publication "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" (ETSU-R-97, Department of Trade and Industry, September 1996).
4) Should any noise monitoring undertaken in accordance with Condition 3) above demonstrate that the noise threshold in Condition 2) are being exceeded, the operator shall submit a scheme of mitigating measures to the Planning Authority for written agreement within three months of the breach being identified. The agreed mitigating measures shall be implemented within three months of the written agreement or within any alternative timescale agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter retained throughout the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Construction Noise: Restrict Construction Hours.
4.11 Scottish Natural Heritage : Summary of position - There are natural heritage interests of international importance close to this site, but these will not be adversely affected by the proposal.
Designated Sites:
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC), provided the mitigation outlined in the Environmental Statement (ES) is undertaken, or on the qualifying interests of the Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Area (SPA) or the Firth of Forth (SPA) either directly or indirectly.
Ornithology:
The proposal will not have an adverse impact on the ornithology of the area. However, we recommend that Stirling Council apply a condition to minimise disturbance from construction activity. It is recommended that Stirling Council ensure the mitigation proposed in the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to protect Black Grouse is secured via a condition.
Landscape:
The proposal is contrary to the established pattern of wind farm development however the current proposal could be improved in terms of scale and layout. It is suggested mitigation below is incorporated into the proposal however it is for Stirling Council to determine, in the context of its own policies, whether conditions are necessary to secure this mitigation.
Appraisal of the Impacts of the Proposal and Advice
Designated Sites:
This proposal is likely to have a significant effect on Atlantic salmon, River and Brook lamprey as qualifying interests of the Endrick Water SAC. Consequently Stirling Council is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site's conservation objectives for its qualifying interests. To help the Council do this it is advised that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.
It is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests of the Slamannan Plateau SPA and the Firth of Forth SPA either directly or indirectly. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required.
Otter - European Protected Species (EPS):
Otter are a European Protected Species. The assessment of the effects of the proposal on otter are noted. Scottish Natural Heritage agrees with the conclusion in the Environmental Statement that, subject to the mitigation, there will be no adverse impact on otter.
Ornithology:
Overall the cumulative bird assessment is poor and does not contain the relevant information required for us to make a full assessment. However, in this specific case, we know enough about the area to not require any further information.
It is disappointing to only become aware of the Black Grouse lek at this late stage in the planning process as we would have likely requested that turbines were not located within 500m of the lek. Also in the absence of cumulative information the local significance of this lek is not clear. However in this case, it is advised that the mitigation for Black Grouse recommended in the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), section 10.122, is appropriate and it is recommended that Stirling Council consider securing this mitigation as a condition of planning permission.
The ES states that Chestnut paling fencing (or similar) will be used to mitigate the collision risk around turbine bases. We specifically do not recommend that any fencing is used around the turbine bases as this may increase the collision risk.
Scottish Natural Heritage has previously recommended a 500m buffer during construction, however we are currently revising this position in the light of new research and Scottish Natural Heritage now recommend a 750m buffer is applied to all construction activity, including use of tracks etc., before 9am in the months of April and May, where sensitivity to disturbance is at its highest. Scottish Natural Heritage recommends that Stirling Council consider securing this as a condition.
Landscape:
Scottish Natural Heritage consider that the proposal is contrary to the established pattern of wind farm development in the Lowland Hills Landscape Character Type (LCT). Scottish Natural Heritage considers that the current
proposal could be improved in terms of scale and layout, and recommend the following mitigation measures:-
a) Improve the layout of the development to produce a simpler and more cohesive wind farm image, particularly from VPs 5, 7 and 9.
b) Consider removal or repositioning of turbines 7, 3 and 4 which are located lower down the valley side.
4.12 Scottish Environment Protection Agency : No objection subject to a condition that requires a Construction Environmental Management Plan.
4.13 National Air Traffic Service - NATS/NERL: NATS has objected to the proposed development as it believes the development will cause an adverse impact to the Lowther Hill and associated air traffic operations of NATS without suitable mitigation. An agreement has been entered into between NATS (En-Route) PLC, NATS (Services) Limited and Force 9 Energy Partners LLP dated 9 November 2014 for the design and implementation of an identified and defined mitigation solution in relation to the development that will be completed under agreement. NATS is therefore prepared to withdraw its objection to the proposed development. 4.14 Civil Aviation Authority : No reply.
4.15 British Airports Authority Plc : No reply – the Council is now to consult separately and directly with Glasgow Airport.
4.16 Fintry Community Council : Object. The proposal does not fit with Council policy. Developers are not engaged with community about any benefit to community.
4.17 Arnprior Community Council : No reply to consultation or to reminder.
4.18 Gargunnock Community Council : This appears to be an appropriate location for such a development.
4.19 Carron Valley and District Community Council: Object on the following grounds:
(a) Breach of policy - The site falls within an "area of Significant Protection" of Stirling Council Local Plan Policy POL.E15 which contains a presumption against development within Areas of Great Landscape Value. Exceptions to this presumption are developments required in relation to farming, forestry and appropriate tourist and recreation activities. Other developments may be permitted when their particular locational requirements cannot be satisfied elsewhere. This proposed development is not of national significance and as such falls on this point. In addition, the proposed development is counter to Stirling Council's accepted Policy of "Stirling Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development "(March 2008) and Stirling Council's Proposed Supplementary Guidance SG33 Wind Farms and Wind Turbines.
(b) Landscape - cumulative impact of turbines in conjunction with the existing or due to be constructed 32 turbines of over 100m to blade tip all sited within a circle of radius 4km and all in a landscape setting of
open rolling moorland. The height of the proposed turbines are even more outwith the scale of the setting of rolling moorland.
(c) Residential Amenity - There are a small number of properties who will be completely surrounded by wind turbines as they are within the circle of radius mentioned in 2.
(d) Loss of property value - There is existing evidence of loss of property value and of people moving from the area because of the existing wind farms.
(e) Traffic/Roads - Access for construction will probably follow the existing wind farm developments and be via the B818 and or the C10. The year or two year period of construction of existing wind farms has caused untold disruption to the local residents of Carron Valley & District along these roads and has always resulted in the deterioration of the road structure and surface. Despite the good intentions of Section 69 or Section 75 Agreements the evidence is to the contrary; any re-instatement has never been suitable for long term use.
(f) Wind farm Traffic - Developers suggest the disruption is only during construction, however there is evidence of several years of ongoing disruption and nuisance caused by the daily use of wind farm company vehicles being driven along these minor roads in an unsafe and at times dangerous manner, resulting in reports being made to the police. This may be deemed as not a planning concern but it is a consequential result of poor planning decisions. If the proposal is approved, there has to be some form of sanction acceptable to the local residents that this will not be an ongoing road safety issue.
(g) Precedent of Refusal - The Reporter for the Government refused a proposal of a wind farm at nearby Cairnoch, some 4km to the south east, on the grounds of breach of policy and landscape impact. This proposed development may be in a "slightly" different setting but not by much and all the arguments would apply.
(h) Impact on birds - Whilst black grouse may not have been sighted during the survey, many other important bird species do use the area and fly through the natural gap of the valley. These species include osprey, red kite and hen harrier.
(i) Enough is enough - Surveys carried out in the Community Council area over the past 4 years have indicated that there should be no more wind farms within the area.
4.20 Kippen Community Council : No comments.
4.21 Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park : The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the special qualities and setting of the National Park, including landscape and visual effects.
4.22 Historic Scotland : No objection.
4.23 Transport Scotland : No objection subject to conditions regarding proposals for any abnormal loads on the trunk road network and any additional signing
or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary to be approved by the Trunk Roads Authority.
4.24 Falkirk Council : Whilst the potential landscape and visual effects arising from this proposal are less than other proposals within the Carron Valley closer to the border, Falkirk Council remains concerned about the cumulative landscape and visual effects from all proposals both consented and in the planning process within the Carron Valley vicinity.
Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impact - The Falkirk Council Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal and would offer the following comments, insofar as the proposal affects the Falkirk Council area in Landscape and Visual terms.
Within the Falkirk Council area, the proposal will be theoretically visible from (a) a small area of remote high ground at the summit of Darrach Hill in the upland hill area of Denny Muir (at approximately 10 kilometres distance from the turbines), (b) at intermittent locations from the series of ridges of high ground between California, Shieldhill and the south side of Falkirk (at a distance of 20 kilometres to 30 kilometres, where parts of some or all of the turbines could be theoretically visible), and (c) from the highest points of land to the south of Bo'ness (at 30 - 35 kilometres distance where parts of up to two turbines could be visible). In practice, woodland/tree cover, buildings and minor topographic variations will obscure some distant views and the latter two locations at over 20 kilometres distance means the visibility of the turbines would be limited to only clear conditions and (when visible) they would be seen as small distant features in the background behind the existing turbines of the Earls Burn and Craigengelt wind farms (existing turbines in the Touch Hills area south west of Stirling).
The landscape and visual effect on the Falkirk Council area from this proposal is therefore very minor, if not negligible, and there are no grounds for objection so far as the effects on Falkirk Council area are concerned.
However, it is worth highlighting that the B818 running from Denny to Fintry through the Carron Glen and on to Killearn is an attractive rural road of an upland character and provides the most direct route to the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park from Falkirk. The character of this route and the views from it are unique within Falkirk Council section and it continues as an attractive rural route into the Stirling Council area. There is already a potentially adverse cumulative sequential effect (i.e. a series of different views when moving through this valley) resulting from views of different wind farms and turbines seen from this road in both the Falkirk Council area and Stirling Council area. Although the addition of the proposed wind farm will not increase the sequential cumulative effect on the section of the B818 in the Falkirk Council section (since the proposed wind farm will not be visible on this section of the road), the proposed wind farm will lead to an increase in the sequential cumulative visual effects as seen from the B818 when considering this scenic route in its entirety and this will lead to a potential adverse effect on the overall 'visitor experience' from this road, (due to the turbines being visible from a section this road in the Stirling Council area).
Relevant Policy and Guidance - Attention is drawn to Stirling Council's 'Locational Policy & Guidance for Renewable Energy Developments (Wind Turbines)'. This guidance highlights the landscape sensitivity of the Carron
Valley and does not identify any capacity for wind energy development of this nature, in this location. Within the Falkirk context, the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy Development - The Spatial Framework and Guidance for Wind Energy Development was adopted in May 2013. It highlights a significant level of landscape and visual sensitivity within the Carron Glen, Kilsyth/Denny Hills and Denny Hills Fringe landscape units, partly as a result of cumulative impacts within the Carron Valley.
Summary - Whilst Falkirk Council is not objecting to this proposal, there is significant concern about the level of cumulative impact arising from consented and operational schemes in the Carron Valley and Stirling Council is requested to consider the long-term landscape and visual effects of further wind energy development in the Carron Valley.
4.25 North Lanarkshire Council : No reply.
4.26 Flood Officer : Part of the application site may be at risk of flooding from the Backside Burn and Burnside Burn as indicated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's Flood Maps. However, the extent of the floodplain is very limited due to the topography of the area. The development is also classed as low vulnerability in terms of risk to life. There are existing issues with surface water inundating the B818 at a number of locations along its length due to the steep hillside adjacent to it. Any development should ensure that it does not increase runoff to the carriageway. The Environmental Statement (Chapter 8) details that measures will be put in place to prevent changes from the natural drainage pattern and that runoff will not be significantly different. There is no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds.
4.27 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds : No objection subject to appropriate mitigation to ensure potential impacts upon black grouse is minimised. There are concerns with the information provided and the proposed mitigation measures that are detailed in the Environmental Statement. It is advised that a minimum buffer of 500 metres should be maintained between the turbines and black grouse lek site.
The lek site has had black grouse recorded on it for a number of years and forms part of a larger black grouse population found throughout the Carron Valley. This is an important area for black grouse within Central Scotland. Given the importance of this site for black grouse, it is advised that further consideration is given to the design and layout to minimise impacts and maximise opportunities for habitat management.
Conditions/Legal Agreement should be used to ensure the following mitigation is secured prior to the construction of the wind farm:
1. The proposal should be subject to the commitment to, production and implementation of a habitat management plan for black grouse habitat enhancement, the details of which to be agreed with Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Scottish Natural Heritage before work commences.
2. A full black grouse lek survey over the whole site and a 500m buffer of the site (following the methodology in Gilbert et al) is undertaken during the year of construction, and thereafter for years one to three and five;
and then at five year intervals after that until decommissioning. The results must be reported to Central Scotland Black Grouse Study Group and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
3. Timing Restrictions: works occurring within 500 metres of any black grouse lek(s) must be restricted until an hour after dawn between mid March and mid May, to prevent any disturbance to the lek(s) during this critical period of the breeding season.
4.28 Police Scotland : No objections. Police Scotland currently has no current or planned communications infrastructures within or passing through the area identified within the plan for the Craigton and Spittalhill Wind Turbine Development.
4.29 East Dunbartonshire Council : No reply.
4.30 Edinburgh Airport Limited: The application has been assessed against Aerodrome Safeguarding criteria for Edinburgh Airport and there are no safeguarding issues arising from the assessment. Therefore, Edinburgh Airport has no objection.
4.31 Glasgow Airport Limited: The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Therefore, Glasgow Airport have no objection.
4.32 Cumbernauld Airport : No reply.
4.33 Defence Estates (Ministry of Defence): No objection. If planning permission is granted Defence Estates would like to be advised of the following;
a) The date construction starts and ends; b) The maximum height of construction equipment; c) The latitude and longitude of every turbine.
This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this area.
5 BACKGROUND PAPERS
5.1 Planning Application file 13/00728/FUL. File can be viewed online at:
http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=13/00728/FUL
6 APPENDICES
6.1 None.
Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail
Iain Jeffrey Senior Planning Officer 01786 233676, [email protected]
Approved by Name Designation Signature
Gerard O’Sullivan Director, Corporate Operations
Date 13 February 2015 Service 13/00728/FUL Reference