Argyll and Bute Council Planning and Regulatory Services Delegated Or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handli

Argyll and Bute Council Planning and Regulatory Services

Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______

Reference No : 14/01844/PP

Planning Hierarchy : Local Development

Applicant : Mr Brian Neish

Proposal : Erection of wind turbine (61 metres to blade tip) with associated access track and hardstanding area

Site Address : Land North East of Barbreck Farm, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt ______

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Erection of 61m (blade tip) wind turbine (35m to hub); • Formation of access track (from existing track); • Formation of crane hardstanding; • Installation of external electrical housing unit (5.3m x 3.3m x 2.5m).

(ii) Other specified operations

• Temporary construction compound; • Laying of cabling; • Connection to national grid (subject of separate consent); • Upgrade of existing access track. ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the application is refused for the reasons detailed below. ______

11/02060/PREAPP – Erection of 1 x 500kw wind turbine – Negative advice issued 29/02/12.

______

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) letter dated 18/09/2014 SNH advises that the proposed turbine will have landscape and visual impacts, which are not in keeping with the advice in the ‘Argyll and Bute Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (March 2012). A turbine of this height in this location will intrude on key views to and from Ben Cruachan. From Ben Cruachan and the eastern side of Loch Awe there will be cumulative impacts with existing wind farms. Views of the turbine, from local roads, will be large and imposing.

National Air Traffic Services (NATS) email dated 19/08/2014 No objection.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) email dated 30/10/2014 WoSAS are highly critical of the submission in terms of the assessment of impacts on the historic environment. They do not consider that the applicant has provided enough information to support the claims in their supporting statement text that the turbine will not have an adverse impact on important archaeological features. Furthermore, in the absence of specific wirelines to support photomontages and supporting material to assess the impact from archaeological features, it is difficult to determine magnitude of the impact with any certainty.

However, despite the lack of appropriate information, it is considered that given the presence of wind farms already in the area the anticipated impact is not enough to warrant a refusal of the application on historic environment grounds alone. Having said that it is likely that the proposal will have some impact on the setting of historic sites and therefore this should be accorded some weight when considering the total effect of the proposal upon its surroundings.

Should the proposal be granted then a watching brief condition should be attached to the permission.

Area Roads Manager report dated 25/08/2014 The Area Roads Manager has recommended that the decision be deferred to await the submission of a traffic management plan (TMP). This should show the tonnage of imported materials, delivery schedule, swept path analysis and details of all abnormal loads including plant, cranes etc.

Notwithstanding this submission the Area Roads Manager has detailed a number of conditions that should be attached in the event of permission being granted, including an upgrade of the existing access to the C31 public road and the provision of visibility splays measuring 42m x 2m.

Comment: Members will be aware that it is not the practice of the committee to consent wind turbine proposals in the absence of certainty that delivery of components is achievable in terms of the necessary geometry and suitability of structures to accommodate abnormal loads, and that any third part land required for improvements has been identified and is available.

Public Protection Unit memo dated 10/09/2014 Environmental Health has not raised any concerns in relation noise or shadow flicker due to the separation distances to nearest sensitive receptors.

Avich and Kilchrenen Community Council submission dated September 2014 The local community council has formally objected to the proposal. There are concerns over the impacts on residents given that all construction traffic will have to pass through the village. Other concerns relate to the visual impact, impact on landscape character, effects on people including residents including noise, effects on birds and protected species and cumulative impact with other wind turbine developments. ______

(E) PUBLICITY:

The proposal has been advertised in terms of regulation 20, closing date 18/09/2014. ______

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

27 individuals have objected to the development and support has been expressed by two people.

Objectors

Mr C Van Rein, Ardgowan, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HF (19/09/2014) Mrs W Rein-Schaafsma, Ardgowan, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HF (19/09/2014) Mrs Marilyn Henderson, Tigh An Drochaid, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt, PA35 1HD (19/09/2014) Ms Jennifer Sheldon, The Old Vicarage, Newton, Shrewsbury, SY4 5NU (17/09/2014) Ms Peta Burton Smith, Barbreck House, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HF (24/09/2014) Ms Angela Rose, Drimbuie, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt, PA35 1HF (15/09/2014) Mr Robin McFee, 1 Willowbank, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HD (23/09/2014) Ms June Raven, Achnacraobh, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt, PA35 1HD (24/09/2014) Mr Bob Stevens, Achnacraobh, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt, PA35 1HD (24/09/2014) Mr Alan Mitchell, 8 Dalavich, Taynuilt, Argyll, PA35 1HN (22/09/2014) Mr Andrew Rose, Drimbuie, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt, PA35 1HF (15/09/2014) Ms Karine Georgian, Tigh Na Linne, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt, PA35 1HG (14/09/2014) Mr Anthony Philips, Tigh Na Linne, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt, PA35 1HG (14/09/2014) Mrs E Palmer, Achnacarron, Kilchrenan, Argyll, PA35 1HE (15/10/2014) Mrs Lorraine McFee, Brae House, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HD (23/09/2014) Ms Rhona Knox, Cuil Na Sithe, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HF (24/10/2014) Mr Peter Gray, Cuil Na Sithe, Kilchrenan, Argyll, PA35 1HF (26/10/2014) Mr John Middleton, 12 Griffith Drive, Whitburn, West Lothian, EH47 0BL (10/10/2014) Dr Christopher Fleming, 27 Blacket Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RJ (18/09/2014) Mr Steven Madden, Southbank, Bedford, Northumberland, NE70 7NQ (24/09/2014) x 2 Mr David Rose, 12 Orchardlea, Swanmore, Southampton, SO32 2QZ (17/09/2014) Mr David Condie, Woodcroft, Kilchrenan, Argyll, PA35 1HG (22/09/2014) Mr Finlay McFee, Brae House, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HD (23/09/2014) Mr GM Lindsay, 2 Whinfield Gardens, Kinross, KY13 8BF (11/10/2014) Mr Graham Henderson, Tigh An Drochaid, Kilchrenan, Taynuilt, PA35 1HD (23/09/2014, 06/10/2014) x 2 Ms Penelope Fleming, 27 Blacket Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RJ (18/09/2014) Ms Sue Farrington, 3 Cedar Close, Wokingham, Berks, RG40 1EA (17/09/2014)

(i) Summary of issues raised

• Adverse landscape and visual impacts including effects on the APQ and listed buildings. The Council’s LWECS describes this area as Rocky Mosaic and in an APQ which is unsuitable for turbines over 50m.

Comment: Issues of landscape and visual impacts are assessed in detailed in Appendix A below.

• Adverse impact on tourism

Comment: There is no readily quantifiable link between the development of wind turbines and adverse impacts on tourism. Attitude surveys to date tend to indicate that few repeat visits are deterred by turbine development which has taken place thus far. Those attitudes might not necessarily remain the same of course if turbines were to be developed in greater numbers or in less suitable locations. It is reasonable to assume that development with identified unacceptable landscape and visual effects would not be in the interests of an area where tourism tends to be founded upon the scenic and natural qualities of the countryside.

• Adverse economic impact of wind turbines in terms of subsidies, environmental impact of construction and installation, maintenance and inefficiencies of the machines.

Comment: Wind turbines form one element of the Scottish Government’s drive for a mix of energy sources and its obligation to contribute to legally binding renewable energy targets. They are therefore a legitimate form of development provided they are located to avoid unacceptable impacts upon the local environment. Objections directed to the principle of wind energy generation per se are not therefore admissible in terms of assessing the relative merits of the proposal at hand.

• Adverse impacts on birds and other wildlife especially raptors. There are white-tailed and golden eagles along with skylarks flying over the site.

Comment: SNH has reviewed the supporting documentation and not made adverse comment in relation to ornithological effects.

• Adverse impact on human health including noise. The applicants’ submission details Barbreck as a noise sensitive receptor however no such monitoring has occurred from this property. Therefore, the accuracy of the noise assessment is questionable. Consideration should be taken of low frequency and infrasound noise the effects of which can vary between different people. Shadow flicker has been known to trigger seizures in epilepsy sufferers.

Comment: The Council’s Environmental Health department has not raised any concerns regarding the validity of the noise assessment or any health impacts arising from the proposal.

• The nearest property is 605m away not the 705m as claimed in the applicant’s submission.

Comment: It is not clear where the figure of 605m comes from. An assessment using the council’s GIS system demonstrates that all properties are further away than this figure. The Council’s Environmental Health department has not raised any issues in relation to the applicants’ methodology, assessment or conclusions in relation to shadow flicker or noise.

• Potential adverse impact on reception of radio and telephone signals.

Comment: The applicant’s submission details a number of mitigation measures should digital signals be affected. Should the application be approved then the applicant will be required, by planning condition, to implement these measures in the event of the digital signal being adversely affected.

• The proposal is for commercial use and not to assist an individual’s property or on-site business and therefore the proposal should be considered under policy LP REN 1 of the Local Plan.

Comment: The proposal has been assessed against LP REN 1 as detailed below.

• Significant disruption to the B845 and the impact on the village especially after the impacts on the construction works for Carraig Gheal wind farm. Whilst works were occurring on the B845 emergency vehicles were not able to get through to Kilchrenan. The scenario would be worse on the C31 which involves a narrow bridge that plant and machinery would need to cross. There is no detailed traffic management plan contained within the submission.

Comment: Should the proposal be approved then the applicant will be required to submit and implement a transport management plan (TMP) which would prescribe how works would be carried out on the public road, how traffic would be managed during the construction period and how emergency access would be safeguarded.

• There is a risk of blade loss and ice throw and the proposal will cause shadow flicker at the C31 public road causing a potential road safety issue.

Comment: Neither Environmental Health or the Area Roads Manager has raised this as an issue. The proposal is a considerable distance from residential properties. Wind turbines are manufactured to specific standards that are a separate consideration to the planning system.

• Cumulative impacts with the approved and operational wind farms in terms of landscape and visual impacts.

Comment: There will be a cumulative impact from the other side of Loch Awe and potentially from elevated locations at a distance around Ben Cruachan.

• The applicant has not contacted the community council to discuss the proposal.

Comment: Under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 the applicant is not required to carry out pre-application consultation with the community for this scale of proposal.

• Adverse impacts caused by surface water run-off. Comment has also been made in relation to the accuracy of the ES section on water supplies and potential impact from pollution run off.

Comment: Should the proposal be approved then the applicant would be expected to submit a construction environment management plan (CEMP) including measures to prevent surface water runoff and measures for the protection of any private water supplies likely to be affected by construction activities.

• SPP recommends a separation distance of 2km between turbines and residential properties to take visual impact into consideration.

Comment: The SPP recommends that a separation distance not exceeding 2km around settlements be identified in the local development plan spatial strategy for onshore wind energy. The actual extent of the area should be determined by the planning authority based on landform and other features which restrict views out from the settlement. Prior to the adoption of any such spatial strategy (as part of the LDP process) SPP advises that applications should continue to be assessed on their own merits with assessment against the local plan, SPP and other material considerations.

• Renewable energy targets have already been achieved and therefore there is no environmental reason to support this proposal a view supported by the Reporter in the Barrel Law Windfarm Public Inquiry (paragraphs 37-38).

Comment: There have been views expressed by Reporters assessing wind farms that Scotland’s renewable energy targets have already been achieved and therefore there is less need to consider favourably less suitable sites than might have been the case had consented capacity fallen well below those targets. Given that renewable energy forms a significant element in the government’s drive to secure sustainable development, the attainment of targets should not be regarded as a ceiling restricting the ability to continue to consent otherwise acceptable proposals.

• Potential adverse effect on private water supplies.

Comment: Should the proposal be approved then the applicant will be expected to submit a construction environment management plan (CEMP) that would ensure measures are in place to protect, amongst other things, private water supplies.

• There is no mention of decommissioning and restoration after the lifetime of the turbine.

Comment: The applicant has provided some detail on decommissioning in section 2.6 of the supporting statement. This would be addressed by means of condition in the event of permission being granted.

• There are queries over the accuracy of the applicants’ ownership plan including that of several buildings and properties.

Comment: The applicant has submitted an amended ownership plan and this is available on our website.

• The proposal will be sited on a watershed bog requiring significant volume of concrete for foundations.

Comment: The acceptability of the site in terms of carbon rich soils and habitats has not been questioned by SNH. The applicant has detailed that a concrete foundation measuring 2m to 3m deep with a volume of around 180m 3 would be required. Should the application be approved a CEMP will be required to minimise construction impacts on the environment.

• Adverse impact on the nearby designated designed landscape.

Comment: This is assessed in Appendix A below.

• Significant adverse impact on the views from Achnacraobh.

Comment: Loss of view from a property is not a material planning consideration. The issue of visual impact in terms of the public at large is addressed in Appendix A below.

• The proposal could release more carbon dioxide from the peat it disturbs than it saves.

Comment: The proposal is not of the scale as to require the of the Scottish Government’s carbon calculator. The applicant’s submission states that there is no peat on the site but rather the soil is made up of Diamicton Till that comprises of sandy diamicton suspended in a mud mix (section 7.1.4).

• Impact on land and property values.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.

Support

Mr Roger Soep, Roineabhal, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HD (10/10/2014) Mr James McGrigor, Ardchonnel House, Dalmally, PA33 1BW (27/11/2014)

(i) Summary of issues raised

• Raises support for the proposal on the basis that green energy is positive for the environment despite the fact the turbine will be seen from his garden. • Support has been raised for the applicant who runs a landscaping business in Oban and income from the turbine will assist in expanding this business in the recycling of council and garden waste into compost. ______

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:

(iii) A design or design/access statement: No

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development Yes e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc:

A non-EIA supporting statement has been submitted covering the following topics:

• Project Description • Planning and Climate Change • Ecology and Ornithology • Landscape and Visual • Noise • Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology • Cultural Heritage • Shadow Flicker • Aviation, Radar and MoD • Television and Communication Links • Transport and Access, and • Public Access and Recreation

______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ______

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

(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application

(i) List of all D evelopment Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.

‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002)

STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside

STRAT DC 7: Nature Conservation & Development Control STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control STRAT DC 9: Historic Environment and Development Control STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development

‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009)

LP ENV 1: Development Impact on the General Environment LP ENV 2: Development Impact on Biodiversity LP ENV 6: Development Impact on Habitats and Species LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality LP ENV 11: Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes LP ENV 12: Water Quality and Environment LP ENV 17: Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance LP ENV 19: Development Setting, Layout and Design LP BAD 1: Bad Neighbour Development LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development LP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes LP TRAN 5: Off-Site Highway Improvements LP TRAN 7: Safeguarding of Airports

Note: The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk

‘Argyll & Bute Proposed Local Development Plan’ (2013)

LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables SG LDP REN 1 Wind Farm and Wind turbine Development Over 50 Metres High

Following conclusion of the Examination into representations made as part of the LDP preparation process, the Reporters’ recommendations were issued in November 2014. These included a modified renewables policy having regard to Scottish Planning Policy 2014 which was issued after the Proposed Plan had been prepared by the Council and submitted for Examination. This establishes support for renewables where they are consistent with the principles of sustainable development provided that there are no unacceptable significant adverse effects upon specified local environmental considerations, which is a position which replicates that established by the latest SPP. A spatial strategy for wind turbines over 50m is required to be prepared as part of supplementary planning guidance. Criteria against which all wind turbines are to be assessed are set out in Policy LDP 6 of the plan.

Although the LDP modifications are not to be considered by the Council until early 2015, following which there will be a period for any legal challenge prior to formal adoption, the LDP may now be accorded significant material weight in the determination of this application, given that the settled view of the Reporter following Examination is now known. As the 2009 local plan is now beyond its 5 year design life, and given that it predated the issuing of updated SPP in 2014, it is now appropriate to give the LDP precedence in decision- making over the adopted 2009 local plan, despite the fact that it remains in place as the adopted plan until such time as it is formally superseded by the adopted LDP.

(i) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009

• Scottish Planning Policy (2014) • Scottish Government Advice Note on Onshore Turbines (2012) • ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) • ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ SNH (2009) ______

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

The Council has previously issued a Screening Opinion under Regulation 5 of the Environmental Impact (Scotland) Regulations 2011 to the effect that the development is not such as to require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment in support of any planning application. ______

(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ______

(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ______

(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______

(O) Requirement for a hearing: No

Although there are a significant number of representations, all but one are objectors. The Community Council has objected also. If Members accept the recommendation to refuse permission there is no requirement for a hearing to be held. In the event that Members are minded to support the proposal a hearing is warranted in view of the substantial body of objection. ______

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

The proposal is located east of Kilchrenan south of the C31 public road and some 1.4km Loch Awe and approximately 700m north of Barbreck. The site lies in Sensitive Countryside as per the development plan development control zone Policy STRAT DC 5, however the most appropriate policy assessment for the type of development proposed is against Policy LP REN 1.

The development consists of the following main elements:

• A single wind turbine (35m to hub and 61m to the blade tip) with an associated electrical housing unit; • Formation of an access from an existing track;

• Connection to the national grid.

The total area for the planning application is 0.51ha. The applicant has requested a 15m micro-siting allowance.

The main issues are those of landscape and visual impacts, impact on the public road and impacts on the historic environment.

There has been substantial and primarily local objection to the proposal, including a formal objection from the Community Council. There has only been support expressed by two individuals.

It is considered that the proposal raises substantive concerns over its adverse landscape and visual effects, lack of information regarding the management of the transport materials, plant and machinery to the site, with no details of the impacts on the public road, and a further lack of information relating to the extent of impacts on archaeology.

These are such that the proposal is not considered consistent with policies LP ENV 1, LP ENV 17, LP ENV 19, LP TRAN 4 and LP REN 1 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009) nor with Policy LDP 6 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REN 1 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Council Proposed Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination 2014). Furthermore the proposal does not satisfy the guidance given in the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) 2012. ______

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

(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan

N/A ______

(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ______

Author of Report: David Love Date: 26th November 2014

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 27th November 2014

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

GROUNDS OF REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 14/01844/PP

1. The proposal is to site a 61m high wind turbine within a relatively complex and intimate landscape type which the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ considers to have ‘high-medium’ landscape sensitivity to the ‘medium’ typology assessed in the study. The LWECS identifies that ‘medium’ typology turbines of between 50m and 80m will be difficult to assimilate in areas of smaller scale landform, with smaller scale patterns of land use, as they are likely to exert visual influence over wider landscape settings. The turbine proposed, would produce a focal point disproportionate to the scale of the landscape by virtue of its location, height, rotor diameter and the motion of the blades. Development on this scale would detract from the landscape character of its immediate surroundings and it presence would impact adversely on the scenic qualities of the wider landscape designated as an ‘Area of Panoramic Quality’. The proposal would exert an unwelcome and inappropriate visual presence in the landscape as experienced by users of the C31 and residents and visitors to Kilchrenean, and would have adverse consequences for visual amenity and degrade designated scenic assets within the wider ‘Area of Panoramic Quality’. The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected direct or indirect benefits which a development of this scale would make to the achievement of renewable energy generation as a component of sustainable development, or the attainment of wider climate change related commitments. It is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of the Scottish Planning Policy 2014 and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; Policy STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (approved 2002), to Policy LP ENV 1: Development Impact on the General Environment; LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; LP ENV 19 Development Setting, Layout and Design (including Appendix A Sustainable Siting and Design Principles) and LP REN 1 Wind Farms and Wind Turbines; of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009); Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REN 1 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Council Proposed Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination 2014) and guidance set out in the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012).

2. The proposal will involve the conveyance of abnormal loads along the B845 and C31 a route which is sub-standard in width and alignment. The applicant has not submitted sufficient details to enable the planning authority to conclude that this access route can support the size of vehicles required for the delivery and erection of turbine components. A transport management plan has been requested from the applicant but has not been forthcoming. It is not known how these loads will impact on the road infrastructure, what if any improvements will be required, if any third party land will be necessary for these works, and if so the availability of such land. In the absence of any satisfactory information being advanced for the risk presented to the route by the type of traffic associated with the proposal, the development does not benefit from an identified satisfactory means of access for either construction or for decommissioning purposes, contrary to the provisions of Policies LP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and LP TRAN 5: Off-Site Highway Improvements of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009) and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and SG LDP TRAN 5: Off-Site Highway Improvements of the ‘Argyll & Bute Proposed Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination 2014).

3. The proposal has the potential to have significant adverse impacts on the historic environment by virtue of the development not being able to secure a satisfactory relationship with the settings of surrounding assets. The applicant has submitted an assessment of the proposal against the historic assets of the area which concludes that these impacts will be acceptable when set against the benefits of the proposed wind turbine. However, these conclusions are not substantiated by wire lines, photomontages or any other evidence which would enable the planning authority to conclude with certainty that the settings of historic assets would not be inappropriately degraded by development on this scale. Given the lack of suitable evidence to justify the conclusions of section 8 of the Supporting Statement there remains uncertainty as to the extent to which the development respects the settings of historic environment assets. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposal should be regarded as being contrary to the provisions of Policies STRAT DC 9: Historic Environment and Development Control and LP ENV 17: Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ and Policy LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 20 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Proposed Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination 2014), and to the advice issued by Historic Scotland on ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Setting’ (2010) which recommends viewshed analysis and graphic presentations be employed in the assessment of development impact upon the settings of historic environment assets.

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/01844/PP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

The proposal is located east of Kilchrenan south of the C31 public road and some 1.4km Loch Awe and approximately 700m north of Barbreck. The site lies in Sensitive Countryside as per the adopted local plan development control zone policy STRAT DC 5 (which remains unaltered in the context of the Proposed LDP), however the appropriate policy assessment is against Policy LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (as modified post- Examination) and associated Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REN 1: Wind Turbine Development Over 50 Metres High.

The application consistent of the following elements:

Connection to national grid would be by means of a separate application under the Electricity Act 1989. The total area for the planning application is 0.51ha. The applicant has requested a 15m micro-siting allowance. This could however take elements of the proposal outwith the application site boundary and would require a fresh planning application. If Members are minded to grant the application then this would not be an appropriate request to agree.

B. Natural Environment

Prior to the submission of the planning application the applicant undertook a walk over survey of the site to establish the presence of breeding birds, habitats etc. These surveys did not find the presence of any species that are protected by national or international designations. However, should the turbine be approved a pre-construction walkover survey conducted by an appropriately qualified person would be necessary to assess for both non-avian and avian ecology.

The survey work revealed six types of potential Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) on site. Upon further assessment these ecosystems were considered not to be hydro-ecologically connected to the turbine or the access track given that they were located greater than 100m away from the access track and 250m from the turbine. There is a single bog habitat upon the top of Barr Liath, however this is some distance away and is not associated with the development of the turbine.

With the above in mind the proposal will not adversely impact on habitats and species associated with the site.

C. Built Environment

It is not clear which properties are in third party ownership given the applicant has not responded to a query regarding the ownership boundary provided on the location plan.

Several representations have been received querying this element of the submission and these are summarised above.

Notwithstanding these queries the nearest property is some 600m away which is comfortably outwith the Scottish Government’s recommended 10x rotor diameter required to avoid shadow flicker, as in this instance it would be 520m. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has not raised any issues relating to adverse effects upon residential amenity arising from either shadow flicker or noise.

D. Renewable Energy Policy

The wind turbine proposal will generate far more than 25% excess of the requirements of the farm business it is intended to supplement. With this in mind the application needs to be assessed against policy LP REN 1 of the adopted plan and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REN 1: Wind Turbine Development Over 50 Metres High of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination) which contains criteria against which appropriate proposals are assessed, as follows:

• Communities, settlements and their settings:

The proposal will have an adverse effect on the setting of Kilchrenan. The recently updated Scottish Planning Policy (2014) requires an assessment against a boundary to be established around the settlement to protect its setting from wind turbine development which should be not more than 2km. This boundary is to be determined by the planning authority having regard to local circumstances and will be established as part of the LDP in due course.

In this instance the turbine is only some 700m away from the settlement of Kilchrenan and will provide a development presence in respect of that community by virtue of transient views of the turbine available from within the village and on the approach. This will have an unfortunate impact in terms of the setting of the village within its largely undeveloped surroundings In this regard the proposal will have an adverse impact on the setting of Kilchrenan.

• Areas and interests of nature conservation significance including local biodiversity, ecology and the water environment:

SNH has not commented on this aspect of the proposal, however it is considered from the information in the Supporting Statement that there are no reasons to consider that the turbine would have an adverse impact on biodiversity or the water environment. The applicant undertook walkover surveys in April 2013 and January 2014. If approved the applicant would undertake further pre- commencement surveys for various species and include mitigation measures as outlined in section 4.6 of the statement. Furthermore, if the application is approved then the applicant would be required to submit a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) prior to the commencement of works.

• Landscape and townscape character, scenic quality and visual and general amenity:

This is assessed in Section F below.

• Core paths, rights of way, or other important access routes:

The proposal does not adversely impact on any footpaths. It is however adjacent the C31 public road. The existing field access will be upgraded if approved but no other details or requirements of alterations to the public road have been provided. In the absence of a Traffic Management Plan there are concerns as to the extent to which delivery of components is achievable in terms of the necessary geometry and suitability of structures to accommodate abnormal loads, and that any third part land required for improvements has been identified and is available.

• Sites of historic or archaeological interest and their settings:

This is assessed in section G below.

• Telecommunications, transmitting and receiving systems:

This is assessed in section H below.

• Important tourist facilities, attractions or routes:

There are some hotels locally and it is acknowledged that the area is particularly attractive as a destination for low-key tourism and recreational activities founded primarily on the scenic and natural qualities of the area and its largely unspoilt qualities. There is no clear established link between adverse impacts on tourism and the development of wind turbines. Whilst inappropriately sited and scaled development which contributes to the degradation of landscape character and the scenic qualities of an area can be expected to influence the decisions of some visitors, in the absence of any accepted means of being able to reliably quantify the magnitude of this effect, it is not appropriate that tourism impacts be advanced as specific reason for refusal. However it is clear that the interests of tourists will align with the other cited reasons for refusal relating to landscape visual and historic environment considerations. .

• Stability of peat deposits:

The proposal is not of the scale as to require assessment by means of the Scottish Government’s carbon calculator. The applicant’s submission states that there is no peat on the site but rather the soil is made up of Diamicton Till that comprises of Sandy Diamicton suspended in a mud mix (section 7.1.4 of the Supporting Statement).

E. Landscape Character

SNH has provided comment on the application in terms of landscape and visual impacts. It is considered that a turbine of this height is not consistent with the findings of the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS).

The proposal lies within the ‘medium’ scale typology and is positioned in the landscape character type (LCT) 7c North Loch Awe Craggy Upland as per the WECS. The study states that there is:

“Scope to accommodate medium typologies is likely to be limited to areas where they would not intrude into skylines looking over Loch Awe or into key views to and from the loch....and panoramas of the mountains.”

In addition, the turbine will impact on the adjacent LCT 20 Rocky Mosaic, LCT 7a Craggy Upland and Settled Glens, LCT 2 High Tops and LCT 4 Mountain Glens. The range of character types affected demonstrates the large distance from which this single turbine could be viewed.

Views of the turbine from in and around Kilchrenan will be of a large and imposing structure and although views will be transient, there will be sequential views and the presence of the turbine and its scale in the landscape will be readily apparent to those travelling around the settlement. This is displayed in visuals from VP 1, VP 9 and VP 10. Although the current view from VP 9 is shielded by vegetation, it is not considered appropriate as permanent screening.

VP 4 from Sonachan House demonstrates how the turbine intrudes on key views to Ben Cruachan. From Ben Cruachan itself (VP 8) the turbine is highly visible and appears out of proportion compared to existing wind farms in the same view. The WECS notes that:

‘development sited in adjacent character types (from LCT 2) and close to these mountains could affect their wider setting by intruding on key views to and from the mountains and diminish the sense of wildness associated with this character type.’

VP 5 and VP 6 show cumulative views along with Carraig Gheal and Beinn Ghlas, the difference in distance increase the apparent size of the proposal and make it appear as an outlier. The turbine also reduces the size and scale of this low lying landscape from elevated views.

Given the above it is considered that the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of policies LP ENV 1, LP ENV 19 and LP REN 1 of the adopted local plan or with Policy LDP 6 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REN 1 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Council Proposed Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination 2014). The location and scale of the proposal would also conflict with guidance set out in the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012). It should be noted that the applicant was advised that such a turbine would unlikely be supported on landscape and visual impact grounds at a pre-application meeting. The advice from officers and SNH was that such a turbine would be too large in this particular landscape and it is disappointing that an application has been made regardless of this advice.

F. Historic Environment

Although there are no listed buildings that will be affected by the proposal, the West of Scotland Archaeology Service has responded to the application with negative comments regarding the assessment and the conclusions in terms of impacts on archaeology and sites of historic interest. These conclusions are set out in section 8 of the applicant’s supporting statement. The view of WoSAS is that this section appears to be overly superficial. For example, that insufficient consideration has been given to the possible direct impact on archaeological material that may result from construction of the turbine. Section 8.3 states that there are no direct effects on cultural heritage features and that no local or regional features were discovered within the site boundary. However this assessment disregards the fact that a number of features have been identified from within the land owned by the applicant. These include a possible structure or enclosure

made up of an oval of stones, a cup-marked rock and a wall, all of which were identified during a walkover survey conducted by staff from Argyll Archaeology Ltd in 2012 in advance of a proposal to create an area of new woodland. While the recorded positions of these features suggest that they may not be directly affected by construction of the turbine, it should be noted that these represent only those features that remained visible above ground level at the time of the survey. It is possible that additional material may also be present in the form of buried sub-surface deposits. This potential is enhanced by the generally abundant distribution of archaeological material that has been recorded from the wider landscape surrounding the proposed turbine site, which includes a large number of nationally-important monuments, suggesting that the area as a whole is one of some archaeological sensitivity.

Section 8 does provide a degree of assessment in relation to the presence of these scheduled monuments in the surrounding area, in that it considers the potential for construction of the turbine to have an effect on the setting of heritage features beyond the boundary of the site itself. WoSAS comments that the assessment focuses solely on designated sites such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings and inventory designed landscapes. This is done on the basis of the statement made in Section 8.3 that ‘according to policy guidelines, such effects are normally considered more significant to designated features’ . It is accepted that the relevant policies do suggest that planning authorities should take the relative importance of archaeological sites into account, paragraph 14 of PAN 2/2011 states that ‘ when determining a planning application, the desirability of preserving a monument (whether scheduled or not) and its setting is a material consideration ’, clearly indicating that consideration of setting impact should not be restricted solely to scheduled sites only. WoSAS has commented that they would expect an assesement of this type to also consider sites of potentially schedulable quality, sites of regional significance, and unscheduled sites where setting or landscape visibility may have been a particular factor in selecting its position.

In terms of the effect of construction of the turbine on scheduled monuments present in the wider landscape, this also seems somewhat superficial. Table 8-1 identifies eight SAMs as lying within 5km of the turbine. WoSAS has identified fifteen (in addition to other unscheduled sites of the type identified above). The reason for this discrepancy is unclear; though the applicant may have discounted scheduled sites which the ZTV indicated would have no inter-visibility with the proposed turbine. Of the eight sites that are identified in table 8-1, all are assessed as being subject to only either a minor or negligible setting impact. Without seeing visualisations from these sites it is not possible to assess the validity of this claim. However, it might be that they are potentially screened by woodland. It should be noted that trees cannot necessarily be regarded as providing permanent screening, particularly where it comprises commercial forestry, as this type of plantation is likely to be subject to felling during the lifespan of the wind turbine. This is a particular issue where the commercial plantation lies outwith the land owned by the applicant, as the felling schedule is not in the control of the developer meaning that the applicant is unable to provide any assurance that the trees would not be felled during the period in which the turbine may be in operation.

Furthermore, WoSAS has commented that although none of the provided photomontages are from sites of historic sites it is possible to gain an indication of the likely impact from some of these sites using those visuals submitted. Viewpoints 4 and 5 are taken from the southern side of the loch, close to where a number of crannogs, chambered cairns and cup-markings have been identified. These suggest that the turbine will be partially visible from these locations, and that this visibility would likely be increased because it would be seen against a backdrop of hills rather than sky. VP 5 indicates that both Carraig Gheal and Beinn Ghlas wind farms will also be visible and

would normally be back dropped against the sky meaning they would be less prominent than the moving blades of a white turbine against the darker hillside. Similarly, VP 10 is located on the road on the southern side of Lochan na Gealaich. There is a crannog present in this lochan identified as being of potentially schedulable quality. This road also runs up to a scheduled cup-marked stone and although this is currently located in forestry the visualisation suggests that the turbine would be prominent from this site should the trees be felled.

It is therefore likely that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the setting of some of the heritage features within the surrounding landscape. In the absence of specific visualisations from these sites it is not possible to determine the extent of this impact. Given the presence of both wind turbines and wind farms in the area WoSAS do not consider the potential additional impact is sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal on grounds of impact upon historic assets alone, although impact on the setting of historic sites will be a contributory factor in concluding the overall landscape merits of the proposal.

Given the above it is considered that the proposal does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude with confidence that the assertions in Section 8 are robust and there is therefore residual doubt as to the extent of the impacts of the proposals on the settings of historic sites. With this in mind, it is not possible to reliably conclude that the proposal is compliant with consistent with the provisions of Policies STRAT DC 9 and, LP ENV 17 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ or Policy LDP 3 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 20 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Proposed Local Development Plan’ (as modified post- Examination 2014), or with the advice issued by Historic Scotland on ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Setting’ (2010) which recommends viewshed analysis and graphic presentations be employed in the assessment of development impact upon the settings of historic environment assets. .

G. Telecommunications and Television Reception

The applicant has provided some details as to the possible impact on telecommunications and TV reception that may result from the application being approved in the ES. The applicant states that TV signals in an area served by a digital transmission are unlikely to be affected by the erection of a wind turbine but should there be any disruption to the signal then the following measures can be undertaken:

• The provision of a more sensitive receiver antenna for affected households • Re-positioning of the antennae to receive signals from a different transmitter • Installation of a local community re-broadcast facility, and • An alternative means of transmission, such as a satellite or cable.

If Members are minded to approve the application then a planning condition would be appropriate to address any potential issues relating to TV reception in the area.

The applicant’s submission details pre-application discussions with telecommunications operators and no concerns have been raised by relevant raised by consultees.

H. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters

The applicant intends to use the A85, the B845 and the C31 to access the site. The applicant does not consider that further upgrade works on the public road will be required but that this wouldl be further assessed upon appointment of a contractor.

Therefore, it is not possible to be sure whether third party land is required to access the site. Given that the construction of the Carraig Gheal wind farm has been undertaken recently we can safely assume that this road will be suitable for the transportation of the proposed turbine to that point. Beyond the access to Carraig Gheal wind farm however there has been no assessment of the suitability of the road to accommodate abnormal loads without accommodation works or other improvements. It is not known whether any of the roads within Kilchrenan or along the C31 will require upgrading, but given the C31 is single track it is possible that some works will be required.

The Council’s Area Roads Engineer has recommended that the decision be deferred to allow the applicant to submit a Transport Management Plan (TMP). However, the applicant has not provided this despite the request being made as far back as the 25 th August 2014. A TMP should include:

• Tonnages of imported materials required; • Delivery schedule; • Swept path drawings showing that the turbine can be delivered without overhanging land outwith the road corridor, and • Details of all abnormal loads including plant, cranes etc.

4. Given the applicant has decided not to provide the above information, the proposal is not considered consistent with the provisions of Policies LP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and LP TRAN 5: Off-Site Highway Improvements of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009) and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and SG LDP TRAN 5: Off-Site Highway Improvements of the ‘Argyll & Bute Proposed Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination 2014), given that we do not know the extent of any works required on the public road nor if third party land is required to facilitate improvements. Members will be aware that it is not the practice of the committee to consent wind turbine proposals in the absence of certainty that delivery of components is achievable in terms of the necessary geometry and suitability of structures to accommodate abnormal loads, and that any third part land required for improvements has been identified and is available.

I. Infrastructure

The applicant has not detailed any specifics of the connection to the national grid but this would not be subject to planning controls but would be assessed separately under the Electricity Act. The applicant has stated that an offer for grid connection has been received from SSE and it would be via an underground cable laid adjacent the access track.

Despite having no details of the proposed connection to the national grid this element of the application does not raise any specific concerns.

J. Decommissioning

The applicant has provided scant detail on the decommissioning of the proposal but states that after the 25-year period the turbine would be removed and the land put back to agricultural use. The access track would be maintained and the turbine foundation removed down to a depth of 0.5m and covered with top soil. Underground cabling would be left in place to reduce disturbance.

Should the proposal be approved then a planning condition will be required for further details of decommissioning and a time limit attached as to the lifespan of the turbine.

K. Scottish Government Policy & Advice

The commitment to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources is a vital part of the response to climate change. Renewable energy generation will contribute to more secure and diverse energy supplies and support sustainable economic growth (SPP). The current target is for 100% of Scotland’s electricity and 11% of heat demand to be generated from renewable sourced by 2020 (2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland).

SPP establishes support for renewables where they are consistent with the principles of sustainable development, provided that there are no unacceptable significant adverse effects upon specified local environmental considerations.

For the reasons given above, the turbines proposed are out of scale with the receiving environment to the detriment of landscape and visual amenity interests, both of which are cited in SPP as valid material considerations in the assessment of the acceptability of wind farms.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.

L. Other Key Policy Matters

In assessing the acceptability of wind farm proposals, it is necessary to have regard to the macro-environmental aspects of renewable energy (reduction in reliance on fossil fuels and contribution to reduction in global warming) as well as to the micro- environmental consequences of the proposal (in terms of its impact on its receiving environment).

Installed onshore wind energy generation capacity in Scotland in 2014 was 5,000 MW and is expected to continue to grow in response to the Scottish Government target of meeting 100% of demand from renewable sources by 2020. As a consequence, planning authorities have to consider more frequently turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, where design elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed (Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms).

Whilst the 500kw maximum capacity of the proposal would add to Argyll & Bute’s contribution to Scotland’s renewable energy commitments, it is not considered that the macro-environmental benefits of the proposal in terms of renewable generating capacity are such as to warrant the setting aside of the other development plan policy considerations identified above which have prompted the recommendation for refusal.