Item No 5 (A) Planning and Building
Item No 5 (a)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
3 SEPTEMBER 2012
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 11/00888/FUL OFFICER: Carlos Clarke WARD: Leaderdale and Melrose PROPOSAL: Erection of 9 No wind turbines 126.5m high to tip and associated infrastructure including hardstandings, anemometer mast, control building, temporary construction compound, laydown area, access tracks, electrical connections and borrow pit SITE: Land South West Of Hyndsidehill Farmhouse (Corsbie Moor), Westruther APPLICANT: E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Developments Limited AGENT: None
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located on agricultural land north-east of Legerwood, alongside the A6089 to its north-east. It is located approximately 4.5k south-east of lauder and 4k north west of Gordon.
The site comprises a mixture of cultivated arable land and pastureland, with medium to large agricultural fields, many enclosed by hedgerows, including trees and blocks of woodland. It extends from the A6089 to the north-east down to a minor public road to the south-west. It bounds agricultural land on its north-westerly and southerly sides, with Stell Wood to the north-west, Lodgehill Wood to the south, and Pickie Moss to the south-west.
The nearest residential properties are located to the north east, Brownshall Lodge and Langrigs, situated on the opposite side of the A6089. Residential groupings are located to the south at Corsbie, Kirkhill and Legerwood, with groupings at Boon and Dods to the north-west and north.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This application originally sought planning consent for the erection of 12 no. 126.5m high wind turbines (2.3MW each), along with associated infrastructure including hardstandings, anemometer mast, substation building, construction compound and laydown area, access tracks, underground electricity connections and borrow pit. Access is proposed from the A6089.
During the processing of the application, and in response to issues raised by this department, consultees and objectors, the applicant chose to submit a revised scheme reducing the number of turbines to 9 within an adjusted layout. The turbines remain at 126.5m high to blade tip (80 metres to hub).
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 5 (a)
PLANNING HISTORY
Planning consent was granted for two years in July 2010 for the siting of two meteorological masts within the site (50m and 80m in height)(10/00571/FUL). This consent has since expired.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
There are 227 submissions objecting to the original application, with a further 4 in response to the revised scheme. (There may be a small number of cases where households are potentially represented by more than one submission). The issues raised are many and varied, and full comments can be viewed on Public Access. Key concerns raised include:
x Increasing extent of Scotland affected by wind farms, and increasing cumulative impact in the Scottish Borders which has more than anywhere else. A strategic overview is required of the considerable number of wind farm proposals. Cumulative and sequential impacts will occur with others, including Long Park, Toddleburn, Dun Law, Black Hill, Fallago Rig, even before considering Brunta Hill, Girthgate, Cathpair, Shaw Park, Rowantree. The cumulative impact assessment is inadequate, with wind farms omitted, and there are increasing effects of modest wind turbines in the area. Lauderdale will be surrounded by wind farms and this development will help link the western Lammermuir sites with the easterly ones. This would introduce a wind farm into an area so far unaffected, and form part of a chain enclosing the area x The height is too large for the landscape which has not got an enclosing landform, the turbines would be twice the height of the Scott Monument and would be visible as far as St Abbs Head, Soutra Hill and the Cheviot Hills. This is one of the poorest and most highly visible sites in the Borders, and this development would industrialise the landscape. It would dominate the skyline. The reduced scheme has resulted in no significant reduction in visibility. Woodland screening the applicants don’t control is relied on. The site fails Local Plan Policy D4 as it’s not in an upland landscape. x There would be adverse effects on the Lammermuirs AGLV and would dominate the Westruther Platform landscape. The site is surrounded by an area warranting significant protection in the Council’s SPG. Most of the Scottish Borders including Lauderdale could be considered a high quality landscape x There would be adverse impacts on Eildon Hills, Three Brethern, Smailholm Tower, Scott's View (so far spared, but not now), Hume Castle, Twin Law Cairns, higher land at Burncastle and a dominant impact on Legerwood Kirk, one of the oldest churches in Scotland x Adverse impacts on the Southern Upland Way, Borders Abbey Way, Four Abbeys Cycle Way and on local walks, including at Spottiswoode and Legerwood farm trail, and on Lauder Common x Roads including the A68, A698, A6089 would be affected (it would be closer to major roads than any other wind farm other than Dun Law). x Associated impacts on the tourist economy, including walkers, cyclists, shooting, fishing, tourist attractions and day trippers, and tourists on their way to Thirlestane Castle, Mellerstain, Floors, Kelso x Effects on local businesses, including wildlife and landscape photography, weddings and countryside activities (including Burncastle, as a result of effects on setting and the overall sporting experience)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 5 (a)
x Impacts on residential amenity, with over 50 properties within 2k, including Legerwood and Kirkhill, and 143 within the 3k zone. Brownshall Lodge, Langrigs and Hyndesidehill will still be adversely affected by the revised scheme, as will Kirkhill. The Council’s SPG/Scottish Government guidance should be followed, thus maintaining a 2k distance from residential properties. The height of the turbines requires a greater assessment than 5k for residential amenity. Villages of Westruther and Blainslie will have clear views. x Challenges to credibility of the visual images in the ES, including use of foreground features and grey skies obscuring impacts, and other concerns regarding viewpoint selection x The site is not good for wind farm efficiency, and wind turbines are not efficient. There has been no consideration of alternatives and how the site was chosen. x The renewables target has already been met and, in any case, this will make a negligible contribution and the target should not override other issues. Government policy on the matter is challengeable in any case. CO2 benefits are lost in the construction, and the environmental benefits of wind farms are already factored into a favourable policy context and should not be double- counted. x The economic benefits and assessment are unbalanced. x Precedent would be established leading to possible expansion, including reappearance of the three turbines removed in the revised scheme x No proper justification for a micro-siting allowance x Shadow flicker concerns, not addressed in the revised scheme x Driver distraction, traffic and road safety concerns x Disturbance during construction x Health problems x Jet aircraft conflict x Impacts on ecology and wildlife, including upland bird species. Inadequate bird survey, no bat survey, and effect on fishing catchment. Development plan policies will be breached in terms of environmental impacts, and the wind farm will threaten the most important black grouse habitat in the Lammermuir Hills. The precautionary principle should apply, and pre-start surveys should be carried out before determination of the application x Impacts on woodland and forestry x Safety issues, including blade breakage and ice fall x Risks to private water supply x Noise impact concerns, including regarding the noise assessment’s conclusions x Affect on sites of archaeological interest, including Corsbie Tower Scheduled Monument x Question the community benefit x The revisions to the same have resulted in negligible improvements
Submissions in support of the original application number 510, with a further two in favour of the revised scheme. (There may be a small number of cases where households are potentially represented by more than one submission). It should be noted that a number of these are ‘pro-forma’, and contain very brief, generalised statements in a large number of cases about the wind energy industry in principle, with no references at all to this particular development. Others are more specific to this particular site and this development. The key comments made include:
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 5 (a)
x Clean, free, environmentally sustainable, renewable source of energy, with power to the grid for 25 years, which will help meet Scottish Government targets x Aesthetically pleasing, therapeutic, beautiful, attractive (depending on location for some, colour (could paint grey to reduce impacts) and, for some, as long as there aren’t too many) x Better to have a larger number of turbines on fewer sites x Reliance on fossil fuels needs to cease, and wind is better than nuclear or coal x Spin-off benefits include payments to farmers and the community, as well as local jobs x Good use of grazing/crop land and empty places, the farm can still operate and there will be maximum generation in all wind conditions due to the height x Limited noise effects due to height and prevailing wind noise x No shadow flicker effects x No adverse effects on flora or fauna, and high circling raptors will learn the layout fairly quickly x The application includes modifications to numbers and footprints x Visual impact is minimal from afar, and the visual impact on Lauderdale will be no worse than Long Park on Stow x Better than pylons and people have now got used to them x Tourist impacts are not an issue, and tourists in the local area are low in number and won’t be deterred x The landform will mostly hide from the north and west, and views from the south of only one part. The site has no landscape designation and this is more sensitively placed than others x The few historic sites nearby are not physically impacted on and views would be still easily possible of them all x Residents are mostly behind enclosing landforms and, despite the Lauderdale Preservation Group’s contention, there will be no impacts on Old Schoolhouse, Legerwood.
APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The original application for 12 turbines was accompanied by:
x Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary x Design and Access Statement x Pre-Application Consultation Report x Planning Statement x Confidential badger annex
The revised proposal for 9 turbines was accompanied by:
x Supplementary Environmental Information x Confidential badger information
Both the original application, and the revised proposal were subject to consultation and public advertisement.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 5 (a)
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2009
N2 International Sites N3 National Sites N4 Precautionary Principle N5 Local Biodiversity Action N6 Environmental Impact N7 Protection of Nature Conservation Interest N8 River Tweed System N9 Maintaining Landscape Character N10 National Scenic Areas N11 Areas of Great Landscape Value N13 Gardens and Designed Landscapes N14 National Archaeological Sites N15 Regional and Local Archaeological Sites N16 Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording N17 Listed Buildings N18 Development Affecting Conservation Areas N20 Design E22 Protection of the Tourist Industry C8 Access Network I11 Parking Provision in New Development I13 Water Quality I14 Surface Water I15 Flood Risk Areas I19 Renewable Energy I20 Wind Energy Developments
Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011
G1 Quality Standards for New Development G4 Flooding BE1 Listed Buildings BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments BE3 Gardens and Designed Landscapes BE4 Conservation Areas NE1 International Nature Conservation Sites NE2 National Nature Conservation Sites NE3 Local Biodiversity NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows NE5 Development Affecting the Water Environment NE6 River Engineering Works EP1 National Scenic Areas EP2 Areas of Great Landscape Value EP5 Air Quality H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Inf2 Protection of Access Routes Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Inf11 Developments that generate Travel Demand D4 Renewable Energy Development Inf9 Development within Exclusion Zones
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No 5 (a)
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Planning Policy 2010 National Planning Framework 2 2009 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011 Specific Advice Sheet Onshore Wind Turbines May 2012 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology 1/2011 Planning and Noise Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011 PAN 50 Controlling the effects of surface mineral workings 1996 PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008 PAN 61 Planning and sustainable urban drainage systems 2001 SPG Local Landscape Designations 2012 SPG Wind Energy 2011 SPG Biodiversity 2005
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Ecology Officer: Largely content with the Ecological Impact Assessment. Does not object, though there are a small number of deficiencies in the EIA.
The EIA has scoped out the need for great crested newt surveys of identified waterbodies and surrounding habitats however an assessment of habitat suitability should be made using the Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index
The Bat survey is reasonably detailed though it does not meet guidelines, but even with more intensive survey effort it is unlikely that a significant impact on bats would be identified. The habitat value for bats within the local landscape is predominantly of low-moderate value. Was not able to re-locate the badger sett (s1) identified and would welcome further information on the location of this sett.
Recommends that Collision Risk Mortality for whooper swan is assessed and submitted for consideration prior to determination. Note RSPB’s response which considers that the development is unlikely to represent a significant threat to species of conservation concern or important assemblages of commoner birds. Mitigation for curlew should be included within a Habitat Mitigation Plan including enhancements of habitats to benefit curlew in suitable areas on site and off-site.
Welcomes a Habitat Management Plan. This should include measures identified within the ES, including continuation of measures currently funded under agri- environment, for the lifetime of the wind farm and measures should also be included to enhance habitats for curlew and breeding waders in suitable locations. It may be possible to include enhancement of the adjacent Pickie Moss and there are opportunities to include measures for farmland birds including wild bird cover. There are opportunities to enhance the local habitat network.
Welcome the proposal for post-consent monitoring of bats and welcomes the intention to submit a Construction Method Statement and Environmental Management Plan.
Recommends conditions regarding protected species checking surveys, a Species Mitigation and Management Plan, a Landscape and Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan, an Ecological Clerk of Works, Construction Method Statement,
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 5 (a)
Environmental Management Plan, Decommissioning Method Statement and Post Construction Monitoring to include a breeding wader survey and monitoring of other key species.
In response to the revised application:
x Welcomes the additional information on Habitat Suitability Index for great crested newt and is satisfied with the conclusion x Notes that the revised proposal will result in a reduced loss of habitat x Welcomes the additional information on the badger sett location x The revised proposal will possibly have a lesser impact on breeding waders than the original proposal. x Notes unwillingness of the developer to submit a collision-risk assessment for whooper swan but accepts that the collision-risk information is unlikely to affect his original recommendations x Repeats requirements with respect to planning conditions
Archaeology Officer: The proposed development will potentially have direct and indirect impacts on known and unknown archaeological assets. However, these impacts are not of sufficiently high significance that they would clearly constitute a reason for refusal based on Structure Plan Policies N14-N16. Mitigating the direct effects on visible and buried archaeology is possible through structured archaeological investigation. Indirect impacts on the settings of Scheduled Monuments can be achieved through off-site measures to increase the appreciation, understanding and experience of affected sites.
Broadly content with the direct impact results. While there will likely be direct impacts to heritage assets within the wind farm site, the assets are of local importance and impacts can be effectively mitigated through a structured programme of investigation. Known assets within the site that can reasonably be avoided during construction and decommissioning should be clearly marked in order to minimise accidental damage. Consideration should be given to micro-siting where possible with any unavoidable impacts on known assets preceded by an archaeological evaluation of the asset. Depending on the results of the evaluation, further excavation and post-excavation analysis may be necessary
A heightened risk of development encountering unknown archaeological assets as buried features or finds can be effectively mitigated through an archaeological watching brief.
Is in broad agreement with the ES’s findings in terms of the setting impacts on designated and non-designated sites and landscapes. Disagrees slightly with the level of significance of impacts on the sites of Knock Hill and Corsbie Tower. The report acknowledges impacts on the ability to understand and appreciate these sites and their placement in the broader landscape. These impacts merit a moderate, rather than low, significance but does not consider this constitutes a reason for refusal.
There will be moderate setting impacts in particular on the Scheduled ‘hill fort’ on Knock Hill where views to other broadly contemporary monuments to the north and west, and from these to Knock Hill, will be constrained by the wind farm affecting appreciation of the site. The close proximity of the turbines will also have a negative impact on the visitor to Knock Hill to experience the site in its modern rural context. The wind farm will also constrain the ability to appreciate the placement of similar
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 5 (a)
monuments types of different periods in the landscape. Therefore feels that the impacts on the settings of Knock Hill and Corsbie Tower in particular by an operational wind farm on Corsbie Moor are two-fold, moderate impacts on the ability to appreciate, experience and understand the monuments themselves and, moderate impacts on the ability to appreciate, experience and understand the monuments within the broader landscape. This would benefit from mitigation measures e.g. community based projects to study these settlements better and how the landscapes in which they sit have changed over time, better access and interpretation of some kind, promotion of the local cultural heritage to interested groups and within schools. The exact details of off-site mitigation arrangements can be negotiated at a later date.
If the Council is minded to approve this application, recommends the following conditions should be applied, in addition to a suitably worded condition seeking off- site mitigation of the type suggested above, including a watching brief; evaluation; in situ protection of archaeological features; and notification in advance of archaeological works.
In response to the revised proposal, confirms he is satisfied with the conclusions of the SEI and has no further comments.
Landscape Architect: Has considered the proposal against Local Plan Policy D4 to the following effect:
1. The site is within a preferred area of search in terms of policy I19. Criterion 1 is satisfied.
2. The site is within an ‘Upland Fringe’ landscape character type. This means that it is intermediate in terms of landscape scale (between large scale open upland and small scale enclosed lowland) and does not provide the expansive, unenclosed landscape scale preferred. This criterion is therefore only partially satisfied.
3. There is a limited amount of topographical containment provided by adjoining hills such as Boon Hill, Legerwood Hill, Knock Hill and Hyndsidehill as illustrated on the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) plan at Figure 5.12 of the applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES). However there is also significant visibility within the most important shorter range views as illustrated at Figure 5.2 which shows over 80% of the areas within 10km having visibility and also Figure 5.6 which shows well over 60% visibility within the 5km range. In addition there are clear skyline effects from viewpoints such as Blainslie to the west and Houndslow to the north east where there is insufficient intervening landform to provide screening. Concludes that this criterion is largely un-satisfied i.e. there is only limited containment.
4. In terms of effects on ‘high sensitivity receptors’, there are several impacts that need to be noted. The most sensitive receptor is Scott’s View some 10km to the south. This is the main tourist vantage point in the Eildon Hills National Scenic Area (NSA), illustrated at Viewpoint 18, Fig 5.31 of the ES. Although the site is at 90 degrees to the main direction of the view, it would be clearly visible about 10km away, framed by two hills and in the direction of road travel, going north.
A further highly sensitive receptor is at Smailholm Tower, a 15th century border tower house that is also an operating visitor centre run by Historic Scotland. Again the site is clearly visible around 11km to the north, as shown by Viewpoint 19 (Fig 5.32). It should also be borne in mind that the illustrated viewpoint is at the bottom of the tower but it would also be possible to see the turbines in panorama from an elevated
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 5 (a) position at the top of the tower. These impacts are likely to be unwelcome to visitors to these locations, which are noted for their historic associations. There is a further closer range but more screened view of the site from Greenknowe Tower west of Gordon which is also highly sensitive and, further away, at Hume Castle some 12km to the south east.
A further highly sensitive receptor is the Southern Upland Way footpath which would have extensive views of the site over most of the 10km section between Gattonside and Lauder and again north east of Lauder from Wanton Walls up to Scoured Rig and on to Twin Law Cairns. These views are all at ranges of between 8 and 10km but the total length of affected path is significant.
Other sensitive receptors include effects on residential properties of which 80 appear to have been identified within 5km on Fig 5.12. A further receptor at East Mains appears to have been missed.
Receptors within designated landscapes include, in addition to Scott’s View, the tops of the Eildon Hills at a range of about 12km and the top of Black Hill around 9km to the south, all of which are within the Eildon Hills National Scenic Area (NSA). The Southern Upland Way from Scoured Rig to Twin Law Cairns is within the Lammermuir Hills draft Special Landscape Area (SLA) - formerly Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).
There are further less sensitive but nevertheless important effects on roads particularly the A6089 Kelso to Whiteburn road, the A6105 Greenlaw to Earlston road, the A697 Morpeth to Carfraemill road and to a lesser extent the A68 Jedburgh to Edinburgh road. All of these routes will have views within 5km and much closer in some cases. Although views from roads are not as sensitive as some other receptors, the sheer number of road users, including more sensitive tourist traffic, means that such effects must be added to the account.
Concludes that criterion 4 is not satisfied because there are significant effects on a range of highly sensitive and sensitive receptors including identified landscape viewpoints.
5(i) There are effects on the character of the receiving landscape i.e. 8WPl: Rolling Farmland: Westruther platform. Much of this area would become visually dominated by the proposed development because the tops of the turbine blades would become the highest and most visible points within the area. The base of even the lowest turbine, turbine 4, at around 220m AOD would have a tip height of 347m AOD which is higher than Boon Hill. Turbine 3 would have a tip height of 387m AOD and would therefore be the highest point within the character type. The development can therefore be described as character changing and does not consider this criterion to be satisfied. (The issue of ‘wildland’ is not relevant in this situation.)
5(ii) – see 4 above.
5(iii) – Cumulative impact – There are a number of issues that need to be considered. In terms of coincident potential cumulative impact, the largest potential impact would be if Brunta Hill comes forward as a full application. This site lies approximately 5km to the north and would affect many of the same receptors. (The ES has provided a number of illustrations of various permutations of cumulative impact from Fig 5.39 – 5.48 inclusive but does not find these helpful.) There are also several sites to the west of Lauder including Allanshaws, Cathpair, Girthgate and Rowantree as well as the operating windfarm at Longpark. To the north and east
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No 5 (a) there are windfarms at Toddleburn and Dun Law, Fallago Rig (approved) and Black Hill all of which may provide coincident views with Corsbie Moor.
There are also sequential cumulative effects. Some of these are more easily analysed by looking at implications for a particular receptor. The Southern Upland Way stands out as a sensitive receptor now carrying a significant burden of windfarm related visual effects over much of the eastern section of its length. The people of Lauder could potentially feel surrounded by windfarms if all current planning proposals were to be approved. Corsbie Moor would contribute substantially to both these effects and to a wider extension of ‘windfarm affected’ landscape because it would seem to extend the current cluster of windfarm developments down from the northern hills towards the more settled lowlands of the central borders. Considers that significant sequential cumulative impact would occur and, if Brunta Hill were approved, significant coincident cumulative impact could also occur and therefore concludes that criterion 5(iii) is not satisfied.
5(ix) – see above.
In conclusion, does not accept the statement in the applicant’s ES at 5.12.9 that ‘the landscape effects could be regarded as neutral’ or, at 5.12.29 that ‘there would be no significant visual effects …on tourist destinations including Greenknowe Tower, Twin Law Cairns, Scott’s View and Smailholm Tower’. Does not accept at 5.12.35 that overall ‘the landscape and visual effects could…be regarded as neutral’. Does not accept its conclusions in relation to cumulative impact because this assessment has concentrated on potential ‘coincident’ effects and has largely ignored sequential cumulative impact, which is arguably the most pernicious form.
Does not accept either, that because an application has been through an iterative design process and shows a reduced landscape and visual impact as compared to an earlier hypothetical proposal, that somehow the resulting layout should therefore be considered acceptable.
The application satisfies criterion 1, partially satisfies criterion 2, largely does not satisfy criterion 3 and fails to satisfy criteria 4, 5(i), 5(ii), 5(iii) and 5(ix) of policy D4. Considers that, overall, it does not meet the policy and that therefore the application should be refused. This application represents an extension of windfarm development down from the large scale unenclosed upland landscapes, preferred by policy D4, onto a more settled, medium scale landscape closer to various receptors including some highly sensitive receptors such as Scott’s View, in the central Borders. It would contribute substantially to potential sequential cumulative impacts on Lauderdale, on the Southern Upland Way and by generally extending the area of wind farm dominated landscape in the Borders. The application does not satisfy policy D4 and should therefore be refused. Objects to the application.
In response to the revised proposal notes, in particular, the following:
x The SEI states that the ZTV for the revised application has reduced from 69.9% to 61.6% in terms of area coverage. There are some reductions particularly to the west of Boon as a result of the removal of the most westerly turbines. Otherwise the extent of ZTV coverage is remarkably unchanged.
x There is a considerable reduction in visual effect as seen from Viewpoint 2: Legerwood, and there are noticeable reductions in visual effect from Viewpoint 3: Kirkhill near Legerwood, Viewpoint 5: Legerwood Farm Trail, Viewpoint 8: South Blainslie, Viewpoint 9: Nether Blainslie, Viewpoint 13
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No 5 (a)
Lauder and Viewpoint 14: A6105 East of Gordon. These reductions are consistent with the removal of the 2 westernmost turbines which were most visible from the Leader Valley and directions to the south and west. The effects of the changes as seen from the remaining viewpoints are fairly negligible.
With the proviso that there are some reduced impacts on receptors associated with this amendment, remains of the view that this application is too tall and out of scale for the receiving upland fringe landscape (character type 8WPl: Rolling Farmland: Westruther platform) which would be visually dominated by the proposed development. Remains of the view that this application cannot be supported and should be refused
Environmental Health Service: Noise levels from the combined effects of the wind turbines shall not exceed an external freefield LA90, 10min level of the greater of 35dB(A) or 5dB(A) above the agreed prevailing background noise level, at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s during amenity hours, and 43dB(A) during night hours. Any tonal elements in the noise spectra shall be assessed using the joint Nordic Method and the tone level shall not exceed 2dB above the ‘Masking Threshold for Tones in Noise’. Later added a request for a condition requiring monitoring of noise.
In response to the revised application, confirms the limits noted in the original comments. Notes that the applicants have requested a 40dB limit in respect of cumulative noise with other developments, but note that this issue is currently under consideration by the Rowantree Public Inquiry and no further comments can be made until the Inquiry findings are published.
Roads Planning Service: This development will create a significant amount of traffic during its construction period, and this has been well documented in the Traffic and Transport submission for this application. The need for a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) has been identified which clearly defines the developers need to consult with the Council to mitigate all reasonable roads concerns related with this development. A meeting to discuss and agree these measures was requested and the submission of a TMP to the Council’s satisfaction is considered a prerequisite prior to construction commencing on site.
The main route to access the site is from the A68 Trunk Road via the A697 and then the A6089, which are all constructed to a high standard, though there is one particular “pinch point” on the A697 at Wanton Walls that will need some degree of traffic management imposed on it. The proposed new access lies on a straight section of the A6089 which can achieve the required 2.4m by 215.0m visibility splays in either direction. The construction details of the new access onto the public road do not seem to have been submitted, and this will have to be addressed. Also recommends the proposed 12.0m radius on the westerly exit be increased to 15.0m. Seeks a plan of the swept path of the abnormal loads at the new junction to ensure the proposed overrun area is of sufficient size to cater for these vehicles. It is also unclear with the levels at the new junction if surface water from the site will flow onto the public road, and further clarification on this point was requested, and details of the security gate and fence positioned around the new access if proposed. If approved the applicant will require the new junction to be constructed by a Council- approved contractor.
Was unable to support this application in its original form.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 5 (a)
In response to the revised application,
x Confirms that the Swept Path analysis in the SEI for the bend at Wanton Walls meets with approval. The assessment clearly indicates that no modifications are required to the existing road, and that the large transporter can negotiate this bend.
x Confirms that the alterations (as detailed on Figure 12.2) to the site access arrangements at the public road junction meet with approval. This relates to the following points :-
1. The repositioning of the gate to a more appropriate set-back location. 2. The repositioning of the new fence lines to take cognisance of 1. above 3. The addition of a soakaway to take surface water from the new access.
Considers all the outstanding roads issues to have been suitably addressed, and is able to not oppose this application.
Access Officer: No comments received
Statutory Consultees
Scottish Natural Heritage:
Landscape and visual effects Do not object to the proposed development but have serious concerns about its location, extent and design in relation to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area.
SNH's Strategic Locational Guidance (SLG) identifies three zones of relative sensitivity for natural heritage interests. The proposed site lies within the 'Zone 2' area of 'medium natural heritage sensitivity but because it lies within 10km of the Eildon - Leaderfoot National Scenic Area (NSA) it falls within Zone 3 high sensitivity depending on location.
Note with serious concern the following key landscape and visual issues arising from this proposal:-
1. The dominant scale of the development and its resultant adverse effects on local landscape character and visual amenity, particularly as experienced within 5km of the site;
2. An occasionally poor design layout of turbines as experienced from certain key viewpoints;
3. A range of other landscape and visual impacts, including impacts on views to and from key landmarks, such as the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area;
4. The wider strategic issues presented by a large-scale wind farm proposal in an area currently free from such development, particularly given the likelihood of further, similar development proposals in this area in future.
These serious concerns are full elaborated on in Annex A within the original consultation comments.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No 5 (a)
Recommend that if the Council is minded to grant consent for a wind farm at this location that prior consideration should be given to modification of the proposal to reduce the landscape and visual impacts that are arising from both the proposed scale of the turbines and the lateral extent of the turbine array. While there are other strategic considerations presented by this proposal, SNH consider that producing a more compact and visually 'balanced' design layout would reduce the magnitude and extent of visual effects that will be experienced and could help deliver a development proposal which provides a better fit with the scale and key aspects of the existing landscape character.
River Tweed SAC This proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Welcome the extent of consideration given to potential impacts on the River Tweed SAC and Tweed River SSSI raised at scoping. With regard to the reference to likely significant effect, disagree with the technical aspect of the wording of the statement at 8.10.7 in the ES. More correctly the assertion should be that the proposal would not be considered to adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. In the strictest sense of the Conservation Regulations 1994, this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the River Tweed SAC due to watercourse connectivity with the River Tweed SAC and its tributaries. As a consequence the Council is required to undertake an ‘appropriate assessment’ in view of the site's conservation objectives for its qualifying interests. SNH would advise that on the basis of the mitigation proposals provided, if the proposal is undertaken strictly as a matter of condition or legal agreement covering the aspects listed below, then the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site:
Conditioned measures to protect water quality in watercourses connecting with the SAC during construction, operation and de-commissioning comprising a Construction Method Statement covering a range of issues related to watercourses/bodies, pollution prevention and drainage measures, environmental management and protection of otters
Designated sites (not River Tweed SAC or NSA ) Confirm that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant effect on the qualifying or notified interests of any of the designated sites listed as being in the vicinity of the proposed site.
Ecology Generally accept the assessment methodology for the valuation of ecological receptors, though have some concerns over the assessment of habitats and species considered to be of 'local value or less'. Most low value habitats in particular will retain intrinsic value in potential for restoration and enhancement as well as providing some level of habitat continuity in their current state. These factors should be included within the Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The EIA has been thorough in its assessment and scope of baseline sources of information and in the proposals for mitigation measures. Welcome the intention to keep water course crossing, habitat loss and disruption to habitat continuity to an absolute minimum. Agree that given the greater part of the site is improved agricultural land and some of the habitats are of low ecological value, the overall general impact of the proposal is not likely to be that significant for most habitats and species, including protected species. Despite comprehensive mitigation proposals,
Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No 5 (a) there are some concerns for certain species which are covered in the following sections:
Great crested newt (GCN) Note that surveys for GCN were not deemed necessary due to the lack records and the low suitability of the habitat. Consider that there may be potential for enhancing these locations to make them more suitable and recommend that this is addressed in the HMP.
Water vole The most recent survey for water voles in the Borders produced very few results. As there are one or two records and there is high habitat potential in other areas, there is scope for considering water vole as part of general water course enhancement in the HMP.
Bats Generally accept that the proposal may have insignificant or limited impact on common bat species populations. Do have concerns for noctules which are localised in the Borders and are estimated to have very low numbers in Scotland. Although use of the site by noctules is considered to be low, the combination of the high collision risk categorisation, low population and localised distribution in the Borders, exacerbated by the potential for increasing cumulative impact, does require some consideration for this species.
It is accepted that most common bat species are likely to be adept at avoiding wind turbines, and that siting of turbines the recommended distance away from trees and hedgerows would limit collision risk. Whilst such mitigation is likely to benefit noctules as well, they are likely to be more at risk in open ground. This is probably impossible to mitigate for any further, but continuing annual surveys to contribute to regional information on use or avoidance of constructed wind farm areas are recommended. Welcome, therefore, the recommendation to carry out post-construction monitoring for bat activity and collisions.
Badger Note the low population and are content that mitigation measures will be adequate for protection of active sells in or near the site boundary. Welcome the intention to carry out pre-construction surveys.
Salmonoids and brook lamprey As for water vole, there is potential for water course restoration for longer term benefit for spawning habitat.
Ornithology Are generally content with level of survey and data collection. Accept that for most bird species recorded, especially those subject to collisions elsewhere, the overall potential impact on their European, national and regional populations is likely to be insignificant. Do have concerns for three species - whooper swan, golden plover and curlew, although mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding collision risk are limited. Consider that species like these, with limited local populations, some of which are experiencing national declines, will be far more vulnerable to increasing cumulative impacts from renewables and other developments.
Whooper swan Note the single record of a flock of 80 whooper. The Borders supports about 1 % of the British wintering population which habitually frequent farmland mostly in the lower
Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No 5 (a)
Tweed and Teviot. Although this record may have been a one-off, the number involved represents a significant proportion of the regional wintering population. A tightly packed formation of this number flying at collision risk height could result in multiple casualties if it is assumed that whooper are poor at avoidance. Recommend that consideration be given to post-construction monitoring.
Golden Plover This species occurs in limited numbers in the Borders as a breeding population. The observed flock of 150 feeding at the south west of the boundary of the site may well have been passage birds moving further north, but it does perhaps indicate some preference of the area by a significant number. The nature of their close circular flight patterns while resident would seem to make them particularly vulnerable to collision. Post construction monitoring of use of the site by golden plover would be useful.
Curlew This is another species which has declined significantly in the Borders (and elsewhere) in recent years. Although the breeding numbers fall below the 1 % threshold of the regional population, the number of territories supported by the site is significant enough to justify some level of management via the HMP, within or outwith the site, or both. Post construction monitoring is again indicated.
Conclusion Do not object to this proposal but have some serious concerns over landscape and visual issues. With regard to the River Tweed SAC, note that if the Council is minded to grant planning permission without the proposed mitigation for the protection of the SAC qualifying features being made the subject of condition or legal agreement, the case must be notified to Scottish Ministers.
In response to the revised proposal, still have serious concerns regarding the landscape and visual impacts of this proposal, particularly in relation to the four key issues noted originally.
Note the nature of the modifications arising from the reduction of the 12 turbine proposal to a 9 turbine proposal, and consider that this has had some degree of beneficial effect in reducing the scale and dominance of the proposal, particularly in wider views. Also note improvement to the design layout and appearance of the 9 turbine proposal when compared against the 12 turbine proposal, which partially address concerns given in point 2 above. However, highlight that the scale and extent of the proposal remains a serious concern to SNH. The key points of serious concern highlighted in our original response largely remain.
In offering advice on the revised proposal, while noting the removal of 3 turbines, consider that the re-submission does not substantially address their concerns. This is largely due to the unchanged height of the turbines, and the remaining impacts arising from the vertical scale, extent and visual dominance of the turbines within the Rolling Farmland landscape character area. The proposed reduction in the lateral extent/ spread of turbines and the proposed modifications to overall turbine layout and wind farm design are noted. When compared against the 12 turbine proposal these proposed changes are generally positive, improving the layout and appearance of the wind farm from certain locations. While in overall terms these changes are noted to improve the appearance of the development, they only partially reduce the depth of previous concerns relating to the nature and extent of landscape and visual impacts from the proposed development in this location.
On each of the four points of concern:
Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No 5 (a)
1. Note that the proposal reduces the maximum footprint width, or horizontal extent of the proposal to approximately 1.6k, though the height remains at 126.5m. While noting the reduction in the spread of the turbine array, concerns that the development is out of scale still apply to the revised proposal. Consider that although removing 3 turbines at the eastern side of the development has led to some degree of impact reduction in areas around Houndwood, Legerwood, Boon and further afield towards Blainslie (where VP 8 appears to show the residual impacts fully screened by vegetation), consider that adverse residual impacts will still occur in and around these areas. For example, VPs 2, 3 and 9, by virtue of the proximity of such viewpoints and the nature of the effect (blades on local horizons etc) all highlight what SNH consider to be remaining adverse landscape and visual impacts.
2. The vertical size of the turbines and their scale relationship with existing and nearby features remains a serious concern to SNH. These issues are substantially unresolved by the revised proposal. Note the proposed revisions have sought to address issues highlighted original comments. By removing turbines on the highest areas of the site, reducing the numbers and altering the layout to a simpler arrangement, the changes have broadly helped to provide a more coherent and less jumbled appearance of a wind farm development (when compared to the 12 turbine scheme, and as evidenced by a number of the viewpoints). While vertical scale, as a key design issue, is a major concern to SNH, the matters raised originally, while not wholly removed are now less of a concern to SNH. The reduction in turbine numbers and modification of layouts has reduced the potential effects of turbine stacking as would be seen from these viewpoints, providing a clearer design layout or appearance to the proposal. The reduction in the extent of the array has improved the relationship of the development to some aspects of the Rolling Farmland character area by creating a less extensive spread of turbines. While the 9 turbine array is an improvement over the 12 turbine proposal it will still be perceived as dominant, overly large and likely too spread out in relation to the existing patterns of land use and landscape character.
3. The original comments and concerns remain relevant to this proposal. Highlight the submission of Brunta Hill wind farm since the original comments were made and highlight with concern the potential for significant and adverse cumulative impacts from VP17: Twin Law Cairns, as well as from other open locations nearby on the Southern Upland Way.
4. SNH’s on this issue is unaffected by the revised proposal.
In conclusion, the nature of the modifications arising from the reduction of the 12 turbine proposal to a 9 turbine proposal are noted, and it is considered that this has had some degree of beneficial effect in reducing the scale and dominance of the wind farm, particularly in wider views. Improvement to the design layout and appearance of the 9 turbine proposal when compared against the 12 turbine proposal are also noted, which partially addresses original concerns. However, highlight that the scale and extent of the proposal remains of serious concern to SNH with the key issues presented in their original response largely remaining.
Transport Scotland: There will be a minimal increase in traffic on the trunk road during operation of the facility and it is therefore not likely to have a significant impact on its operation. However, it is likely that many construction loads will be abnormal,
Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No 5 (a)
and authorisation from the management organisation may be required. It is advisable that they are consulted as to the feasibility of transportation of these items to the site. It is UK policy to restrict these movements via the nearest suitable port.
This response was repeated for the revised proposal.
Scottish Government (Environmental Quality Division): Comment with respect to Scottish Ministers’ responsibilities for air quality and noise. Note that it is considered that the wind farm will comply with all relevant standards and guidelines designed to protect residential amenity in respect of noise and that the ES concludes that the project will have no significant effects in relation to noise.
In response to the revised proposal, no comments are offered.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Satisfied with the general mitigation principles and pollution prevention measures set out in the ES. Some of proposed measures relate to works which may be regulated by SEPA. However, many of the works will not and need to be covered by condition. Request that a condition is attached to the consent requiring the submission of a full site specific environmental management plan (EMP).
Welcome reference to Pollution Prevention Guidelines. Note that a Drainage Plan which specifies controls on drainage from turbine foundations, access tracks and construction of both temporary and permanent compounds will be drawn up and that further detailed proposals will be provided within the Construction Method Statement (CMS). Recommend that a full site specific drainage strategy and CMS is included as part of the EMP requested above. Note that there is no requirement to connect to the public mains sewer and that foul drainage will be collected in a holding tank with regular disposal off-site.
A wheel wash is to be provided for vehicles leaving the site, however, there is no indication as to where the wash water will drain to. A closed loop wheel wash (water recycle system only) should be provided. There is no mention in the ES regarding the disposal of cement slurry and washout from cement vehicles. A method for controlling the concrete wash out area must be designed to prevent any discharge to the water environment. Details of this should be included within the CMS.
Welcome that access tracks have been designed to minimise water course crossings and that a 10-20m buffer between watercourses and turbine bases has been incorporated. Buffer zones will also be provided around surrounding groundwater abstractions or ground water dependent ecosystems. Note that one new water crossing will be required and one requires upgrading. These will require authorisation under CAR. Welcome that the design of these will be agreed with SEPA prior to construction. If any abstractions will be required then SEPA should be contacted to advise if they will be acceptable.
Wind turbines will be located outwith the indicative 1 in 200 year flood plain. There are a number of small watercourses located within the proposed site, however it is understood the turbines will be located a sufficient distance away from these watercourses to be out with the functional floodplain. Comments should be sought from the local authority roads department and the local authority flood prevention unit on the acceptability of post-development runoff rates for flood control.
Note that a borrow pit may be excavated on the development site and if not material will be sourced from local quarries. Where borrow pits are proposed, information
Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No 5 (a) should be provided regarding their location, size and nature including the depth of the borrow pit floor and the final reinstated profile. The reinstatement of borrow pits can raise significant waste management issues and it is essential that any proposals are discussed with SEPA. If a borrow pit is not used, SEPA should be notified as to the source of the material to be used as a waste exemption may be required for imported material. Further details regarding this should be included with the CMS.
It is detailed with the ES that surplus topsoil is to be reused on site and any subsoil not suitable will be disposed of appropriately. Other wastes are to be recycled or disposed to an appropriately licensed site. SEPA are satisfied with these proposals but recommend that a site specific site waste management plan is developed.
Note from the ES that there was no peat found in drift layer on site and that small trial pits were dug which showed no evidence of peat on the site. If any peat is encountered on site then SEPA should be consulted at the earliest opportunity.
In response to the revised application, confirm they have no objection, though still request a condition as outlined in the original response, and other comments in it also remain applicable.
Ministry of Defence: Have no objection. Request that turbines are fitted with aviation lighting, 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point. The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to AIR Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. Seek information regarding the time period of construction, maximum height of construction equipment, and the latitude and longitude of every turbine if planning consent is granted. This is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure military aircraft avoid this area.
This advice is repeated in response to the revised application.
Historic Scotland: Concentrate comments on Scheduled Monuments, A Listed Buildings and Gardens and Designed Landscapes in the Inventory only. Are content that any impacts on historic environment features within their statutory remit are not of such significance as to warrant an objection. The ES is clear and comprehensive with sufficient information to come to a view. Consideration focuses on the following:
x Knock Hill: Iron Age Hill fort on the summit of Knock Hill, measuring approximately 114m by 52m within twin ramparts which survive as low banks and the entrance is in the east. Its setting comprises extensive view, and views towards it are important because it is also highly visible in the landscape. Note the ES concludes that there will be low impact on the fort. HS consider the impacts may be higher than this, but are content that any impacts are not at such a level as to warrant an objection.
x Corsbie Tower: A 16th Century tower house standing on a large and prominent mound surrounded by bog at the base of Knock hill. Are content that impacts are unlikely to be significant.
x Greenknowe Tower: Also a Property in Care and A-Listed Building, as well as a Scheduled Monument. A 16th century tower house. The ES concluded that
Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No 5 (a)
there will be a negligible impact and HS are content to agree that impacts are unlikely to be significant.
x Black Hill Fort. Well preserved, complex and multi-phased Iron Age Fort occupying the summit of Black Hill, with extensive views from it and of it. The ES considers that due to the distance involved there will be a negligible impact and HS are content to agree that impacts are unlikely to be significant.
In response to the revised proposal, make no additional comments.
Lauderdale Community Council: Object to the development. If consented, Corsbie Moor would break new ground both literally and figuratively, as it would be the first wind farm on the east of Lauderdale and because it has several features which distinguish it from earlier developments and which would increase its impact as it would be. It would be closer to a larger number of homes, more visible over a wider area, more visible from more tourist and recreational features, and closer to and more visible from busy roads. Consequences are noted as:
x Damage to residential amenity including noise: There are nearly sixty homes within 2km of a turbine. Many would suffer severe visual impact and 34 properties at Legerwood, Kirkhill, Corsbie, Boon and Brownshall lie within 1 mile (1.6km) and would undoubtedly suffer from noise despite the developer’s claim to meet statutory guidelines. Noise generated from wind farms is the major factor in damaging the local quality of life. Toddleburn and Longpark wind farms have both claimed to have met guidelines but the resultant complaints, which SBC has found hard to investigate, clearly indicates that noise is disrupting the life of local residents
x Visual impact on Lauderdale: The ZTV shows that some turbines would be visible over the whole district, and that 10/12 turbines will be visible over most of it. Turbines would be visible from important tourist viewpoints including Smailholm Tower, Hume Castle and Scott’s View. The impact on the last of these would be particularly intrusive.
x Visual impact on tourist and recreational sites: There would be a significant impact on recreational features, in particular the Southern Upland Way as well as the view points noted above where the effect would be cumulative with existing wind farms. Turbines would be close to or visible from significant tourist routes, the A697, the A6089 and the A68.
x Resulting negative impact on local economy: Despite the developer’s claim that wind farms do not damage tourism, a 2008 report on the Scottish Government web site estimates the annual loss as a result of the much smaller number of developments in prospect at that time as £1.4M.
x Traffic disruption, driver distraction and road safety including shadow flicker: The A697 and A6089 are heavily used by local traffic at peak periods. They have a very bad record of fatal accidents. The level of construction traffic is likely to have been underestimated and will have prolonged economic consequences through congestion and safety implications, particularly on the A6089.
x The visual impact of the turbines on the A6089 would be much more severe than those of Dun Law on the A68. Driver distraction caused by these
Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No 5 (a)
turbines will increase the risk of accident and ‘Blade Flicker’ is likely to further increase risks.
x Cumulative impact with existing and proposed wind farms: There are already more wind farms in the Scottish Borders than any other area of Scotland and this area must now be considered to have reached saturation point. Corsbie would be in close proximity to Long Park (19 Turbines) and Toddleburn (12 Turbines). There are existing live applications for Shaw Park (9 Turbines), Girthgate (20 Turbines), Cathpair (15 Turbines) and Brunta Hill (11 Turbines). Dun Law has 61 turbines and there is an outstanding application under public inquiry for Rowantree wind farm (23 Turbines). Together the existing and proposed applications would mean 192 turbines in close proximity to Lauder and Lauderdale which is unacceptable. This illustrates a completely flawed planning policy adopted by Scottish Borders Council and the Scottish Government.
x The application allows for the application to build an electricity sub station should alternative links to the grid be considered to be unachievable. This would further significantly scar the local countryside.
This wind farm should not be consented for the reasons above. The overall impact on Lauderdale would be negative and damaging to local communities. The developer admits that any benefits to the local economy would be negligible. Lauderdale Community Council therefore wish that this application should be refused.
In response to the revised application advise that the reduction in turbine numbers from 12 to 9 would result in:
x very limited amelioration of 1, x some reduction of 2, x insignificant effect on 3 and so of 4 x no effect on 5, 6 or 7.
The CC therefore wish to sustain objection.
Gordon and Westruther Community Council: The development will have a large impact on the people living within their Community Council area including
x Noise: The CC are not satisfied that the applicants have ensured that there will be no noise nuisance at Brownshall Lodge, Langrigs and Hyndsidehill Farmhouse. The noise assessment results should be independently assessed.
x Shadow Flicker: The assessment shows that any impact would have dissipated before reaching Brownshall Lodge, Lang Riggs and Hyndsidehill Farmhouse. Brownshall Lodge has ancillary accommodation within its curtilage, which falls within the shadow flicker contours and has not been accounted for. The methodology is questioned.
x Visual impact: There are significant predicted views of all twelve of the turbines throughout the CC’s area, as it is a large development, not enclosed or screened by landforms. The ES grossly understates the facts, particularly in the case of Brownshall Lodge and Langrigs. It is regrettable that the applicant has chosen to select viewpoints from a zone of theoretical visibility
Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Item No 5 (a)
map which shows the screening effects of trees. This is not up to date and there has been considerable felling in some areas, and further felling can be anticipated during the application term of twenty five years. A number of properties have been omitted from the visual assessment, possibly due to the assumed screening properties of trees. Trees should not be a preclusion to the visual assessment process and further assessment should be carried out. Make detailed comments regarding a number of viewpoints (see original comments). There are no visualisations from the settlements of Spottiswoode, Raecleugh or Flass nor from the scenic viewpoint of Hume Castle.
x Cumulative visual impact: Currently have sight of Black Hill, Crystal Rig, Fallago Rig, Dun Law 1 and 2, Toddleburn, (Halkburn) Long Park, Easter Howlaws, consented/constructed wind farms. There are also proposals at Rowantree, Wester Dod (Aikengall 2), Brunta Hill, Girthgate, Cathpair, Shaw Park, Bassendean, Birkenside and Hexpath which should be considered. As this is a rapidly expanding area, ask that all schemes be considered. Also note the related sequential impacts associated with these developments
x Tourism: Those walking along The Southern Upland Way would experience significantly different views should the wind farm be constructed to those which they experience today and views across the Berwickshire Merse and towards the Eildon Hills would be adversely affected. Have grave concerns that the enjoyment of those walking this important long-distance footpath is being eroded by continuous views of wind farms. The majority of walkers travel from west to east along the path.
x Aviation safeguarding: There are concerns that the low-flying aircraft would experience turbulence from the turbines, and that any lighting added to the turbines would cause a light nuisance at night.
x Economic effect: There will be no long term benefits to the local economy from this development. The potential jobs during construction are unlikely to be for local workers
x Community benefit: Have grave concerns over how these discussions were handled.
x Construction period: There are concerns that the construction period will produce a noise and traffic nuisance. The CC wish to be consulted to assist in forming a traffic management plan if the application is successful
x Community view: Following the Corsbie Moor wind farm exhibition held in November 2010, a survey showed that 61% of those who attended were against the proposal, 23% were unsure and 16% were for the proposal. It is noted that this survey was undertaken on the basis of a 21 turbine application, and although the CC recognise nine turbines have been removed, the impact on those living within the area remains the same. At no time have the CC any representations made to CC’s meetings in support of the proposal.
x Energy production: It is considered that any national benefits provided by the potential wind farm are by far outweighed by the detrimental impact upon the CC’s area.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No 5 (a)
The CC therefore object as the proposed development is contrary to the policies found within the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018; policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Adopted 2011 and the advice contained within the Wind Energy SPG.
In response to the revised application, find no indication that the impact on the community is lessened in any way, and their previous submission therefore stands. The CC continues to object.
Cranshaws, Ellemford and Longformacus Community Council: Have significant concerns that the experience of those who live, work, visit or invest in the Lammermuirs is being damaged by the increasingly dominant wind energy developments. It is clear that we live in an increasingly turbine-congested landscape and that the scale of additional turbine development proposed across the Borders would increase those already significant effects, as would Corsbie Moor.
Local residents are familiar with existing local wind farms, including those at Black Hill, Crystal Rig I, II & Ila and Aikengall, and experience their effects daily. To the western end of the Lammermuirs Dun Law(s), Halkburn and Toddleburn add additional effects whilst Fallago Rig will soon add further significant landscape and visual effects in the heart of the Lammermuirs. Other proposals at Rowantree, Wester Dod, Abbey St Bathans, Blackburn, Primrosehill, Blackhouse Farm, Cedar Cottage, Fernylea and Hoprigshiels would add to the existing effects, as would Brunta Hill, Quixwood Moor and Crystal Rig III. The scale of development could make it impossible to approach the Lammermuirs except through a landscape where windfarms were an inescapable characteristic.
There appear to be many reasonable grounds for refusing consent to this extremely ill-sited windfarm but this response is focussed on the effects on those within, or travelling to/from their area. Recognise that there are significant other reasons to object and expect they will be well covered by others.
Having assessed the likely effects from a wind farm at Corsbie Moor, the CC strongly object to the proposal and ask that consent is robustly refused. Reasons include:
x Whilst Corsbie Moor is not within the Lammermuirs, it is very close to them. It features in important views from them and is highly relevant. Object on the grounds that; x It would create unacceptable visual effects in parts of the Lammermuirs. x It would be detrimental to the experience of those walking parts of the Southern Upland Way and harm the potential for economic growth from walking tourism and other recreation. x It would have a detrimental effect on the Lammermuir Hills Area of Great Landscape Value x Significant additional cumulative effects would be experienced with Corsbie Moor adding to a high baseline of windfarms. x It would add additional sequential cumulative effects for those travelling to, or through, the Lammermuirs. x It would extend windfarms into an existing turbine-free area and ensure turbine-free views out from the Lammermuirs become near-impossible.
Have grave concerns that in many areas the ES doesn't present an accurate or reliable assessment of the likely effects that would result from a windfarm at Corsbie Moor. Suggest that some concerns are so significant that the applicants should be
Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 Item No 5 (a) required to reassess some information and provide further environmental information before any proper assessment of the proposal can be made.
Visual effects Views out from the Lammermuirs are a particular characteristic, and part of the experience of enjoying, the Lammermuir Hills. Views north (over East Lothian to Fife) and east (to the sea) are important, but the views south across the Merse, towards the Eildons and Cheviots are the most critical. The effect of introducing a large number of large scale turbines (they are larger than any yet constructed in the Scottish Borders) into the turbine free views to the south would be damaging to the experience within the Lammermuirs. Corsbie Moor would feature extensively in important views out from the Lammermuirs to the south across the Merse to the Cheviots. These views are a particular characteristic of much of the south of the Lammermuirs and of numerous summits. Views across the Merse are currently turbine free, a contrast to the views to the west and north east which are increasingly characterised by turbine development. Corsbie would change that experience significantly, dominating the critical views towards the Eildons in particular.
There would be a particularly significant effect from the iconic viewpoint at Twin Law Cairns and also repeatedly from sections of the Southern Upland Way. Corsbie would have a catastrophic effect on the view to the Eildons from Twin Law and adjacent stretches of the Southern Upland Way. This is a critically-important view, but we suggest that the montage provided in the ES doesn't meet appropriate guidelines, lacks clarity and significantly understates the likely effect of Corsbie from this viewpoint, and suggest it be redone (detailed reasons given in original comments).
Cumulative visual effects Whilst in the Lammermuirs you frequently experience the effect of turbines, notably from the western string of Dun Law(s), Toddleburn & Halkburn and the eastern ones of Black Hill, Aikengall and Crystal Rig(s). There is already significant additional pressure from a number of schemes; Fallago Rig's 48 turbines will add significantly to the effects when construction is complete. Wester Dod and Rowantree, currently at Public Local Inquiry, would add to these effects. Consented schemes including Drone Hill and Brockholes will add additional effects to the east of the Lammermuirs. Existing applications including Hoprigshiels, Fernylea, Blackburn, Abbey St Bathans (Weirburn & Barnside) and Primrosehill would add additional effects. Smaller schemes, and singleton turbines, such as those at Easter Howlaws, Birkenside, Bassendean etc - there are many others - will add turbine clutter, additional cumulative effects and fill in the space, effectively linking larger turbine developments. Nearby schemes with PANs lodged, information in the public domain and known to be near- imminent would add additional effects on the Lammermuirs, particularly Brunta Hill.
Suggest the Lammermuirs has already exceeded its capacity to accept windfarms and so, even if there were assessed to be relatively modest additional effects from Corsbie, it would add unacceptable effects on the Lammermuirs. Adding turbines into the turbine free views to the south would add significantly to the cumulative effects as it spreads the influence of windfarms in a direction not yet affected.
Sequential cumulative effects Corsbie would affect the experience of those approaching the Lammermuirs on important routes from the south and west due to its scale, prominence and general high visibility. There would be notable additional sequential cumulative effects felt by those travelling to the Lammermuirs along frequently-used routes including the A68,
Planning and Building Standards Committee 23 Item No 5 (a)
A697, A7 & B6456. These are not just critical tourist routes into the area, but ones used regularly by residents travelling to access services in nearby communities or travelling to work.
Corsbie would add further sequential effects to those walking stretches of the Southern Upland way through the Lammermuirs and along other recreational routes. There would be additional sequential cumulative effects on locally important roads through the Lammermuirs, including Gifford to Duns via Longformacus, where Corsbie would be a notable additional windfarm presence for those travelling between the Lammermuirs Duns (or the rest of the Scottish Borders). Effects would be particularly notable on this route at Mainslaughter Law where views to the Eildons from the Millennium Viewpoint are notable and across the top of the Hardens heading south.
Sequential effects would be felt with various combinations of Dun Law(s), Toddleburn, Long Park, Easter Howlaws, Black Hill, Crystal Rig(s) Aikengall. Other consented or applied for scheme could add to this.
Effect on the Southern Upland Way Corsbie would add further sequential effects to those walking stretches of the Southern Upland way through the Lammermuirs and along other recreational routes and would blight significant stretches of the Southern Upland Way, the UK's only national coast- to-coast route. It would feature prominently along much of two important day walking sections of the Southern Upland Way (Melrose to Lauder & Lauder to Longformacus). It would mean that those walking the Lammermuir stretch would now have prominent windfarms to their south, as well as west and east. Fallago will shortly occupy views to the north. In Lauderdale it would mean there are turbines to the east as well as the existing string to the west. Corsbie would add significantly to what could effectively become the "Southern Windfarm Way". Walkers already experience the effects of windfarms including Black Hill and Long Park and will soon experience the additional effects of Fallago Rig and Drone Hill. Other proposals would add further significant effects.
Maintaining the quality of the experience on The Southern Upland Way is important as it is a driver to our local tourism economy and walking tourism has huge potential for economic growth. It is the sense of wildness and quality of the landscape is one of the key attractions this area has to offer. Degrade the landscape significantly and that significant economic potential could never be realised. There would be effects on the experience of recreational users on other routes within the Lammermuirs too.
Effects on the Lammermuirs AGLV Corsbie Moor would have a detrimental effect on the experience and quality of the Lammermuir Hills AGLV as it lies less than 6kmto the north and east. The AGLV is already under pressure from existing turbines within it and other planning decisions have recognised that wind farm proposals on its periphery would be detrimental to it. As Corsbie would be the largest consented turbines in Scotland it would have a detrimental effect on an area that is worthy of protection.
The consultation comments include a detailed critique of the ES, which can be read in full in the original consultation comments in which the CC ultimately challenge the content of the ES on a number of grounds, including the scope of the cumulative assessment and viewpoint presentations from Lammer Law, Twin Law Cairns and the Eildon Hills.
In response to the revised proposal, comments are awaited.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 24 Item No 5 (a)
Earlston Community Council: Would like to object to the application. Feel that with the size of the turbines it would have a large effect on surrounding people and properties, with both noise and visual impact. If granted, feel that these turbines would have a detrimental effect on the countryside.
In response to the revised proposal, comments are awaited.
Health and Safety Executive: Does not advise against the development on safety grounds
Scottish Water: No objections. Planning approval does not guarantee a connection to SW’s infrastructure. There are no public sewers or water mains in the vicinity of the proposed development site.
BAA Airports Ltd: The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Have no objection to this proposal.
In response to the revised proposal, Edinburgh Airport provided the same advice as BAA.
NERL (NATS En Route): Does not conflict with safeguarding criteria and, accordingly, has no objections (to both original and revised scheme).
Other Consultees
Joint Radio Company: Does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.
Scotland Gas Networks: Not their area, recommended consultation with National Grid.
National Grid: Works are likely, unless controlled, to adversely impact on the safety and integrity of National Grid apparatus. If deciding to proceed, contact required with NG for technical advice and guidance. The location falls outwith NG’s Gas Distribution Network Area, so another gas distribution company operates in this area. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make contact with these operators. Include guidance and reference to applicant contacting NG before work starts.
Have no objection. There is a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline (MAHP) high-pressure gas pipeline, which runs through land parcel – (Feeder 10 - Boon to Coldstream). No buildings should encroach within the Easement strip of the pipeline – (Feeder 10 - Boon to Coldstream). National Grid has a Deed of Grant of Easement for each pipeline, which prevents the erection of permanent / temporary buildings, or structures, change to existing ground levels, storage of materials etc. National Grid will, where necessary, take action to legally enforce the terms of the easement where deemed necessary. Provide detailed advice on cables and pipeline crossings and on pipeline safety. Research has concluded that wind turbines should be positioned no closer than 1.5 times the mast height (hub height to nacelle), from a pipeline carrying a hazardous substance. In response to the revised proposal, comments are awaited.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 25 Item No 5 (a)
Scottish Badgers: Raise a minor point in relation to the badger set as no indication on the material supplied shows how the site would be accessed for construction and subsequent maintenance. Nor is there any indication of proposed extraction routes for electricity should the application be granted and the site become live. As long as neither of these routes impact on the badger sett then do not foresee any other problems at this time.
In response to the revised proposal, comments are awaited.
RSPB: Are supportive of the use of renewable energy, but believe that the locations of wind farms must be carefully selected to avoid negative impacts on sites and species of conservation importance. Do not object. Are satisfied that the appropriate ornithological survey methodology was adopted, including Vantage Point watches to assess utilisation of airspace, and winter- and breeding-bird surveys of species using the area. The results of these, together with existing data, demonstrate that there are no important species or populations of birds at the site, and that the development is unlikely to represent a significant threat to species of conservation concern or important assemblages of commoner birds.
Note that habitat enhancement measures will be part of a post-construction programme. Welcome the commitment of the developer to produce a Habitat Management Plan to increase the biodiversity value of the site and its environs. Would recommend that measures are taken to benefit farmland waders, notably lapwing. Investigation of potentially suitable sites locally should be undertaken to determine if habitat maintenance and/or improvements to benefit waders are appropriate and feasible, in addition to more general wetland enhancement. This should be done in consultation with and the approval of SNH and the local authority ecologist.
The report suggests the installation of nest boxes for barn owl. While this would be welcome in an area that may lack existing natural or artificial nest sites, it would be prudent to site these boxes well away from the development to minimise the risk of collision.
In response to the revised proposal, comments are awaited.
Lauderdale Preservation Group: Object to the proposal in their initial comments, later elaborated on by further comments. The proposed Corsbie Moor wind power station should not be recommended for consent. It is too close to too many dwellings, too close to busy roads and too visible from too many places. A summary of the objections is provided, elaborated on in the original document:
Damage to Residential Amenity x There would be 57 residential properties within 2km of a turbine. These have been undercounted by the applicant. x ҏThere would be significant and adverse visual impact on up to 36 of these x There would be potential for unacceptable noise impact at up to 22 properties x Other properties within 3km, significantly undercounted by the applicant, would suffer significant visual impact x A larger number of residential properties would be impacted than are affected by any previously consented wind energy proposal in the Borders
Landscape and Visual Impact x The development is not in a preferred upland landscape classification area.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 26 Item No 5 (a)
x ҏThere is no surrounding enclosing or screening landform to reduce visible impact x This would be one of the most visible wind power developments in the Scottish Borders. x There would be visual impact and/or cumulative impact on important heritage, tourist and recreational locations x Should it be decided to support the `Cluster and Space’ concept, the development would not adjoin any existing cluster
Costs and Benefits x The applicant has confirmed that there will be negligible local economic benefit from the development x The applicant has failed to demonstrate any significant contribution to energy security or climate change amelioration and has not justified the choice of a site likely to lead to a poor load factor x The applicant has failed to identify the potential damage to tourism, recreation and the local economy
Community Engagement and Public Attitudes x The applicant has failed to engage with the affected local community x The applicant has sought by questionable means to influence public opinion and planners
Other significant issues regarded as questionable, flawed or unsatisfactory include: roads and traffic; ecology and ornithology; hydrology; and telecommunications. These points can be read in full in the original document. The response is accompanied by Appendix 1 in which a series of detailed observations are made regarding Hydrology and Hydrogeology, and a Dwelling Proximity Map.
In response to the revised proposal, reassert their objection and do not believe the revised proposal has addressed significant issues raised in response to the original. Key points of continuing objection (detailed explanations of these objections are noted in the original copy) include:
x Damage to residential amenity through visual impact x Damage to amenity and health from noise, and ask that the Council’s Environmental Health Service reconsider their implied non-objection to the proposal x Cumulative visual impact on important Borders sites x Irrelevance of the development to national energy security or global emissions x Continuing concerns in connection with private water supplies, telecommunications, driver distraction, ecology, ornithology and the applicant’s continuing failure to engage with residents of affected communities.
ScotWays: Right of Way BE224 is affected by the western site boundary and BE201 lies very close nearby. There could be other routes that meet criteria but have never been recorded. The Design and Access Statement states that “a minimum standoff distance of 46.5m i.e. oversail” has been applied to the right of way. Understand there is very little guidance but refer to the Welsh Assesmbly’s Technical Advice Note on renewable Energy TAN8 which quotes an advisable set back equivalent to the blade tip away from the edge of any public highway, road or other public right of way. Are concerned at the potential proximity of Turbine 1 to BE224 and request a 126.5m
Planning and Building Standards Committee 27 Item No 5 (a) set back. Note that there are general access rights under the Land Reform (S) Act 2003 and also refer to the Core Path Plan prepared by the Council. It appears that the applicant has accounted for this but has erroneously stated that none of the Wider Path Network passes within 1k of the turbines. Turbine 1 is close to BE224, part of the Wider Path Network.
In response to the revised application, are pleased to note that the closest turbine to the rights of way no longer falls within the minimum separation distance noted above. It now also appears that none of the Wider Path Network routes indeed pass within 1km of the proposed turbines.
VisitScotland: Tourism is crucial to Scotland’s cultural and economic well-being. It sustains a great diversity of businesses throughout the country, generating an estimated £11 billion for the economy and employing around 200,000 – 9% of the Scottish workforce. Tourism provides jobs in the private sector and stimulates the regeneration of urban and rural areas. A disproportionate number of these jobs are located in rural areas where employment opportunities are limited
The Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy has a strategic vision “To make the Scottish Borders a must visit, must return, year round destination.” Any proposed developments should ensure that they are in line with the priorities and actions detailed in this document. Scenery and the natural environment have become the two most important factors for visitors in recent years when choosing a holiday location. VisitScotland would therefore welcome any measures that lessen the visual impact on the landscape and any potential adverse effects on its economy thus ensuring that the scenic views, historical sites, wildlife, flora and fauna within the immediate environs are not damaged irreparably visually or structurally in any way.
The importance of this element to tourism in the Scottish Borders cannot be underestimated. The character and visual amenity value of the landscape is a key driver of our tourism product. A large majority of visitors to Scotland come because of the landscape, scenery and the wider environment, which supports important primary visitor activities such as cycling, walking, wildlife watching and visiting historic sites. The VisitScotland Visitor Experience Survey (2007) confirms the basis of this argument with its ranking of the key factors influencing visitors when choosing Scotland as a holiday location. In this study, scenery and the natural environment are not only highly rated but the most important factors for visitors when choosing Scotland as a holiday location, with 72% of visitors citing scenery as ‘very important’ to their choice of Scotland as a holiday destination.
Sustainable tourism is tourism committed to generating a low impact on the surrounding environment and community by acting responsibly while generating income and employment for the local economy and aiding social cohesion. It is anticipated that wind farm development would support this ambition.
The cumulative effect of a number of developments within a specified area/sight line could be detrimental to the above aspiration of low impact on the environment.
The Corsbie Moor proposal is within an Area of Search as per the Scottish Borders Council Strategic Planning Guidance on Wind Energy which effectively means that there are no major constraints on the site, although issues regarding prominence in the landscape and any cumulative impact issues with other proposals in the area will need to be addressed. Would also refer to the Scottish Government’s recent research on the impact of wind farms on tourism which reports that planning
Planning and Building Standards Committee 28 Item No 5 (a)
consideration would be greatly assisted if the developers produced a brief Tourist Impact Statement as part of the Environmental Impact Analysis.
It is to be hoped that no new pylons or structures will be built adding further intrusion into the landscape and that any connections would use existing pylons or be routed underground. Similarly any grid connections would be reviewed at the same time as the planning approvals for the site overall.
Noise which may impact more dramatically during certain climatic conditions could be a major concern to those who live near the site and others from further afield. It is crucial that any potential detrimental impact – visually, environmentally and economically - of the proposed development be identified and considered at the earliest possible stage. With careful siting, sensitive design and some technological creativity, the construction of any such developments can be achieved without excessive adverse impacts on tourism.
Ofcom: No comments received Scottish Wildlife Trust: No comments received Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland: No comments received
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
Whether or not the proposed development complies with development plan policies relating to the development of a commercial wind farm, having accounted for other material considerations.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Principle
National Planning Policy, via the National Planning Framework 2 and Scottish Planning Policy identify support for renewable energy in order to meet current targets (currently 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020), but also identify the need to consider landscape and visual impacts, and safeguard the cultural and national heritage. The Government’s Specific Advice Sheet Onshore Wind Turbines provides policy guidance related to wind farm developments that are material to this application.
Structure Plan Policy I19 supports renewable energy which is provided in an environmentally acceptable manner and its associated ‘area of search’ is a broad visual indication of strategic policy, relating only to designated and non-designated sites. All non-designated sites are given preferred status, including this site. The Structure Plan acknowledges that Dun Law and Bowbeat have installed capacity to supply over 70% of the Borders and that the region will become a net exporter in the short term. There is no policy requirement to account for claims that the Borders has had its ‘fair share’ of wind farms.
Policy I20 applies criteria much like the SPP, and these require to be considered alongside Policy D4 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2011 as key criteria against which wind farm developments need to be considered. The Council’s Wind Energy SPG elaborates further on Policy D4 applying further clarity on it in paragraph 6.4.
This application needs to be assessed against these policies and related guidance notes. Determination of this application is not a judgement on the wind energy industry, its commercial decisions or how sites are chosen. Exploration of alternative
Planning and Building Standards Committee 29 Item No 5 (a) sites is not necessary, and the ES already demonstrates the constraints that have led to the choice of site, and evolution of the design and scale of the scheme.
Landscape impacts
Structure Plan Policy I20 requires that landscape considerations be guided by the Borders Landscape Character Assessment, and Local Plan Policy D4 also requires an assessment of landscape impacts. Planning policies ultimately require that there be no unacceptable impacts on the landscape and a range of criteria under Policy D4 are relevant to reaching a conclusion on this matter, reinforced further by the Council’s SPG on Wind Energy.
Policy D4 states a preference for developments within ‘preferred areas’ outwith environmental designations. This site is not within a designated landscape and is classed as a preferred area within an ‘area of search’ in the Structure Plan. This strategic policy guidance may change in response to the recently completed review of AGLVs, though the site itself remains within a non-designated area following recent adoption of the new Special Landscape Areas, replacing AGLVs. There are now 9 Special Landscape Areas. The nearest is that covering the Lammermuirs to the north, and the site remains outwith the designation. This requirement is, therefore satisfied.
The policy suggests that locations within Upland landscape types defined as such in the BLCA will normally be more acceptable than other landscape types subject to detailed assessment of the fragility of the area to change. The BLCA identifies the site as falling wholly within the “Westruther Platform Landscape Character Area”. This is an ‘Upland Fringe’ Landscape Type. It is flanked by Upland landscape comprising the Lammermuirs to the north, upland valleys to the north-west, west and north-east, upland fringe moorland and grassland to the east, with lowlands to the south. It is very much a transitional landscape between the Upland types – which contain the large, open, undulating hills that can most easily accommodate a commercial wind farm – and Lowland types – which contain more enclosed, small scale, intimate, populated, and settled landscapes, which cannot comfortably accommodate a commercial wind farm.
The Landscape Character Area is characterised by the BLCA as a patchwork of medium and large sized fields typically enclosed by mature Beech or Hawthorn hedgerows or fences with dry stone dykes common in higher areas. Plantations are a further characteristic. The landscape character is contributed to by open landscapes on higher ground, with views over a regular pattern of local farmland and to adjacent upland areas, with a more enclosed, intimate character created locally by landform and woodland. The Landscape Character Area is, therefore, not of the broad scale, open landscape character of Upland types, but does share some if its characteristics. Its capacity to accept a commercial wind farm will depend a great deal on the scale of the development relative to the characteristics of the site. The detailed relationship of this proposed development to the application site is considered more fully later. However, in terms of this criterion, this proposal will not firmly meet the preference stated within it.
Policy D4 provides broad support for locations where there is surrounding landform that minimises its visibility and where there is no interference with prominent skylines. The ES draws attention to the containment provided by local hills, including Legerwood Hill, Kirkhill, Boon Hill, Hyndesidehill, Knock Hill, West Hill and Cribbs Law (alongside which the development is proposed). All these hills circle the site within a range of 3k, providing excellent opportunities for local containment,
Planning and Building Standards Committee 30 Item No 5 (a)
potentially significantly cutting off visibility beyond them. The summit of Boon Hill reaches 327 mAOD though beyond to the north-west are notable high points to the north and north-west at 363 and 383mAOD (Scoured Rig and Dabshead Hill). At tip height, however, none of the surrounding hills would have contained this development within 5k under the original proposal, where the minimum tip height would have been 349.5mAOD. Though the revised scheme has revised the layout and removed the highest turbine from the original scheme, with reduced mAODs for the lowest and highest turbines, the lowest is only 4 metres lower (345.5mAOD Turbine 2) and the same lack of containment by hills within the surrounding area results. If planning consent were approved, a low micro-siting allowance would be recommended, especially in the westerly part of the site, given the variations in topography.
The resulting visibility is, therefore, demonstrated in the ZTVs with theoretically high visibility within the 10-12k range, most significantly to the north-east, east and south- east. Local hills do, however, provide screening from adjacent lower areas, and the site also benefits from the drop within the Leader Water Valley to the west. Reducing turbine heights would, of course, reduce local visibility, but with surrounding hills to the south-west, south-east and north-east well below 300mAOD, a commercial scale wind farm will always struggle to gain significantly from local containment by surrounding hills. While wider visibility is more dispersed and fragmented, it is the localised impact which is the most significant, and why the criterion discourages developing sites which are not contained by surrounding landform. Under the revised scheme, changes to theoretical visibility comprise relatively modest improvements on the original scheme, with the most obvious being less visibility on the northerly sections of the A68 and A697, though otherwise there is still significant potential exposure at 61.6% within the first 5k and 72.2% within 10k. Though the ZTV s are theoretical, and must be treated cautiously, indication of visual exposure taking into account the benefit of woodland plantations must also be treated with care, given the potential for felling over the 25 year lifespan of the development. Benefits of woodland screening, however, appear quite localised in any case. Ultimately, the site’s position on the side of a hill, surrounded by relatively modest hillsides which provide the potential for some containment, are undermined by the height of the turbines relative to their host landscape.
The site has a gentle topography extending from the east, stepping up to its westerly end where it forms the hillside of Cribb’s Law. The site is rather unremarkable in terms of its skyline profile, contrasting with the more defining hillsides around it, such as Boon Hill, Legerwood Hill, West Hill and Knock Hill. The former two are significant because they provide the flanking hillside to the Leader Water Valley through which the A68 travels, forming part of its flanking rolling skyline to its east side. Under the original scheme, this valley skyline would be breached to various degrees, most significantly apparent from the Southern Upland Way to the west, with the original viewpoint 12 being particularly illustrative of this. Under the revised scheme, the effects on the Leader Water Valley skyline are less significant than before, with removal of the most westerly turbines, but there is still a clear breach when viewed from the same viewpoints to the west. Potential visibility on the A68 is low, but views from the SUW and B6362 (viewpoints 12 and 16) are more obvious. This creep above the skyline does conflict with the objectives of Policy D4 though it is mitigated somewhat by trees, pylons and other distractions.
Interference with skylines around the site from the north suggests a breach of a more mundane skyline, illustrated in viewpoints 10 and 11, with the contribution of Boon Hill in the latter demonstrating a more prominent and important skyline when passing around it on the A6089 to the north, where its steep slopes hug the Boondreigh
Planning and Building Standards Committee 31 Item No 5 (a)
Water and from which views of the wind farm will be less extensive. There is also some interference with Knock Hill from the south-east (viewpoint 14) though it makes a modest contribution to the larger landscape, having more significance as a landscape feature when viewed from closer distance along the Corsbie-Legerwood Road.
Apart from the breach of the Leader Water Valley skyline, albeit a somewhat unwelcome breach, the local surrounding hillsides will not otherwise be significantly undermined to the extent that the wind farm would detract from local skylines.
Further afield, the site is within an unusually sensitive location, sited between the Lammermuirs and the Eildon Hills. Views from Scott’s View are, as ever, an important consideration but Viewpoint 17 from Twin Law Cairns within the Lammermuirs is particularly revealing. The view southwards from Twin Law Cairns reveals that, while the wind farm would not breach the skyline, it would be a very direct intrusion to the contribution of the Eildon Hills to the skyline when viewed from here, sitting just under their base. On this department’s visit to Twin Law Cairns, the view of the Eildons was a good deal clearer and intervening farmland was a good deal more colourful than depicted in the photomontage. Of course, the quality of the view is weather dependent. However, the Eildons are a prominent feature against the surrounding landscape, viewed clearly in dark silhouette. The wind farm would directly compete with the Eildons and, though they don’t breach the skyline, they will detract from the contribution of the Eildons to it. The revised scheme has reduced the spread of the turbines, but their impact remains because of the position of the site, the scale of development and height of the turbines.
From Scott’s View, looking north on leaving the viewpoint, the wind farm will be framed by Black Hill and Redpath Hill, two hills which make a distinctive contribution to the landscape skyline in their own right. The effect of this proposal would be to intrude on the contribution of this skyline, albeit the effect is relatively minor, in landscape terms at least, because of the scale of the turbines within the much larger valley foreground.
From the south, the wind farm would be seen as part of the wider landscape when viewed from the Eildon Hills and would not, in landscape terms, significantly intrude on the overall skyline, as viewpoint 21 and from the Three Brethern (viewpoint 23) suggest.
Policy D4 is, therefore, conflicted with as a result of the skyline intrusions noted above. Consideration of the potential conflict with sensitive habitats, as required by this policy criterion, is noted elsewhere in this report.
An assessment of the impact of the development on landscape character is also required by Policy D4. (With reference to remote qualities, the site does not exhibit such characteristics). The ES notes that landscape effects are those relating to changes in the elements, character and qualities of the landscape as a result of development. They can be direct (the physical effects on the host landscape) and indirect (as perceived from outside the host landscape and its character unit). The ES ranks landscape sensitivity and, judging the magnitude of change against this, assesses the significance of the effects of the development on the landscape. In the assessor’s opinion, the ‘significant’ effects, based on a matrix combining sensitivity with magnitude of change is (unless specifically stated otherwise) limited to those with ‘moderate/substantial’ or ‘substantial’ effects. This limits the impression of significant effects to landscapes and changes of at least medium sensitivity and magnitude respectively. While there has been concern during the consultation
Planning and Building Standards Committee 32 Item No 5 (a) process regarding how these matters are weighted, this seems quite a logical approach. In any case, establishing whether an effect is significant or not does not necessarily suggest that those same effects are unacceptable.
The assessment of landscape effects are different to visual effects which are concerned with the effects of the landscape change on the viewer and general visual amenity (thus combining the sensitivity of the receptors, as opposed to the landscapes, with the magnitude of change), albeit there is some overlap between the two.
Of some material value in this assessment is SNH’s Strategic Locational Guidance. The ES suggests the site is within Zone 1 since it has no local or national designations and is not within a search area for wild land. It notes that it is within 10k of the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area. SNH, however, consider it within Zone 2, and thus of medium sensitivity but, because it is within 10k of the NSA, it falls within Zone 3, and thus of high sensitivity depending on location. The guidance itself does, however, suggest that it is within Zone 1, but Zone 2 because of its proximity to the NSA, as the ES suggests. These matters are, however, rather peripheral to the question of impacts on landscape character, given the strategic nature of the guidance.
The Council’s SPG flags up constraints and acts as a search tool. It is not an assessment in itself of landscape capacity. Based on five ratings of ranging sensitivity, the SPG accounts for safeguarding designated sites, as well as 2k buffers from specified roads and seven strategic walking routes, and the same buffer for three key viewpoints, and a 7k buffer for three more, including the Eildon Hills and Scott’s View. This site is mostly within an area of minor constraints, staying outside the most significant buffers noted above though it should be noted that the SPG makes it clear that staying outside the buffers is a starting point, and it is quite possible that adverse impacts can result from developments located beyond them. It also does not negotiate other sensitive receptors including tourist attractions and historic buildings, nor all walking routes and the scenic views along them. The north- eastern and eastern parts of this site are within the areas of most significant constraint specifically because they fall within a 2k distance from selected roads. The site is then effectively surrounded by areas of significant constraint because of its proximity to specified A class roads to the north-east, west and south, and demonstrating that the potential for this landscape to be externally visible is high.
In terms of the landscape character of the site itself and its most immediate surroundings, the ES provides a comprehensive assessment, noting the following key characteristics:
x Fairly simple and secrete landscape x Broad, large scale and open fields x Interspersed with blocks of plantation woodland x Surrounded by local hills dissected by the Leader Water to the west, Boondreigh Water to the north-west, and Eden Water to the south x Containing little settlement x Flat to gently sloping landscape x The A6089 is described as having a lonely character crossing Corsbie Moor with open views across it x The Eden Water Valley includes the minor public road alongside it, connecting to Legerwood, Kirkhill and Corsbie
Planning and Building Standards Committee 33 Item No 5 (a)
The ES then considers that the site has little or no landscape features of interest or notable landscape qualities beyond a medium level of Borders countryside. The combination of fields, field boundaries and woodland are reasonably well maintained and represent the rolling farmland Landscape Character Type of medium landscape sensitivity. It suggests that, due to modifications by farming, and loss of moorland characteristics, it is simply one of large fields and plantations with a broad and simple form and large scale landscape pattern. Given that any commercial scale wind farm will have a significant impact on any landscape when considered in its most localised context, the ES rightly concludes that the impact of the development will be moderate/substantial and, therefore, significant. However, the ES contends that, due its large scale, broad, simple and open character it will appear relatively well accommodated and so the landscape effects could be regarded as neutral with no effect on prominent skylines.
It is accepted that the site’s simple form and relatively large open character does lend itself to a wind farm development of some form that could sit relatively comfortably within it. However, the question is really whether it can accommodate a wind farm of the scale proposed, in a manner which allows it to sit comfortably on the site. This assessment has already touched on the issue of landscape containment. The site itself plays a rather unmremarkable role in the landscape as a whole, playing a secondary role in terms of landscape interest compared to surrounding hills. Turbines of the height proposed will, however, compete with those hills. SNH make clear their concern that the height of the turbines is out of scale with the receiving landscape, often in stark contrast to its landscape features, resulting in adverse and often significant effects experienced in locally typical and certain key viewpoints within 5k. Their concern regarding scale also relates to what they perceive to be the significant spread of turbines across the undulating topography, and that though concerns regarding scale are mostly in relation to closer views, more distant views also suggest the turbines will be out of scale. The slightly more compact revised proposal which removed three turbines, has helped, but not fully addressed, this concern. This department shares this opinion. The viewpoints provide a snapshot of views, and cannot be taken as a conclusive indicator of how the turbines relate to the landscape, though they do provide a relatively comprehensive impression of the development as seen from various distances. What seems to be apparent is that the site does benefit from its openness, with relatively large field patterns helping to disguise the scale of the turbines. However, when seen close to local roads, and viewed amongst the relatively low hillside, against plantations and shelterbelts, and other settled landscape features, there is an uncomfortable juxtaposition between turbine height, extent and the existing landscape features.
SNH guidance recommends that a wind farm should be seen as a cohesive collection, avoiding varying densities, stacking, partial screening and outlier turbines. Here the turbines relate well to the undulating hillside, effectively mirroring its gentle slope in the north east to steeper hillside to the west, though this leads to a range of anomalies which the various viewpoints of the original scheme illustrated. Virtually all photomontages illustrating the original scheme displayed some unwelcome elements of the types noted, suggesting that the landscape is not large or sweeping enough to contain the scale of development without creating confusing images, detracting from the discrete, modest role it plays in this medium landscape setting. As SNH suggest the site would benefit from a smaller, more cohesive development settled on a more simple topography, avoiding jumps across plantations. The revised scheme has sought to address this concern and, to some extent, has succeeded, with three less turbines, and a more compact and simple layout. There are some spacing and stacking issues, but the scheme has a more balanced composition than before.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 34 Item No 5 (a)
Nonetheless, the height of the turbines remains the same at 126.5m and this issue, and the scale of development, remain concerns.
In terms of effects on the Westruther Platform Landscape Character Area, more distant impressions of the site allow the development to sit more comfortably in the landscape, but the scale of the development remains a concern. The WP LCA is one of 5 within the Rolling Farmland Landscape Character Type. There are no other wind farms in the LCA now and, aside from Whitton, which is pending decision, there are no other wind farms within this landscape type in the Borders. The BLCA does note that the landscape type is rather diverse, however. The ES suggests that there would be no direct effect on the key characteristics of the LCA. Ultimately, this is a questionable conclusion. Though the development will form a relatively small component of the LCA., and it is not likely to dominate the LCA to an extent that it becomes a wind farm landscape, the scale of the development, leading to much of the LCA having a theoretical visibility of the wind turbines, will lead to a significant effect on its understated character.
The LCA itself is surrounded by other landscape types, including Upland, Upland Fringes and Lowlands. Its rather incidental, transitional role is a key characteristic of its relatively low key topography and lack of distinctive features. A key issue is its external visibility to and from other landscape types. The ES considers that effects on surrounding landscape character within 10k of the site will not be significant, though it acknowledges potential cumulative effects (discussed later). Of concern to this department, however, is the intrusion of the wind farm into the key view from the Twin Law Cairns within the Lammermuir Plateau LCA towards the Eildon Hills; the breach of the skyline viewed from the west, overtopping the skyline that frames the valley along the Leader Water, and the intrusion of the wind farm into the view from Scott’s View. These impacts are of varying degrees of harm, however, the wind farm will render what is an incidental, discrete farmland landscape a much more prominent component in a way which detracts, to varying degrees, from the setting and views from these surrounding landscape character areas. These impacts are a product of a combination of the external visibility of the site and the scale of the development when seen against its surrounding landscape.
In terms of landscape designations the nearest National Park is Northumberland National Park which should be unaffected given its distance from the site. The nearest national designation is the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area, 6.5k to the south, its key qualities include the distinctive triad of the Eildon Hills, spectacular views from the summits and Scott’s View. The wind farm would, as noted above, directly intrude and compete with the landscape contribution of the Eildons, and detract, somewhat, from the view from Scott’s View. Views from the Eildons themselves are, as SNH suggest, of such wide panorama that the wind farm can be accommodated in the view. It is a material consideration that SNH have not objected regarding the impact of the development on the integrity of the NSA, albeit they draw particular attention to the impact on the view from Twin Law Cairns and the appreciation of the NSA from that viewpoint.
To the north, a key landscape designation is the Lammermuir Hills AGLV, now a Special Landscape Area. It is accepted that, as the ES concludes, there would be no significant effects on the contrast of the Uplands with the lowlands, nor on the spaciousness, scale and openness of the designation itself, However, the view from Twin Law Cairns must again be referenced as a particularly objectionable intrusion into the quality of the designated landscape and its interaction with the National Scenic Area.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 35 Item No 5 (a)
It is noted that the reduction of the scale of the development, from 12 to 9 turbines, will reduce these concerns somewhat, but not fundamentally, since the scale of the turbines remains, and nine 126.5m high turbines within this landscape will still lead to the significant intrusions noted above. It is also noted that the design of the scheme has been adjusted as part of the EIA process, and since, to try to overcome these concerns. Providing the turbines with a pale grey, semi-matt finish, will help reduce their impact, though this will not overcome concerns regarding the landscape impacts noted above.
Other elements with potential to detract from the qualities of the landscape include an anemometer mast, tracks, substation, construction compound and borrow pit.
Anemometer mast
The mast would be a significant feature, but would be viewed alongside the turbines, set well within the site. A final specification will be required as the proposal is described as ‘typical.
Tracks
The access tracks largely follow field boundaries, respecting the geometric pattern of the fields. They are likely to have relatively localised impacts on the landscape, due to topography, and the revised scheme has removed a section at the westerly end of the site. The tracks would be typically 5m wide, though increasing at corners, junctions and passing places, up to 13m at the bends. A more detailed plan is required, with the aim of reducing any wide areas, as is confirmation of the surfacing material, which is noted as likely to be of compacted stone. The tracks would be visible alongside the A6089, but avoid the higher undulations alongside it, avoiding trees and set partly behind conifer plantations. Field boundaries would be broken in several areas, though if no borrow pit is required, the field boundary breaks to the south of the field containing the entrance will not be necessary and a condition can require an alternative scheme if the borrow pit is not required. The scale of the plan is too small to be clear on how field breaks will be treated, though the ES states that they would be gated or cattle gridded as required and any routes would be neatly finished and repaired/replanted over their length. There is also the potential to use existing openings. The associated crossing points would be well away from public view.
The access junction would be at a relatively low point in the road and the revised scheme includes a wide radii, bituminous junction detail, and gateway, with the fence and gates designed to tie in with existing boundaries. The overrun area would be finished in grasscrete or similar. Conditions would be necessary to secure details of fencing and gates and a sample of the overrun material.
The SEI states that surface vegetation along the tracks (reducing the width of the tracks, and other areas of hardstanding), would be allowed to reinstate and that a condition will be accepted requiring such downgrading following completion of construction works.
Substation
This would be located behind woodland, alongside field boundaries. A typical design has been included in the application, though a full design will be needed. The siting is agreeable, and though it relies on woodland screening to an extent, the applicant advises that this will not be removed for the life of the consent.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 36 Item No 5 (a)
Cables
Electricity cables would be trenched alongside tracks. Grid connections are matters for the Electricity (Scotland) Act though the ES suggests several locations for connections to the national grid are to be investigated. The site is not remote so there is no reason why grid connections cannot be sympathetically achieved.
Borrow pit
The borrow pit would be on the side of a relatively small rise in the topography amongst other undulations. It is potentially visible from the Corbise-Legerwood Road and A6089. Its temporary status will be a mitigating factor, however. The ES offers options for its restoration as being full or partial, the latter including a water body. The latter would be a rather incongruous feature in this landscape, and full restoration is more appropriate, with the excavations backfilled. A detailed scheme is required showing pre and post construction contours, depth and lateral extent, including consideration of the design to minimise landscape impact, as well as a detailed scheme of post construction restoration and a timescale for the same. A condition requiring no micro siting closer to the public roads is advisable unless no unacceptable landscape, visual or amenity implications will result. A construction method statement can seek the optimum arrangement for spoil storage etc.
Construction Compound
The compound would be sited behind woodland and would be a temporary feature. Following construction, the compound would be removed so its landscape implications will be minimal.
Decommissioning
A decommissioning scheme should require removal of all turbines and transformers, mast, substation and crane pads. Turbine bases could be left to avoid damage through removal, though this leaves just a 2.5m radius of visible area of hardstanding which could be top soiled over. The access tracks and entrance area would be left on site for the farmer. The principle of this is agreeable, provided they are downgraded following construction, and some legs away from field boundaries may be unnecessary for agricultural use and their removal could be explored. A conditional consent requiring a decommissioning scheme and a bond to cover restoration would be recommended.
Cumulative Landscape Impact
At the time of this department’s assessment, the number of operational wind farms above 5MW within the Borders is 7, with 3 under construction, 1 approved, 3 with Scottish Ministers and 13 pending decision. Since the original ES, notable planning applications include Brunta Hill, Shaw Park, and significantly increasing pressure on the Berwickshire area, as well as Gilston to the north-west.
The ES is significantly comprehensive to make an assessment of the most significant impacts. The baseline is ever changing but the most significant impacts can be assessed based on the information available within the ES, SEI and Council records. The ES included a cumulative landscape assessment, including assessments of impacts on the character of the Landscape Character Area, surrounding areas and landscape designations.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 37 Item No 5 (a)
This would not be the first proposal within the Rolling Farmland Landscape Character Type – Whitton is currently being considered – though the diversity of the landscape character areas within it, and the distance involved, suggest this is not a significant issue in itself. The Westruther Platform Landscape Character Area has no other wind farms within it, so this would be the first. It would have no cumulative impacts with others at present. However, if the proposed 12 turbines at Brunta Hill were to be approved (subject to application 11/01444/FUL) and to a much lesser extent, a single turbine nearby at Bassendean, this would substantially increase the effect of wind turbines on the character of this LCA. Brunta Hill would just be on the edge of the LCA to the north (5.7k), but affecting the transition between upland and medium scale farmland landscapes. However, neither are consented schemes. While their contribution should be accounted for, their status in the planning system is unpredictable, and they need to be assessed on their own terms before establishing whether they are likely to become features of the landscape. In any case, both applications post-date the submission of the application for Corsbie Moor, and the issue of cumulative impact with Corsbie Moor is being considered as part of the assessment of those applications. In particular, the cumulative impact which Brunta Hill would introduce in following Corsbie Moor is a significant concern, and this department’s objections on this point have been raised with the applicants for Brunta Hill.
In terms of the wider landscape, a key feature here would be the introduction of a commercial wind farm into an otherwise wind farm free landscape, east of the A68, straying away from the groupings along the border with the Lothians and the corridor between the A7 and the A68, as well as the potentially emerging cluster to the northern edge of Berwickshire. Excluding Brunta Hill (which will be assessed by this department with this issue in mind), this site is relatively distant from other wind farms, so its coincident landscape impact is not a concern, but it would be the first of a possible spread of wind farms into new, more settled landscapes. It would further expose surrounding landscapes to views of commercial wind farms, in particular the Lammermuirs to the north. Our SPG recognises the role of ‘cluster and space’ and states concern with regard to the spread of wind farms, especially in views from the Lammermuirs and SNH note that, while not objecting, the strategic approach to wind farm locations needs some clarity. While the Council’s SPG does not, however, robustly require that the concept of ‘cluster and space’ be followed, the spread of commercial scale wind farms into more heavily populated, settled landscapes is an issue which this development has brought a great deal of attention to. The Lammermuirs would, in particular, have a key, so far unaffected view over farmland landscapes towards the Eildon Hills intruded upon by this wind farm, adding sequentially to the intrusions already brought about by others to the east, north, and west. The landscape implications of this development on views out from this landscape would be undesirable, and would to some extent establish a precedent for developing sites away from the upland landscapes desired by current policy.
Visual Impacts
Policy D4 requires consideration of visual effects on high sensitivity receptors including major tourist routes and important landscape viewpoints.
The ES has included ZTVs over 35k (with and without the potential screening effects of woodland) photomontages and wireframes. The extent of viewpoints has been criticised by some, though the selection of viewpoints for a wind farm application shall always be subject to criticism, since obtaining a snapshot, rather than an illustration of every possible view, is a central objective. Criticism is also applied to
Planning and Building Standards Committee 38 Item No 5 (a) the presentation of viewpoints within photomontages. However, it is for the viewer to use the images as a tool, ideally visiting the site, and caution must be exercised when viewing any image of a wind farm, or indeed any other, proposed development. Judgement needs to be made on the part of the viewer as to the reliability they should apply to the images. On both these matters, and following the submission of further presentations within the SEI for the revised scheme, this department would not raise any particular concerns and is not of the view that the selection, or presentation, of any of the images are particularly misleading when their role in the determination of the application is fully understood.
It is worth noting that, while Planning Advice Note 45 (now revoked) suggested that wind farms up to 2k would have a prominent impact, with those sited between 2-5k away relatively prominent, and those beyond only having an impact in clear visibility, this guidance is no longer a material consideration. Its successor, the Specific Advice Sheet Onshore Wind Turbines, reiterates guidance in the SPP that a 2k buffer be encouraged between wind farms and settlements which the Council’s SPG also refers to. It is clear that this is a rule of thumb, however, and breaching this is simply not sufficient in its own right to suggest that visual impacts will be unacceptably adverse. There is no universally accepted guidance on what constitutes an unacceptable visual impact from a wind farm and each case must be treated on its own merits. The Council’s SPG contains buffers to selected roads, strategic routes and viewpoints, and this development accords with these buffers, with the exception of some encroachment of the site extent on the A697 and A6089. However, as the SPG states, this is effectively a starting point, a positive one largely speaking, but a starting point nonetheless.
Having considered the visual exposure of the tracks, borrow pit and other ancillary works (some of which will be removed or restored following completion of the development), it is not considered that these will have unacceptable visual impacts on sensitive receptors. This assessment, therefore, focuses on the wind turbines.
Consideration of landscape impacts has already concluded that the height of the turbines, relative to the containment offered by surrounding hills, results in a significantly high degree of visibility within the 10-12k range, with a relatively high percentage of the area within that potentially experiencing some sort of visibility of the wind farm. The SEI identifies that there would be potential visibility across 72.2% of the area within 10k (reduced from 76.9% in the original scheme) and 61.6% within 5k (reduced from 69.9%) in the original scheme. While it is not enough to conclude that the exposure is sufficient to judge visual impact in its own right (the significance of the actual effects have to be considered) this represents a relatively high level of visibility when considering that this area is more populated than upland landscapes better suited to commercial wind farms.
Cumulative effects
Cumulative visual effects are considered with respect to the receptors below. As noted earlier, it is considered that the examination of cumulative assessment within the ES, and SEI, for the purposes of landscape and visual assessment, is sufficiently informed to allow for a conclusion to be drawn. The relationship of Brunta Hill, in particular, will be considered as part of that later application. The SEI has since included a later proposal at Shaw Park too. Most smaller schemes that are apparently missing have little relevance, those at Easter Howlaws have been considered with respect to impacts on Hume Castle in this department’s considerations, and two turbines at Whitslaid will increase the landscape effect of
Planning and Building Standards Committee 39 Item No 5 (a) turbines from across the Leader Water Valley, producing a clumsy landscape effect, rather than a significant visual one.
A number of ZTVs with the ES included a demonstration of cumulative visibility with other schemes. It is difficult to draw a firm conclusion from the various map illustrations, other than that Corsbie Moor would, as would be expected, overlap and extend visibility within this so far turbine free area, albeit one that is not theoretically free of visibility of turbines. Detailed consideration of this with respect to receptors is noted below.
Roads and recreational routes
This section considers the effect of the wind farm when in view – the sequential consequences are considered in the next section. There are a range of roads within 10k of the development that connect to the A68 with potential visibility of the wind farm, including the A697, A6105, A6089 and B6458 in particular. In terms of individual visual impacts, the ES accounts for consideration of impacts on local roads. The A68 is spared any considerable views, and a breach of the skyline to its east has been reduced following the revised scheme (as noted earlier), with exposure limited to relatively short sections, albeit the sweep of blades above the skyline, where visible, will be unfortunate. The views from the A6089 are likely to be particularly substantial, the road passing the site directly and having close and distant views potentially available for a significant portion of any journey from Kelso to the junction with the A697. The scale of the turbines and their scattering amongst conifer belts will be a major visual feature on this journey, with the turbines forming a significant feature in the landscape especially when directly passing the site. Views from the A697, B6458 and B6458 will offer omni-directional views of the wind farm. Other minor roads will also offer a range of views. The revised 9 turbine scheme has reduced exposure on the A68 further, with a more significant reduction on the A697 with its north-west section having no visibility at all until south of Wanton Walls. The variety of approaches along these roads will, to varying extents, be punctuated by trees and the views will often cross intervening landscapes, with woodland blocks and shelter belts, building groups and, generally, the roads take the traveller passed the wind farm at angles, rather than directly towards and through it (such as Dun Law for example). Opportunities to view the Eildons may be obscured in places, though the level of intrusion will be relatively fleeting.
The site’s positive characteristics (including, openness and field patterns, in particular, when passing on the A6089) do play a mitigating role, and the site’s relatively unremarkable contribution to the skyline does to. The receptor, whether they are a tourist, walker, cyclist or, most likely, a local resident, will experience a significant, and in some cases a very substantial new element in the landscape. However, it is not necessarily the case that the visual implications of this development need detract from the enjoyment of journeys on these roads to an unacceptable degree, despite its visibility in places. The limited, albeit regrettable, intrusion into views from the A68 (which could be reduced further with a smaller scheme), and relatively low sensitivity of other routes combined with the limited landscape contribution of this site to the experience of travellers, suggests the visual effect on road users, when the wind farm is visible, will not be unacceptable.
The ES has also assessed the visibility of the development to a range of strategic routes, including recognised routes such as the Southern Upland Way, Boarders Abbey Way, St Cuthbert’s Way, Sustrans cycle route and local paths and rights of way such as the Legerwood Farm Trail.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 40 Item No 5 (a)
Most of the strategic routes will not experience significant effects. Where they are located south within and beyond settlements, and views from the St Cuthbert’s Way/Roman Heritage Way coinciding with the Eildon Hills will experience the wind farm as part of the wider panorama. It is noted that SNH do not object to the visibility from the Eildons. However, the SUW passes the site to its west and north, effectively linking the Lammermuirs with the Eildons. The wind farm will breach the skyline when viewed from the west, which would be an unwelcome intrusion on the view of the skyline for walkers. This is a skyline which has so far, at this proximity, been safeguarded, though it is acknowledged that the wind farm may not be a dominant focus within views on travelling north or south on the SUW. More crucially, however, is the view from Twin Law Cairns and the section of the SUW which leads towards it. To reach this viewpoint and experience a turbine free landscape to the south towards the Eildons, as it currently is now, would be a very different experience following the introduction of this development where the wind turbines would scatter below the base of the silhouette of the Eildons, across settled landscapes. The individual impact (putting aside the sequential intrusion considered later) would be to disappoint the viewer, in this department’s view, undermining the appreciation of the southerly view towards this iconic viewpoint. Weather conditions will undoubtedly play a part in the level of intrusion this development would cause, but on a fair day, its impact would be considerably damaging to the quality of this view from this section of the SUW. The SEI identifies that sections along the SUW will be significantly affected to the north, between Scoured Rig and Edgarhope Wood with several clear opportunities to view the wind farm, though distance, landform and tree screening will be mitigating factors. This view from the northerly section incorporating the view from Twin Law Cairns is, however, not capable of being mitigated in this department’s view.
From local routes, including core or promoted paths and rights of way, including the Legerwood farm trail, it is somewhat inevitable that local paths around the site will have views, often significant ones, of the wind farm. Quite how damaging depends on the opinion of the viewer. In this case, the wind farm would be viewed from these routes to varying degrees within a relatively undistinguished landscape. It is not considered that visual exposure to these routes will have an unacceptable effect or overriding concern.
Cumulative visual impact on roads and recreational routes
Combined visibility seems to be of limited significance with respect to local roads within around 10k, given the distance to the closest existing/consented scheme is 11k (though Brunta Hill will clearly change this significantly, thus a matter to be considered as part of that application). The SEI includes an illustration of the roads identified within the Council’s SPG. It does not clearly illustrate how this development will contribute to wind farm exposure above the existing baseline. However, there will be cumulative visibility with Dun Law and Toddleburn on the A68, but from distance and any other views along the route will be intermittent. From other routes, including the A697, A6105, A6089 and B-class and other roads, there will be an increased level of exposure, though they all have theoretical visibility of wind farms now. The ES tends to refer to these as being in the far distance but, while the evidence is unclear, the confluence of several roads in such close proximity, with the nearest schemes being relatively distant, does suggest a high level of sequential exposure along these routes. A map within the SEI (5.65) illustrating the contribution of the wind farm to the nearest wind farms, including Long Park, Fallago Rig and Black Hill, suggests that Corsbie Moor will fill in a clear gap covering these roads. While, as noted above, the effect on drivers is not considered to be necessarily significantly
Planning and Building Standards Committee 41 Item No 5 (a)
negative in this case, the same exposure along the Sothern Upland Way requires particular consideration.
As regards the SUW, the SEI has examined the effects on the route itself, and the mapped illustration referred to in the preceding paragraph, demonstrates the potential contribution of this development to existing views from the route between Twin Law Cairns and the Eildon Hills. This very clear illustration of sequential effects suggests that effects will be limited to the route between Scoured Rig and Edgarhope Wood, intermittingly at Jeaniefeld and at Twin Law Cairns. The SEI suggests that wind farms will not be an overwhelming or dominant characteristic. Travelling from north-east to south-west, the map suggests intermittent theoretical visibility of Blackhill, before a firm view of Fallago Rig, Long Park will then be exposed. Corsbie Moor itself will not extend the period over which a walker would be exposed to wind farms but will introduce cumulative/successive visibility over potentially 7k with Fallago Rig, and over 12k with Long Park. Accounting for this existing baseline, this suggests that while the distance is a factor (the development will be further than 5k from the SUW along the route), and that walkers will not be new to wind farms, this scheme will introduce a close view of a wind farm to the east, combining visibility with Long Park to the west. Viewing the development to the south, will combine with a successive view of Fallago Rig to the north, and Black Hill to the north-east. In effect, this scheme will fill the gap, and complete the circle that the three existing wind farms along this section of the SUW already cover. This extension of wind farms into the wind farm free, smaller scale settled landscape to the south of the route, and extending over the skyline to its east, will introduce a new expansion of cumulative exposure to wind farms to walkers on the SUW.
Cumulative impacts on other recreational routes do not raise the same level of concern as that with respect to the impact on the SUW, given distance, relationships to other wind farms and sensitivity of the routes themselves.
Tourist Attractions and landscape viewpoints
The ES states that there are no tourist attractions within 5k, though Greenknowe Tower is 4.5k away, albeit with insufficient views given the screening available. Due to distance, enclosure by woodland and topography, there appear to be no likely significant effects on other potential tourist receptors such as Mellerstain House, Thirlestane Castle or Abbotsford House. The view from Smailholm Tower has raised some concern, as has that from Hume Castle. Distance and available panorama are factors in both cases, though the photomontages do illustrate the juxtaposition of the development with its host landscape in terms of scale. A key concern is, however, the view from Scott’s View. A viewer will experience the best of this viewpoint in the opposite direction, and the panorama available is not pristine. To view this development, a viewer would effectively be leaving the viewpoint itself. In terms of visual effect, the turbines would sit neatly in the valley framed by the relationship between Black Hill and Redpath Hill, and much will depend on favourable weather. The intrusion of the wind farm into this view is unfortunate however, and illustrative of the cumulative spread of turbines across different landscapes within the Borders though, in terms of its impact on the quality of the view itself, it should not have a considerable impact because of the factors above.
Concerns regarding the effects on Twin Law Cairns along the SUW are already noted above, with the exposure to this development combining with successive views, in particular, of Fallago Rig and Black Hill.
Cumulative impact on tourist attractions and landscape viewpoints
Planning and Building Standards Committee 42 Item No 5 (a)
The ES suggests possible significant cumulative effects on Twin Law Cairns, Lammer Law and Three Brethren, though the revised scheme has reduced the effect on the latter. It does not consider that the proposed development will be the significant wind farm in the views. Considering these landscape viewpoints, and others that may be significantly affected, it is not considered that cumulative effects are a significant concern, with the exception of the introduction of the wind farm into the open southerly view from Twin Law Cairns thus combining with successive views of wind farms to other sides. From the Eildons the development will be viewed alongside others in the background, as with Lammer Law and Three Brethern. The development will fill a gap in the view from Scott’s View, but in a less damaging way to that from Twin Law Cairns.
The SEI assessed impacts on tourist resources (including sites in the Council’s SPG that are listed by VisitScotland) within 12k to establish the extent to which important viewpoints would be exposed to wind farms. Nine sites currently have a theoretical visibility of existing wind farms within that distance, with a further 12 having potentially visibility of consented schemes, and Lauder Golf Course having a view of both. Thus 24% of tourist viewpoints have a potential view now. Corsbie Moor would expose sites to wind farms at Smailholm Tower and Greenknowe Tower (if trees are excluded), with combined/successive impacts on Hume Castle, Lauder Golf Course and Scott’s View. This represents 5% of the tourist resource, resulting in 26% of the tourist resource having a view of a wind farm as a result of the introduction of Corsbie Moor when combined with existing and consented schemes. This represents a relatively small additional extent of exposure of tourist attractions to wind farms as a whole.
Concerns are acknowledged regarding cumulative effects of the development on Hume Castle with two turbines at Easter Howlaws, though the effect of this is not considered unacceptable, given the scale of these turbines, and the distance to Corsbie Moor and panorama within which it would be viewed.
Settlements
In terms of settlements, beyond 10k and up to 20k, visibility is limited to potential exposure around Oxton, Greenlaw, part of Kelso, with potential visibility from Newtown St Boswells and Smailholm, though the distances involved would suggest the development would be an insignificant element in the overall surrounding landscape. In reality, built development will also significantly reduce any exposure. The central settlements, including Galashiels and Melrose, would appear not likely to experience any visual effects. The reduced 9 turbine scheme has reduced effects a little further, with turbine visibility removed from most of Newtown St Boswells.
Within 10k, Earlston should experience no visibility. The largest settlement with the most significant visual exposure is Lauder, though built development will significantly reduce any views and visibility is limited to when leaving the town when the turbines will breach the skyline.
Views from Westruther will be from around 5k along the narrow spread of the turbines and any exposure will not be significantly harmful. From within Gordon, visibility will be limited. To the west, views from the grouping at Nether Blainslie are possible, where the turbines will be seen to breach the skyline, though this is considered more of a landscape intrusion rather than, due to distance and intervening landscape features, an unacceptable visual effect on the settlement.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 43 Item No 5 (a)
The ES includes several ‘settlements’ which are at most groupings of houses Impacts on these are more limited to matters of residential amenity and are considered within the residential assessment below.
Residential properties
Obstruction or effect on view from a private property is not a material planning consideration, unless that view coincides with the public interest. It is not enough that the wind farm will be visible. To have an unacceptable effect on residential amenity requires that the development be overbearing or dominant such as to significantly effect the reasonable enjoyment of the property.
The ES included a detailed assessment of residential properties within 3k and identified a number within 3-5k. The updated assessment within the SEI for the revised scheme identifies 45 residential properties within 3k, and selected a further 20 within 3-5k for assessment (to provide an impression of the wider visual effects and not an assessment of every property) in addition to 15 ‘settlements’ or rather groups in some cases (which include some settlements considered above), including Kirkhill and Legerwood. A ZTV has been submitted which identifies theoretical visibility with and without screening from woodland. This includes further properties with potential views not covered in the residential assessment but it is not considered that there would be any properties where screening by woodland blocks would be the only, or most important, mitigating factor.
The original ES identified that there would be significant visual effects on 15 properties, though this could be interpreted as being undercounted. In any case, the revised application identifies a reduced effect, with 7 groups of properties likely to experience significant effects – including Brownshall Lodge, the closest residential property at 947m from the nearest turbine; Corsbie Farm Cottages, Hyndesidehill, Corsbie Farm Cottage), Corsbie bungalow, Pyatfield, Bassendean Farm, in addition to the southern edge of a grouping at Blythe and Houndslow. However, it identifies no significant effects at Langrigs (adjacent Brownshall at 978m), Legerwood or Kirkhill and considers that, while there may be significant visual effects on residential properties identified, these are not effects on overall visual amenity by way of overshadowing, visual domination or oppressiveness.
Brownshall Lodge is located alongside Langrigs on the opposite side of the A6089. Both are set behind trees though Brownshall has a more open outlook. The nearest turbines are offset to the south-west and deletion of the turbines from the south- easterly aspect of these properties as part of the evolution of the design of the scheme has made a considerable difference to the likely level of intrusion. The orientation of the houses away from the turbines, with all ancillary works also set away from any direct views, and accounting for screening within the gardens of both houses (over which both households have control) lead this department to conclude that visual effects will not be unacceptably overbearing or dominant.
Corsbie to the north-east comprises several houses in a dispersed arrangement. The turbines would be to the north-west and west of this group. Given the orientation of the buildings, the existence of the farm steading which intervenes in views from some, the wide open, relatively gently sloping farmland and low skyline beyond which the turbines would be placed, combine to suggest that the houses here will not be significantly affected in terms of amenity loss.
Legerwood is an irregular grouping of houses, alongside farm buildings, that largely sits to the north of the public road, though with some dispersal around the crossroads
Planning and Building Standards Committee 44 Item No 5 (a) to the north-easterly end. Many of the properties have south/south-easterly aspects, set against mature planting and with the farm steading located between them and the wind farm. The landform will play a part in reducing impacts, with How Law’s lower slopes extending across the north side of the group. Under the revised scheme, the closest turbine is 1.4k, with the turbines moved away to the north-east from the original proposal. The revised assessment is sufficiently conclusive to make a judgement and identifies no views or slight effects. For reasons of distance, aspects, planting and other building screening effects, and intervening hillside, the revised scheme suggests no unacceptable harm to amenity.
Kirkhill comprises a number of traditional and modern houses on the south side of the Corsbie Road, The string of wind turbines would form a generally linear pattern across the skyline when viewed from these properties. However, the intervening hillside will play a significant role in providing a buffer to reduce any views that may be perceived as overbearing. The reduced scheme has reduced the extent to which turbines will breach the skyline. The turbines will not have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of properties to the south-west of the group as much as those to the north-east, including Howlaw, 3 Springs Cottage, Kirkhill and Park house. Those to the south-west will have a less direct outlook towards the site. Those four to the north-east will also benefit from an open outlook in the opposite direction. Ultimately, this department would acknowledge the visual intrusion involved, but does not consider the effect to be sufficiently overbearing as to be unacceptable because of these mitigating factors.
Some of the more expansive views will be from properties to the north and north- west, including Hyndesidehill, Blythe, Whiteburn grouping, within Pyatshaw, Dods and include some likely breaches of views towards the Eildons. Viewpoint illustrates a significantly expansive view from Blythe. From Blythe, the extent of impact has been reduced in the revised scheme. From Hyndesidehill, a view framed by woodland would allow for a view of the narrow corridor of the wind farm. Views from these properties are not considered likely to be close and/or direct enough to be overbearing or dominant, albeit the wind farm will clearly intrude on views from them. From others, including Pyatfield, Bassendean and Houndslow, distances, topography and screening, as well as the aspects from properties, will all play a role in suggesting that significant visual effects may not, where they are predicted to occur, lead to unacceptable intrusions on amenity.
Accounting for these properties, others identified within the ES and SEI, and those not specifically referred to it, it is not considered that there is sufficient justification to refuse the application on the basis of harm to residential amenity.
Cumulative effects on settlements and residential properties
In terms of settlements, the ES suggests there will be significant cumulative effects at Westruther and other groups defined in the ES as ‘settlements’ including Blythe, Houndslow and West Morriston.
There is a concern amongst many consultees and objectors that the Lauderdale area will feel surrounded by wind farms, but that does not necessarily manifest itself in actual significant effects because Corsbie Moor is detached from all existing sites by at least 11k. Brunta Hill will change that effect quite considerably if permitted to proceed along with Corsbie Moor, and that is a matter being considered as part of that application. The SEI does illustrate, in illustration 5.65, how Corsbie Moor will plug a gap in significant views within 10k, circled by Long Park, Fallago Rig and Black Hill, though the significance of cumulative effects are less apparent. Combined
Planning and Building Standards Committee 45 Item No 5 (a)
visibility on settlements including Lauder, Westruther, Nether Blainslie, Gordon and Earlston do not suggest significantly adverse impacts.
Within building groups and single properties, the issue is more a matter of impact on residential amenity, in terms of whether the cumulative effects would be overbearing or dominant. It is not considered that there would be cumulative effects with operational and consented wind farms in these regards that would substantially undermine residential amenity. The introduction of Shaw Park will not add significantly to the baseline. The single turbine at Bassendean may do locally, as certainly will the proposal at Brunta Hill, but these later applications will be judged on the effect of their combination with Corsbie Moor as part of their respective determinations. The issue of cumulative residential impact is a key concern which has already been raised with the applicants for Brunta Hill.
Cultural Heritage
Direct
There are no national or local designated features within the site or within a 1k study area around the site boundary. There are 39 previously recorded non-designated features within the study area, based on the Historic Environment Record and 35 based on the RCAHMS, with duplication between the two sources, and representing all periods from the Mesolithic onwards. There are three known sites within the application site itself, comprising ridge and furrow earthworks, an unidentified earthwork and a clay spenderwhorl and flint arrowhead. Black Boon Dyke has points outside the site to both north and south. Aerial photos also show a number of features of interest, including characteristic earthworks of ridge and furrow cultivation. A walkover survey identified 80 features of interest, mainly cairns or piles of stone, though none in a prominent location and most likely of modern date. Ultimately, the survey suggests the landscape can be defined by its 19th Century enclosure and subsequent improvement containing generally plough-damaged, relict elements of the medieval landscape. Though there is no clear evidence of activity which predates the enclosure period, the ES recognises the possibility that such features may be present.
The ES suggests that the layout has avoided areas of higher interest to the west and east. It suggests that micro-siting may provide scope to avoid any important assets that may still be identified and the same approach is used to carefully site turbines relative to known features. Where direct impacts are unavoidable (such as the possible route of the Black Boon Dyke and ridge and furrow areas), losses would be relatively small and can be compensated for by recording before disturbance. A Written Scheme of Investigation is offered to allow for agreement between the developers and the Planning Authority on an appropriate mitigation strategy along these lines, reflecting the ES’s conclusions that overall effects on the archaeological resource, which is of likely local interest only and future finds of greater significance are unlikely, will not be significant.
Historic Scotland has made no comment, given the absence of national designations and the likely local significance of the finds so far. This department’s Archaeology Officer endorses the conclusions, considering that effects would be on assets of local significance. His view that structured archaeological investigation, and mitigation through avoidance and recording, mirrors the conclusions of the ES. The reduction of the development to 9 turbines has reduced the potential effects further, though the mitigation measures are still required.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 46 Item No 5 (a)
Indirect
The ES has examined potential effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets within 5k and on those of most significance within a wider 5-10k range. This scope is considered reasonable and it is noted that Historic Scotland (whose interest lies in nationally important designations) consider the ES clear, comprehensive and with sufficient information to come to a view.
Scheduled Monuments
Within 5k are 13 Scheduled Monuments, including Knock Hill at 1.9k from the site, which has also been subject to a particularly detailed examination of the effects of the development on its setting. Its setting is defined by its location on the locally prominent summit of Knock Hill, south of the site, and extensive (though slightly constrained) views. The hilltop is prominent in all directions, with the fort identifiable in closer views. There is intervisibility with assets at Blythe and Old Thirlestane, though these are considered to contribute to, rather than being defining characteristics of its setting as there is no evidence of a functional relationship or contemporaneous occupation. The wind farm will be clearly visible from the fort and prominently so, though judged in the ES to be in a different landscape context. In most views towards the monument, turbines will be in oblique view or behind and in all would be spatially separated, and as background in more distant views. The ES considers them peripheral elements in views from the monument, including towards Corsbie Tower. Intervention in views to related monuments at Blythe and Old Thirlestane will not prevent appreciation of these features. Ultimately, it considers that despite the significant visibility of the turbines, it will not affect the fort’s setting, not its appreciation of its prominent location. The reduction to 9 turbines has further reduced impacts.
Another key Scheduled Monument is Corsbie Tower, at 1.6k, and south-west of Knock Hill fort, on a prominent mound within farmland with key views from within the Eden Valley and Corsbie-Legerwood road. Its juxtaposition with Knock Hill is another key element. Visibility from what are considered minor views, with key views of the monument from the Corsbie road not affected, nor its intervisibility with Knock Hill leads to a conclusion in the ES that no significant effects would occur.
Other SMs within the 5k range include a group related either by chronological or thematic links to the north-west of the site, and the wind farm’s most significant impact will be on the intervisibility between these and Knock Hill. From the sites, the wind farm will punctuate views of Knock Hill but not remove them, and will not encroach on interplays between these monuments. The reduction in size of the scheme has again further reduced potential impacts.
Our Archaeology Officer considers that the development will have more than a low impact, with intervisibility between Knock Hill and other contemporary monuments likely to have an affect on interpretation of how they are connected and on the experience of the monument. Historic Scotland appear to have a similar view that the ES has underestimated the significance of the impacts on Knock Hill, but are content that they are not so significant as to warrant an objection. As for Corsbie Tower, they appear content with the ES’s conclusion that significant impacts will not occur. Overall, it is clear that there are concerns amongst these consultees that introducing the wind farm into the landscape in front of these defensive structures and between them and other such sites, will dilute appreciation of how they relate to their surroundings. Our Archaeology Officer suggests appropriate mitigation would be to enhance understanding including improved access and interpretation, promotion and
Planning and Building Standards Committee 47 Item No 5 (a) education of these monuments. This approach would be to some benefit to the public’s understanding of these sites. A condition, or potentially a legal agreement (depending on the scope of this mitigation and whether the involvement of other landowners and other parties is needed), would appear to be sufficient to overcome the impact of the development on these sites.
Further information in the SEI of the effect on Greenknowe Tower (4.5k) a SM, Category A Listed Building, and Historic Scotland Property in Care, suggests no significant effect and, again, Historic Scotland raise no concern. There are no significant effects predicted for other SMs within the 5k area, and our key consultees do not raise any concerns to the contrary.
Outwith 5k are 33 SMs, and no significant effects are anticipated into the ES. Of note are Hume Castle (also a Category A Listed Building) and Black Hill (11k and 8k respectively). The turbines are described as distant background elements in views from the former, though visual impact on this site do raise some concerns, and the turbines will breach the skyline. Historic Scotland has not raised concerns regarding the setting of the castle, and the distance suggests that the turbines will be a visible, but not dominant element in the view. In terms of Black Hill, which is on a distinctive hill north of Scott’s View, turbines will be visible from the fort at 7.5-9.5k and intervene in distant views to the group of monuments to the north-west of the site, though the monuments themselves are visible only by identifying the hills on which they are located. Views in all other directions won’t be affected. Historic Scotland is content to agree that impacts are not likely to be significant. Smailholm Tower (also a Category A Listed Building) is just outside the study range with visual impact from 11k not significant enough to detract from its historic setting.
Listed Buildings
Within 5k are 25 Listed Buildings, comprising 37 structures. Aside from Greenknowe Tower, all are B or Cs Listed, of regional or local importance, seven with no views of the original 12 turbine scheme. Distance, constrained views, including by topography and woodland, and tightly defined landscape settings in a number of cases, suggests that the conclusion of the ES that no significant effects will occur on views to or from assets beyond 3k is reasonable.
The nearest Listed Building is the Category B Listed Legerwood Church and churchyard. The ES considers that landform and buildings will constrain views and any visibility will be limited to glimpsed views. Principal views are unlikely to be affected. The Church is accessed by a gap between roadside buildings. The turbines would be behind the intervening hill, in peripheral views, and the church is tucked behind other buildings with a narrow gap between them and the road. It is considered reasonable to conclude that the development will not significantly affect its setting, and it is not considered fair to assume that its setting will be dominated by the wind farm.
Other Listed Buildings of note within the 5k range including the Category B Listed Corsbie Farmhouse, set within mature planted grounds 1.4k to the south-east and Bassendean House and Bassendean Church, both B Listed, 2.5k to the east. The farmhouse is set in mature grounds and views from and of it will not be significantly intruded upon by the development. Bassendean House benefits from mature planted grounds. The Church has a more open setting, and turbines will be coincident in views of it from the east. It is considered that, applying the relative significant of these buildings, the tightly defined setting of the first two, and the distance and openness
Planning and Building Standards Committee 48 Item No 5 (a) retained for the church, any effects are not significant enough to be of overriding concern.
Listed Buildings beyond 5k include Hume Castle, Thirlestane Castle and Mellerstain House, all Category A Listed. Effects on Hume Castle have been considered under the Scheduled Monument section above. No views are anticipated from Mellerstain House, and from Thirlestane Castle views will be restricted and not from the principal elevations.
Gardens and Designed Landscapes
Thirlestane and Mellerstain GDLs just overlap the 5k study area. Thirlestane's enclosed planting is not considered to be designed for views outward and views out will be constrained by landform and planting. The wind farm should have no significant effects on views of it from beyond. Mellerstain will have no views from its central core, with views limited to the northern periphery. It is noted that in neither case do Historic Scotland raise any concerns.
Conservation Areas
There are no Conservation Areas within 5k, though Lauder Conservation Area is the closest at 5.5k. The ES suggests that views out are constrained by modern development, and the turbines are unlikely to be visible from views of or from the designation. It is agreed that the development will have no real impact on views of the designation, views on leaving to the south are possible, but the wind turbines will just breach the skyline and the resulting effect will not be to seriously harm the integrity of the Conservation Area.
Non-designated Landscapes
The ES examined effects on non-designated assets, including historic and palimpsest landscapes. Effects on the former raise no concerns with our Archaeology Officer given that their contribution appears more of detailed archaeological interest rather than their relationship to the landscape. In terms of landscapes, a combination of historic agricultural changes, and the limited effect of the footprint of the development, has again not generated concerns.
Cumulative impacts
Accounting for key wind farms, existing, consented and planned, no significant effects are anticipated cumulatively with respect to designated or non-designated cultural heritage assets. Key issues would be the potential for Corsbie Moor to interact with sites such as Long Park, Fallago Rig, Rowantree, Bassendean, with cognisance taken of the potential additional scheme at Brunta Hill and consideration of small/medium scale turbines where relevant. However, distances, different landscape contexts, and limited opportunities for significant coincident or sequential views, do not lead to significant concerns that important cultural heritage sites assessed individually within the ES including those considered above in this report would be unacceptably affected by the cumulative impact of this particular development.
Noise
Structure Plan Policy I20 and Local Plan Policy D4 require that noise impacts be considered. The ES includes assessments of noise effects during the construction
Planning and Building Standards Committee 49 Item No 5 (a) and operational stages. No assessment has been undertaken of the decommissioning stage as predicted impacts would be less than at the construction stage. This is accepted as an appropriate scope.
Construction Noise
In terms of construction noise, an assessment was carried out based on predictions from construction plant used in other wind farm developments, as the actual plant for the development itself has yet to be established. The assessment includes workings on the borrow pit and was made with reference to the nearest affected property, Brownshall Lodge. The assessment suggests that noise impacts will be below minimum guidelines in BS5228:09 and so no significant effects are anticipated. By way of mitigation, the ES identifies several measures, including restrictions on working hours (7-7 Monday to Friday, 7-12 Saturday, and no working on Sunday, unless otherwise approved); ensuring construction activities comply with BS5228:09; training employees to limit noise effects of workings; choice and maintenance of equipment; and, registration with the Considerate Constructors scheme.
As part of the assessment, construction traffic has also been assessed and the ES identifies that impacts are expected to be at their maximum when concrete foundations are poured over a period of 9 days (12 days in the original 12 turbine layout, reduced to 9 for the revised scheme). Applying relevant guidance, the ES contends that changes in traffic noise will be minor and its temporary effect would lead to no significant effects. Mitigation is identified in the ES which states that HGV operations will be within the approved working hours unless otherwise agreed. It is noted that the time periods stated in the ES are ambiguous and not corrected in the SEI, with different times stated for working and construction traffic activity, though a clear planning condition can secure unambiguous periods of both working hours and construction traffic activity.
Overall, the scope and outcome of the construction stage assessment is considered to demonstrate that, with the mitigation measures in place, noise effects will not be significant, and the schedule of conditions can apply these as obligations on the developers.
Operational Noise
In terms of operational noise, it is noted that the Scottish Government’s advice note, Onshore Wind Turbines specifically states that ETSU-R-97 should be used for the assessment of noise from wind farms “until such time as an update is available”. Our SPG also refers to the ETSU report. It is acknowledged that concerns are raised over ETSU being outdated, and concerns exist regarding health effects from stress caused by sleep deprivation, however, this is the accepted model for assessment of wind farms guided by these key advice notes.
Preliminary modelling of the development within the ES suggested that background levels would be required in order to establish the noise effects of the development against ETSU. Monitoring at 9 residential properties was then undertaken. ETSU suggests that noise should be limited to 5dB(A) above background levels (or, in low noise environments, above a lower fixed level of 35-40dB(A)) and above a lower fixed night-time level of 43dB(A). An increase of the lower fixed limit to 45dB(A) is possible for both day and night-time periods for properties where the occupier has a financial interest in the development. There is no requirement to apply a limit of 35dB(A) for all surrounding properties as ETSU make this recommendation applicable only to single turbines or wind farms with a very large separation distance
Planning and Building Standards Committee 50 Item No 5 (a) between it and neighbouring properties and applied only in the absence of any background noise surveys. Background noise surveys were undertaken here so the levels should relate to the ‘additional 5dB(A) above background’ limits. Where objectors challenge the background noise levels in the ES, this has not been backed up by clear contradictory evidence.
The assessment within the ES, which was based on worst-case outcomes at a range of wind speeds for a number of similarly scaled turbines, suggested that, for the 12 turbine scheme, for both day and night-time, the ETSU limits would be consistently met. Any turbines selected for the development will need to then comply with the limits, including penalties for tonal noise, though a range of commercially available turbines are noted as being available. A cumulative assessment with Brunta Hill also suggested no breaches. The Council’s Environmental Health Service raised no concerns, specifying only the requirement for a condition applying the ETSU limits and for ongoing monitoring.
The revised 9 turbine scheme was similarly assessed and all predictions are well below the ETSU limits, including cumulatively with Brunta Hill and the single turbine at Bassendean. Though the EHS queries the use of a higher ‘lower fixed limit’ of 40dB for the cumulative assessment, even accounting for this, the predicted levels are well below. Other challenges to the predictions from concerned residents, while understandable, do not affect the predicted compliance of the scheme with the ETSU limits.
It is acknowledged that concerns are raised that setting noise limits required by ETSU has led to unresolved complaints at other wind farms. This department’s Enforcement Service is investigating complaints at Toddleburn and Long Park and no outcome has been reached which can aid the determination of this application.
The ES also relies on previously published material which suggests that low frequency noise is not a potential problem for wind farms. Similarly it claims compliance with ETSU will account for aerodynamic modulation. ETSU is, as noted above, the method against which Planning Authorities are required to assess noise impacts and the development is capable of complying with it. It is specifically noted in Onshore Wind Turbines and our SPG that a report by Salford University on AM suggested no health effects from ultrasound or low frequency noise. While it is a matter that is to be kept under review, there is no scope to require that this particular development be subject to further consideration of the matter given the basis of current policy advice.
Telecommunications and infrastructure
A National Grid Major Accident Hazard Pipeline crosses the site and a small gas pumping station is located to the north-west. The ES notes that the nearest turbine, under the original scheme, was 160m from the pipeline and that this exceeds the National Grid’s buffer requirement. It notes that any road crossings over it will need to be to the operator’s specification, as will cable crossings, that trial holes be dug before any mechanical excavation is used, and that the work is supervised by the operator. National Grid’s comments on the application do not suggest there is a conflict, though they do state that they have a Deed of Grant of Easement which effectively prevents any work within an easement strip of the pipeline unless to their specification, and that legal action can be taken to enforce it. Where there is a legal remedy such as this to prevent damage to a utility, this is effectively a matter that requires no planning remedy. Crossings do not appear to have any significant visual or other planning consequences, and meeting the operator’s specification is only a
Planning and Building Standards Committee 51 Item No 5 (a) planning matter if the works are materially different to those proposed within this application. The revised 9 turbine scheme has resulted in the buffer apparently being maintained with the track over the pipeline deleted. Local Plan Policy Inf9 does require that the health and safety risks associated with development within a specified distance of a hazardous pipeline be established and, in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive (via its ‘self-service Padhi+ system for works within the consultation distance), neither the original 12 turbine scheme nor the 9 turbine scheme resulted in an objection.
In terms of telecommunications, a BT geo fibre optic cable crosses the site. The ES states that the management company seek as few crossings as possible and that these should be in accordance with guidance for crossing a gas pipeline, with prior warning and on-site staff presence. Again, though a constraint on the developer, and the development accounts for it, potential direct damage to the infrastructure is not a planning matter. The crossing is not now apparently required under the 9 turbine scheme. Similarly, though Cable and Wireless PLC also request a buffer with respect to their link that crosses the site, this is again a matter for the developer to address and the buffer is maintained according to the SEI on the revised 9-turbine scheme in any case. A micro-siting allowance within a planning condition would be prudent to allow for negotiation of underground infrastructure.
Indirect impacts on telecommunications are a matter more relevant to this application where their interference should be avoided in the public interest and where the provider of the service cannot directly prevent interference on other legal grounds. This could include television and radio reception and, increasingly, mobile phone reception. It is noted that Ofcom did not respond to the consultation on this application.
In terms of mobile phones, the ES states that several operators advised there would be no effects, had no objection or did not respond. In terms of radio, the Joint Radio Company (which manages the radio spectrum for a range of companies) does not foresee any problem. In terms of FM radio services, the SEI quotes an Ofcom report which suggests that the lower frequency of FM radio means it is less liable to adverse effects than television receptions. Strong signal reflections can reduce FM reception quality, whereas digital radio is not so affected. Both FM and digital services can be affected where signals are blocked so they fall below a certain threshold. On this basis, it suggests adverse effects on FM services are unlikely and effects on CB radio as minimal.
As regards television reception, the ES states that the BBC’s wind farm tool suggested that 49 houses could be affected off the Selkirk transmitter as a result of the original 12 turbine scheme. Television can be affected by shadowing or reflection/scattering up to 5km. The ES states that the interaction of interference mechanism can be complex and difficult to predict. According to it, the BBC’s advice is to keep turbines at least 500m away, whereas the nearest turbine here is well beyond that. Thus, it claims it unlikely that the development will affect as many as the BBC wind farm tool has scoped for. As television within the Borders is digitised, impacts should be even less. The applicant will accept a condition to assess television signals before development starts and mitigate post development problems if directly attributable to the wind farm. This is a common solution for wind farm developments and a scheme can be required by condition. Whether residents want to accept any mitigation offered will be a matter for each household.
Ecology
Planning and Building Standards Committee 52 Item No 5 (a)
The site itself is not statutorily designated for its nature conservation interest, nor are there any designations within a 2k buffer around the site. However, as noted in the Hydrology section, there are watercourses within and adjacent it (most notably Eden Burn, Dowiedean Burn and Whiteburn) all leading to the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation/Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Eden Burn itself is part of the Tweed River SSSI. Gordon Moss SSSI, 3.5k to the south east, has no connection with the site and has been scoped out. Other sites which are of ecological interest, albeit not statutorily designated, have also been assessed.
The assessment has included a Phase 1 Habitat survey, otter, water vole, bats and badger surveys, as well as salmanoid habitat potential and consideration of the potential for other species, including red squirrel. No evidence was ultimately found of the latter or of Great Crested Newt. Detailed reptile or botanical surveys were deemed unnecessary. In response to our Ecology Officer’s query, potential for Great Crested Newt habitat was assessed but of those sites with potential, neither were deemed suitable, and our Ecology Officer is content.
The Phase 1 Habitat survey assesses the site as mainly comprising improved agricultural land and improved grassland of minimal ecological interest, and aside from its watercourses, otherwise principally comprises plantation woodlands, with some nature tree lines. The otter survey revealed no signs, though there is potential for holt building and rest area habitat along more densely vegetated areas and within woodlands. Most water courses have the potential for foraging and commuting otter and any significant interest is largely related to its status as one of the qualifying interests of the River Tweed SAC. No signs of water vole were found, albeit suitable habitat is in the Eden Burn and Dowiedean Burn, which also have some potentially suitable habitat for salmanoids.
The well connected foraging habitat via woodland edges, hedges, grasslands and watercourses provides good potential for bats, with mature trees and broadleaved woodland having high potential for roosting bats. During the bats surveys at least six species were recorded. The ES appraises the activity as being low overall and the survey results themselves as being typical of this type of site in the Borders.
Two badger setts were recorded, a 2-entrance active sett in the vicinity of the site and a 1 entrance sett to the south beyond the site boundary. The site is abundant with suitable habitat.
The ES identifies that design mitigation measures, and mitigation measures undertaken during construction, operation and decommissioning of the site would include:
x No development within 100m of a badger sett, preconstruction surveys and good practice measures during construction x Compliance with Natural England’s guidance TIN051 by keeping all turbines a minimum of 75m from bat habitat features, including trees and well used field boundaries (using the calculation of 50m from blade tip) x Keeping watercourse crossings to two, one of which follows an existing farm track, and designing and constructing them in accordance with SEPA guidance and with SNH guidance to maintain otter and fish passage x 10 and 20m buffers to watercourses and waterbodies, depending on their size, to minimise effects on watercourses within and downstream of the site, including the Tweed River SSSI Eden Burn and links to the River Tweed
Planning and Building Standards Committee 53 Item No 5 (a)
SAC/SSSI. These measures would also address non-statutory sites and Corsbie Bog Scottish Wildlife Trust site x No woodland clearance is proposed and, if trees are to be removed, this would be subject to agreement with the Council, and be carried out outwith bat activity and bird breeding seasons, and following assessment of bat roost potential by an Ecological Clerk of Works who will be employed to monitor the site’s development generally and a survey, if required, by a licensed bat surveyor followed by mitigation where necessary and licensing application(s). x Adherence to a Construction Method Statement, applying pollution prevention measures x Site drainage plan and surface water drainage scheme x Habitat losses are mainly associated with arable land and improved grassland and those areas subject to temporary loss will be reinstated as soon as possible after construction x Pre-construction surveys for otters, and a mitigation plan (and good practice measures to limit potential for impacts) and licensing applications if required x Presentation of any method statements, including the CMS and Protected Species protection measures to contractors x Agreement to a Habitat Management Plan x Post construction monitoring of impacts on bats to assess collision risk data x Operational impacts are considered to be limited, but maintenance would be undertaken outside watercourse buffers, with clearly designed working areas for maintenance, limited to the daytime, to minimise any impacts x A decommissioning plan to include mitigation measures based on legislation and guidance prevailing at the time
With these measures in place, the ES suggests that there would be no significant effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC, negligible effects on the SSSI’s and non-designated sites. It predicts negligible or low impacts on badgers, bats and otters, negligible habitat loss and negligible impacts from construction practices, operational and decommissioning works, and no impacts cumulatively with other wind farm sites.
In terms of the SAC, as noted in the Hydrology section, SNH have challenged the conclusion that Appropriate Assessment is not required due to the potential for significant effects to occur but their comments (and accounting for design measures in the wind farm layout itself) suggest that there impacts can be appropriately assessed as not being significant. Applying the construction mitigation measures, and decommissioning mitigation measures, will further reduce the potential for harm and planning conditions can secure these are implemented.
In terms of the River Tweed SSSI and Tweed River SSSI, SNH appear to agree with the view that effects will be negligible, and there are no dissenting views regarding impacts on non-statutorily designated sites from our Ecology Officer. Conditions can secure the mitigation measures.
As regards Protected Species, consultees appear to endorse the conclusion that works won’t affect badger setts. The SEI also identified negligible impact on badger habitat. Our Ecology Officer is content with the additional badger sett information that accompanied the SEI. Conditions can secure mitigation measures, including a 100m buffer for setts.
Effects of the development on bats appear to be accepted by consultees, and the SEI suggests collision risk is negligible to low. There is sufficient recorded unrest
Planning and Building Standards Committee 54 Item No 5 (a) regarding collision risk to warrant post-construction monitoring as the ES suggests, the frequency and scope of which will need agreed. A species protection plan can account for a suite of mitigation and preconstruction survey measures to minimise risks to bats, as well as to otters and badgers, and include controls over tree removal and tree-felling surveys for both bats and breeding birds.
Impacts on habitat loss generally do not raise any significant concern, and the reduction of the proposal to 9 turbines has reduced potential habitat loss further. A requirement for a Habitat Management Plan is readily endorsed to allow for enhancements.
Ultimately, the intrinsic ecological value of the site and the mitigation measures proposed, overseen by a Clerk of Works, should limit any significant damage to ecological interests within and connected to the site to an acceptable level.
Hydrology and geology
In terms of geology the ES assesses the site as being mainly cultivated arable land predominantly underlain with interbedded sandstones, mainly covered in a layer of glacial till (predominantly clays, sands and gravels). Any peat that may have existed has been substantially changed by agricultural activity.
Regarding hydrology, the site is considered unlikely to contain any significant groundwater resource due to its geology. However, the ES identified 8 private water supplies within 3k of which two are within the site, one serving the Roper House and Corsbie (PWS1) and one a livestock supply no longer in use. The route of the former has not been established for sure and its catchment is estimated to be within a marshy area to the north.
Watercourses include the Eden Burn, flowing eastwards through the site, and the Dowiedean Burn, both within the headwater catchment of the Eden Water, a tributary of the River Tweed SAC/SSSI (the Eden Burn is within the Tweed River SSSI). An area to the far north drains to a tributary of the Dowiedean Burn, the far west to an unnamed watercourse to the south, and a western area of the far north drains to the Whiteburn, both eventually draining to the Leader Water. The nearest major watercourse is the Leader Water 2.5k to the west, also a tributary of the River Tweed. There are no ponds within the site, though there are some springs.
The ES identifies potential risk from construction and decommissioning activities. Operational activities are scoped out and this is agreeable given that significant effects will likely occur as a result of disturbance of the site during the construction and decommissioning stages. No consultee has queried this scope.
As noted in the Ecology Section, the ES includes 10 and 20m buffers (depending on watercourse sizes) for all watercourses, springs, ditches and ponds, with development in 1:200 year flood risk areas avoided. The nearest turbine in the revised 9 turbine scheme would be 27m from the Eden Burn. A condition can secure no micro-siting occurs within these buffers. It is noted that SNH consider that mitigation measures will allow an Appropriate Assessment to establish that there will be no significant effect on the integrity of designated watercourses, including the River Tweed SAC (or its SSSI) and this department takes the same view.
Groundwater abstractions or groundwater-dependent eco systems will be safeguarded by a 100m buffer from roads, tracks, trenches and crane pads, and a 250m buffer would apply to borrow pits and turbine foundations. SEPA welcome the
Planning and Building Standards Committee 55 Item No 5 (a) buffers. It is noted that concerns are raised regarding the size of the 250m buffer, and that risks to private water supplies have not been adequately established. However, SEPA have regulatory responsibility for controlling pollution of the water environment and raise no concerns. The SEI notes that the nearest turbine in the revised scheme is some 500m away from PWS1, twice SEPA’s recommended buffer. In discussion with SEPA, this department understands that the recommended buffer is applied to abstraction locations and the calculation of catchment areas does not affect its size. Claims that PWS4 has been wrongly grid-referenced are acknowledged in the SEI but it also notes that no alternative location has been suggested and the location identified in the ES is that agreed with the landowner. Concerns regarding the relationship of turbine 3 to private water supplies has been addressed within the revised scheme since it is no longer proposed. Conditions can secure compliance with the buffers. Agricultural drains will also be identified and recorded, with method statements used to maintain systems.
In terms of private water supply pipework, the route of pipework for PWS1 is unknown for sure but estimated not to be at risk from foundations, albeit it would be crossed by the track under the original 12 turbine scheme. The ES includes an intention to identify, protect and possibly reroute and replace the pipework. Direct effects on other parties’ services, including damage are, however, private matters and it is up to the developers to address directly with owners of the land/pipework itself and is not a planning issue. However, it is prudent that some control is exercised to ensure continuity of supply to affected properties. Under the 9 turbine revised scheme it is no longer proposed that the supply be crossed, though since its exact location is not known, a scheme designed to ensure continuity of adequate supply to affected properties can be required by condition.
Concerns regarding the potential impact of the development on Pickie Moss are noted, though our Ecology Officer considers that there will be no direct impact on its habitat as a result of the development. Standard mitigation measures applied during construction should reduce any impacts from pollution run-off and sedimentation to a negligible level. The Dowiedean Burn drains east away from Pickie Moss.
Track extents and crossing points have been kept to a minimum and follow the site topography. Drainage measures during construction and within the design suggest no significant effects on groundwater or surface water as a result. Access tracks would have a crossfall and, where gradients are present, lateral drains will intercept any flow along the road. Swales will be used on permeable ground and ditches used on areas that aren’t. Filters will be used at suitable locations to filter silts out. Finalising and agreeing appropriate drainage measures could be a condition of consent. The design of watercourse crossings, which is to be a simple culvert design, can be agreed with SEPA under the Controlled Activities Regulations. Cables will be laid alongside tracks outside the buffers except at the crossing pints. Mitigation measures can be included in the drainage scheme as part of a CMS.
Good practice measures will be employed during construction of foundations and crane pads and surface water drainage measures used to maintain greenfield levels. These will need to be based on SUDs principles and a condition can require this, including consultation with our Flood Prevention Officer on the details.
The control building will include drainage measures and be located outside buffers, as will the construction compound the site of which will be reinstated following completion of works. The borrow pit will be outside the buffers and no significant effects are anticipated in the ES in terms of groundwater. SEPA require information on the location, size, nature, depth of flow and reinstated profile. It is up to the
Planning and Building Standards Committee 56 Item No 5 (a)
applicant to discuss the feasibility of reinstatement in terms of waste management issues with SEPA, or the CMS can cover waste management issues. The CMS can also include all necessary drainage measures. SEPA are also generally satisfied with the principle of subsoil disposal and other waste recycling/disposal measures, but require a specific site waste management plan, which can be sought by planning condition.
Environmental management measures will be employed to control possible spills and other risks to water sources during the construction works. SEPA seek an Environmental Management Plan and this can be sought by condition, effectively requiring that management of the site operates within their guidance, and include any necessary wheel washing measures, dust suppression measures and wash out for cement vehicles and cement slurry disposal within it or the CMS.
The SEI notes that water supply for drinking will be imported, water for wheel washing will be via a water butt/borehole, with more details to be provided as part of the details on the construction compound.
For all relevant mitigation measures, the decommissioning stage can require the same mitigation requirements by planning condition.
Ornithology
The ES identifies the key issues in this regard as disturbance, loss of habitat, displacement and collision risk and states that it has focussed on ‘target’ species in accordance with SNH guidance, including those bird species that are specifically protected (e.g. Schedule 1 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Annexe 1 Birds Directive, Red Listed Birds of Conservation Concern), or those that occur at the site in nationally or regionally important numbers. Surveys carried out included vantage point surveys over twelve months, winter walkovers and breeding bird territory mapping surveys. The surveys identified a range of species within the target species range, notably those with high conservation status (including Whooper Swan, Pink Footed Goose, Greylag Goose, Peregrine, Golden Plover and Barn Owl), as well as many with medium status, including Black Grouse.
The ES considers the site itself to be of low or negligible importance for each of the species of medium/high conservation status. It contends that construction effects will not have a significant effect as they will be short term. Mitigation measures will include keeping vegetation clearance outside the bird breeding season, and removing or making nests unsuitable outside the season.
In terms of operational effects, the ES contends that there will be little, if any effect on bird populations. Displacement can have different effects on different species and even on the same species in different sites. It states that impacts in this regard will be low. Collision risk was considered most significant with respect to target raptors and those species not particularly manoeuvrable in flight (e.g. geese and swans). Using collision risk modelling (which is not universally accepted as a means of prediction as it doesn’t account for avoidance measures that birds may take) it suggests collision levels for geese would undetectable against background mortality rates, and the effect would, therefore, be negligible. Effects on Golden Plover, Lapwing and Peregrine were also judged to be negligible. Significant effects on populations supported by designated sites, such as the River Tweed SAC/SSSI, are predicted to be unlikely. No collision risk assessment was carried out on Whopper Swan as only a single flight was recorded. Mitigation measures would include keeping all cables
Planning and Building Standards Committee 57 Item No 5 (a) underground and using a lattice type anemometer mast, rather than a guyed mast, to reduce the risk of collision.
Decommissioning effects, due to their temporary extent, are also judged to be insignificant, with similar mitigation measures as in the construction phase employed, including survey work beforehand.
The ES contends that cumulative effects cannot yet be assessed with the benefit of any firm guidance, though the assessment here of wind farms within 20k suggests it very unlikely there will be significant cumulative effects on any of the target species. The ES repeats the endorsement of a Habitat Management Plan to allow for habitat enhancements.
This department recognises that concerns are raised regarding the effects of the development on birds within public representations. Key consultees, including the RSPB and SNH, however, support the general conclusion of the ES and the approach taken to achieve it. The RSPB note that there are no important species or populations on the site, and the development is unlikely to represent a significant threat to species of conservation concern or large gatherings of common birds. The HMP is welcomed by all, including our Ecology Officer. The scope of this will need agreed between the principal parties. Our Ecology Officer did, however, seek a collision risk assessment for Whooper Swan, whereas SNH seem to consider that the prospect of mitigation measures to reduce the potential for collision are limited in any case for these, Golden Plover and Curlew and suggest post-construction monitoring. The SEI later suggested that the recorded Whooper Swan flight was a one-off and not representative. Our Ecology Officer has since accepted that a collision risk model would probably not alter the overall effect of the development in any case. Post-construction surveys are a desirable requirement regardless, given the uncertainty when assessing collision risk potential for birds.
As regards a specific concern raised regarding the absence of Snipe and Water Rail from the survey, our Ecology Officer notes that Snipe is a species that could be affected, but even if breeding Snipe were recorded in Pickie Moss within 500m of a turbine, enhancement measures on-site and off-site could compensate for any impacts on breeding waders. Water Rail is not considered a target species likely to be affected by wind farms. There are opportunities to enhance Pickie Moss under an enhancement plan.
Ultimately, with the mitigation measures, the impact on ornithological interests would appear not to be significantly adverse in this particular case, with potential effects further reduced by the reduction in number of turbines from 12 to 9.
Traffic
Access is proposed via the A68, A697 and A6089. Assessments were made accounting for the potential for all stone to come from off-site locations, as well as the alternative scenario for stone for roads to come from the on-site borrow pit. No assessment of decommissioning was undertaken (less than construction stage and against a different baseline in all probability) or of the operational period (due to the low traffic levels).
During the construction phase (expected to be twelve months), the maximum traffic levels would be in month 1 (excluding concrete deliveries) for road stone, with 84 HGV movements (down from 86 for the original 12 turbine scheme) per working day anticipated, with the percentage of HGVS on the A68 rising by 18.2%, those on the
Planning and Building Standards Committee 58 Item No 5 (a)
A697 rising by 29.9% and those on the A6089 rising by 127.3%. For borrow pit stone, the maximum levels would be in month 7, with 16 HGV movements per day (down from 26 in the 12 turbine scheme), thus increasing HGV movements on the A68 by 3.5%, by 5.7% on the A697 and by 24.2% on the A6089. There would be 9 days when 166 HGV movements per day would occur for concrete foundation deliveries, and there would be 72 abnormal load deliveries in the 12 months (down from 168 and 96 respectively in the 12 turbine scheme).
The ES concluded that (including by means of a detailed evaluation of the effects on the A6089) effects of the 12 turbine scheme would not be significant in terms of severance, driver delay, pedestrian delays, fear and intimidation, and that a Traffic Management Plan could minimise any effects. A TMP could account for the worst case scenario in the event Brunta Hill was scheduled for construction at the same time. This conclusion is maintained for the 9 turbine scheme. It is also suggested that the route can accommodate the abnormal loads within the public road extent without affecting third party land.
The TMP can include measures to reduce effects on the road network, including environmental measures to reduce dust, debris and dirt. The Roads Planning Service are content with the findings in the SEI and the TMP can be a conditional requirement of consent, if granted, repeated for the decommissioning phase.
This department notes concerns regarding driver distraction, however the RPS has raised no concern. It must also be noted that effects are temporary, affecting A-class roads. It is accepted that economic effects of delays are not assessed within the ES, however this is not a significant issue given their temporary nature. The Trunk Roads Authority have not raised any concerns and their recommendation that consultation be undertaken with the operator of their network has already been met as part of the ES. The adequacy of the Trunk Road is a matter for the developers to liaise with the operators directly on.
A swept path-analysis has been carried out at the Wanton Walls pinch-point and the RPS is content.
A new access into the site on a straight section of the A6089 includes visibility splays in either direction which the RPS is happy with. The RPS is also happy with revisions and additional information provided with respect to the access junction, and it is understood no third party land is required to achieve the visibility splays. A condition can require that the works are carried out in accordance with the specification within the SEI.
Aviation
The ES states that (in response to direct consultation on behalf of the applicant) the Ministry of Defence raised no concerns but sought omni-directional lighting at the highest point on each turbine. In response to this application, the MOD’s advice is the same, and details are also sought of construction dates, heights and positions. A condition can require the lighting, and it is noted that infra red lighting will have no particular visual consequences. A condition can also require notification of the MOD of the construction information sought.
The Civil Aviation Authority apparently advised also of the need for lighting in response to consultation undertaken on behalf of the applicant and, if higher than 90 metres, that the development be chartered on aviation maps. The CAA also apparently highlighted an amendment to their requirements suggesting a need for the
Planning and Building Standards Committee 59 Item No 5 (a) top two-thirds of the turbines to be painted white. This consultation was not undertaken with this department as part of this application as such consultation is not necessary though the need for lighting and charting on maps is not a difficulty for the applicants. The colour of the turbines is a matter that has some visual consequence and visual effects of the development are considered elsewhere in this assessment. Aside from lighting, no airfield operators, noted as having been consulted within the ES, raise any concerns and the British Airport Authority do not object.
This department’s consultation with NERL (NATS En Route) suggests that there will be no conflict with radar layers, as the ES notes.
The ES suggests there would be no significant cumulative impacts and there is no evidence to suggest this is a matter of particular concern to civil or military aviation authorities.
Benefits
Environmental
As stated at the beginning of this assessment, the overriding thrust of national and local planning policy is to support renewable energy as a sustainable and reversible source of energy generation. This scheme will make a direct contribution in this regard. Querying the environmental effects of the manufacturing process of wind turbines, for example, or their global delivery, are not matters for this department to debate in isolation from planning policy requirements.
The revised 9-turbine scheme would lead to, according to the SEI, between 45.3 and 63.5 GWh of electricity, powering between 9,645 and 13,503 houses, and reducing CO2 emissions by between 19,000 tonnes and 27,000 tonnes annually (the figures are based on the referenced turbine and depending on capacity of between 25-30%). Applying the Government’s 100% renewable energy target for electricity (by 2020), this development would then represent between 0.04% and 0.06% of the overall target, though it would contribute 0.18 – 0.25% of the electricity that still needs to be generated to meet the target.
These figures can be interpreted in different ways – on the one hand, the proportional contribution of this development to the overall target is minimal, arguably very small. On the other, the target itself can only ever be achieved by incremental impacts on it brought about by individual developments such as this and, within the context of the Borders, a 9-turbine wind turbine scheme will be a sizeable contributor to the renewable energy target.
Economic
In terms of negative effects, construction and decommissioning phases will be temporary, and any effects must be considered in that context. There is no particular business which would lead this department to consider that temporary effects associated with the construction of this particular development will be significantly damaging to the local economy.
In terms of longer term effects associated with the operational phase of the wind farm, the agricultural use of the land will not be significantly affected, and will remain once the construction is complete, and there will be no losses of Prime Quality farmland. The ES rightly concludes that impacts on house prices are not a planning matter (unless, perhaps, affecting areas in need of regeneration). In any case, the
Planning and Building Standards Committee 60 Item No 5 (a) influence of wind farms, post construction, on house prices is quite inconclusive. Effects on the tourist resource are considered within the Visual Impact section of this assessment. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that this wind farm would have a significantly negative effect on local countryside sporting activities by reason of its visual impact. The influence of operational wind farms on other commercial enterprises is not possible to predict since there is insufficient evidence to suggest negative impacts would be significant.
The ES is correct to assert that there is no conclusive data to judge how the tourism industry may be affected by wind farms. Visit Scotland notes that tourism is critical to the national economy, and it is recognised as an important part of the Borders’ economy which is already under pressure. Scenery and the natural environment are key attributes, and these support walking, wildlife watching, photography, visiting historic sites, cycling, and other pursuits. The site itself contains no recreational activities, however, there are no significant recreational areas within 5k, and the site is not designated for its landscape interest or its nature conservation interest. There are clearly visual and landscape impacts to consider, and these are assessed within this report. However, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that tourists would not return to the Borders, or decide not to come at all as a result of either this development, or cumulatively with others at the present time. Impacts on individual tourist attractions are considered elsewhere in this report. The applicant has not submitted an tourist impact assessment, as Visit Scotland have suggested, but do point to a recent study by Visit Scotland themselves which suggests that tourists are not necessarily deterred from visiting an area as a result of wind farms.
In terms of potential benefits, the ES acknowledges that local benefits will be minor. Construction will bring with it, potentially, wider UK benefits (manufacturing of turbines etc) and local benefits (local electricity and engineering contracts, potentially around 25% of costs). The ES acknowledges that no guarantees can be given that UK or local companies will be involved, though local companies will be encouraged to tender as far as possible. The decommissioning phase is similarly likely to be a minor contributor to the local economy.
Operationally, the development will bring few employment opportunities, with two maintenance personnel required, though they would not be based on site. More staff may be needed if cranes are needed. The landowner will receive ground rent. This can go back into the farming business, though that is a matter for the farmer.
Community benefits paid by wind farm developers are not material to a planning application unless these are directly attributable to impacts from the development identified as material considerations when determining the application itself. None are identified within this department’s assessment and no weight is, therefore, given to any payments that may be intended.
Shadow flicker
The Council’s SPG and the Scottish Government’s advice note refer to shadow flicker as being a potential issue for properties within a 10xrotor diameter distance of a turbine and sited within 130 degrees north of it. The effect is only likely to affect narrow openings. In this case, a distance of 930 metres would satisfy this guideline.
The ES included a screening assessment of the original proposal against this guideline. This identified that, as proposed, shadow flicker would not be an issue for any property but if the turbine nearest Brownshall Lodge were micro-sited 50m towards Brownshall Lodge it would be affected. Rather than risk the potential for a
Planning and Building Standards Committee 61 Item No 5 (a) significant effect, the ES recommended a condition preventing micro-siting to within the buffer distance. The applicant was asked to consider the potential for the outbuilding within Brownshall Lodge to be used as ancillary residential accommodation, as contended by Gordon and Westruther Community Council and, during discussions with the applicant, this was agreed as being a matter that could be a requirement by planning condition. The revised 9-turbine scheme has since adjusted the layout, and all turbines are still further away than the recommended buffer, but the issue of shadow flicker affecting the outbuilding has not been addressed. It is considered that, in the event that planning consent was to be granted, the buffer requirement should extend to windows within ancillary buildings located in residential curtilages where the building is used for habitable residential accommodation.
In terms of shadow flicker, or rather shadow ‘throw’, potentially affecting vehicle drivers on the A6089, the SEI suggests this will not be a difficulty. Guidance on the potential for drivers to be affected by shadows from moving turbine blades is not conclusive and consultation with the Roads Planning Service on this point has generated no concerns in this regard.
Safety
Scottish Government guidance, Onshore Wind Turbines, notes that the wind energy industry operates to strict international, European and British standards. Site operations tend to have rigorous systems in place and the control room can detect icing of blades. Danger to houses or animal life from falling parts or ice throw is rare and appropriate lightning protection measures are incorporated, albeit warning signage is suggested as being useful. In this case, the ES states that the risk to the public from construction, operational and decommissioning phases has been assessed. The development will adhere to CDM Regulations, other health and safety legislation, including BWEA health and safety guidelines. A construction phase health and safety plan will be produced as required by the CDM regulations, and the wind turbines are designed to relevant standards. The wind turbine design minimises the risk of damage from lightning strike. Ice throw will only occur when ice thaws following shut down and will be limited since rotational speed on start up will be slow, and will be small in size.
It is noted that concerns were raised amongst consultees, including Scotways and Lauderdale Preservation Group, regarding the proximity of Turbine 1 in the original scheme to the public road (also the B224 Public Right of Way) to the west, and that a buffer was requested equal to the height of the turbine. The original development layout included a stand-off distance to avoid blades overhanging. This is, however, a matter for the developers and their own safety obligations. Planning considerations in this regard are relevant only as far as being sure that the design and layout of the scheme has accommodated the safety obligations the developer must first apply. In any case, under the revised scheme, turbines are now more than ‘topple distance’ (126.5m) from any road or right of way, and Scotways have noted their contentment with this.
CONCLUSION
This proposed development will introduce a range of effects, including significant effects, most notably in terms of landscape and visual impacts. A number of the predicted significant effects can be mitigated, and these mitigation measures can be required by means of planning condition and, potentially, legal agreement.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 62 Item No 5 (a)
However, this department considers that there are two particular effects which cannot be mitigated. These relate to the unsympathetic relationship of the development to the character of the surrounding landscape by virtue of the scale, and in particular the height, of the proposed wind farm, resulting in significant visibility across a range of sensitive receptors. This would, effectively, fill a wind-farm free gap within a medium scaled, settled landscape, contrasting with its transitional character between the Uplands and Lowlands.
A second key concern is the sequential effect of the development on the enjoyment of users of the northern and western sections of the Southern Upland Way, in particular that to the north which incorporates the iconic viewpoint of the Twin Law Cairns. The proposed wind farm will have a particularly harmful effect on this northern section where views to the south, which are currently free of significant views of wind farms, would be undermined by the introduction of this wind farm within the foreground of the Eildon Hills. This would combine with successive visibility of other wind farms to the east and north and west, resulting in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the enjoyment of this section of this strategic walking route.
These two impacts are considered contrary to the development plan and are not justified by other material considerations.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:
I recommend that the application is refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would have a significantly adverse effect on local landscape character by virtue of its scale and, in particular, the height of the turbines, resulting in significant visibility across a range of sensitive receptors. The proposed development would unacceptably extend large scale wind farm development into a medium-scaled, settled landscape. These unacceptable effects would be contrary to Policies N9, I19 and I20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policies G1 and D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011
2. The proposed development would have a significantly adverse cumulative effect on the enjoyment of users of the northern and western sections (which pass the site) of the Southern Upland Way, in particular the northern section incorporating the Twin Law Cairns iconic viewpoint, when combined with simultaneous and successive views of existing wind farms along this section of the route. These unacceptable effects would be contrary to Policies I19 and I20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policy D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011
DRAWING NUMBERS
Site Layout Figure 1.1 Supplementary Environmental Information Typical wind turbine structure Figure 3.2 Environmental Statement Proposed site access arrangement Figure 12.2 Supplementary Environmental Information Typical turbine foundation Figure 3.4 Environmental Statement Typical crane hardstanding Figure 3.5 Environmental Statement Typical track cross section Figure 3.6 Environmental Statement Typical culvert Figure 3.6 Environmental Statement
Planning and Building Standards Committee 63 Item No 5 (a)
National Grid gas pipeline concrete slab crossing Figure 3.8 Environmental Statement Typical site control building Figure 3.9 Environmental Statement Typical cable trench cross section Figure 3.10 Environmental Statement Typical lattice anemometry mast Figure 3.11 Environmental Statement
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Carlos Clarke Principal Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 64 Item No 5 (a)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 65