Welbeck Estates

Dunbeath Windfarm

Electricity Act Section 36 Application

Mark Steele - Precognition

Landscape & Visual Impact

Mark Steele Consultants

June 2011 1 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Qualifications, Experience and Scope 1.1.1 My name is Mark Steele and I am a Chartered Landscape Architect as well as a Member of the Landscape Institute. I have thirty years’ experience of landscape planning and design in the United Kingdom, Australia and Hong Kong. Until 2007 I was Director of Landscape at Keppie Design and before that, a principal of Ironside Farrar Ltd. I established Mark Steele Consultants (MSC) in early 2008.

1.1.2 I have attended many Public Inquiries as a witness for developers, objectors and planning authorities and am aware of my duty to the Inquiry as an expert.

1.1.3 My evidence will focus on key aspects of the Landscape and Visual Report (CD 5.21) and the Landscape and Visual Report Illustrations (CD 5.22) prepared by SLR Consulting. Reference will also be made to the SNH Landscape and Visual Appraisal.

2.0 MSC Topic Papers 1 & 2 2.1 Environmental Statement Addendum Critique and MSC Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2.1.1 MSC Topic papers 1 and 2 (WI 1) include summaries of key issues, some of which are revisited in the context of the SLR and SNH evidence.

2 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition

3.0 SLR Landscape and Visual Report (LVR) 3.1 Background 3.1.1 LVR paragraph 2.3 confirms that all the illustrative material for the ES, addenda, Updated Cumulative Illustrations (CD 5.26) and the Landscape and Visual Report Illustrations (CD 5.22) have been prepared by West Coast Energy on behalf of DWEL. No explanation is provided as to why the two latter documents were not issued together in advance of the issue of inquiry documents. Withholding such key information has hampered the preparation of evidence by other parties.

3.1.2 Furthermore no explanation is provided in paragraph 2.4 as to why SLR did not contribute to the landscape statements in Addendum IV (CD 1.7).

3.1.3 LVR paragraph 2.6 quotes the Head of Planning’s Report (CD 2.2) with reference to the AGLV and wild land: ‘Neither of these potential designations have been confirmed, limiting what consideration can be given to each attribute. The Council’s proposed AGLV ...is focused upon the catchment area of the Berriedale Water and upper sections of the Berriedale Water. The principal development area of the wind farm falls outwith the proposed AGLV designation but clearly lies adjacent to it’. However the ‘Assessment of Highland Special Landscape Areas’ (CD 5.24) provides a citation for the ‘Berriedale, Langwell and Knockfin Heights Special Landscape Area’ (which replaces the AGLV).

3.1.4 These issues are also addressed by the ‘Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy’ (CD.4.10):  Map 2a confirms the proposed AGLV/SLA as a constraint to wind energy development (therefore it is a material consideration);

3 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition  paragraph 4.35 confirms that ‘Prior to wild land being identified, proposals that may have an adverse impact on the wild land resource should undergo an assessment process’ (therefore the applicant should have undertaken an assessment to determine the extent and significance of effects upon wild land); and  paragraph 4.16 states that ‘Scottish Government indicates that planning authorities should not impose additional zones of protection around areas designated for their landscape or natural heritage value but should seek to protect them through policy. The HwLDP general policy on Natural, Built and Cultural Heritage Features provides for this consideration – including the impact of proposals outside designated sites on the sites themselves or, where relevant as a consideration, on their setting’ (therefore consideration should have been given to the impacts on the setting of the AGLV/SLA).

3.1.5 Furthermore the AGLV/SLA clearly extends beyond the Berriedale Water catchment, which only accounts for approximately 50% of the area (Landscape and Visual Report Figure 7 (CD 5.22)).

3.2 Methodology 3.2.1 LVR paragraph 3.5 states that ‘The methodology used to prepare my evidence is consistent with the methodology used to carry out the LVIA, as set out in the ES...’ However paragraph 3.7 confirms that the ES LVIA did not identify the nature of change but that this is now assessed as adverse for affected landscape character types.

3.2.2 LVR paragraph 3.5 also confirms that SLR does not assess the nature of effect on visual receptors due to ‘the spectrum of views held by the

4 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition public’. However, the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact assessment (GLVIA) (CD 5.2) paragraph 2.14 makes it is clear that a professional analysis of effects ‘relies’ on an assessment of positive and negative effect (refer to MSC Topic Paper 1 (WI 1) section 4.7).

3.2.3 LVR paragraph 3.8 confirms that significant effects are ‘...those that are assessed as major or major/moderate’. However paragraph 3.9 also states that ‘The threshold of significance is not absolute...’ (refer to MSC Topic Paper 1 (WI 1) section 4.6).

3.3 Landscape Context 3.3.1 LVR paragraph 4.15 refers to the recent publication of the ‘Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy’ (CD 4.10) and confirms that the proposed Dunbeath Windfarm is located in a candidate ‘broad area of search’. However, proposals within the areas of search are subject to detailed assessments relating to the setting of designated landscapes and the extent of wild land (neither of which are addressed by CD 4.10).

3.3.2 MSC has contributed to a multi-client consultation response on the ‘Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy’ (April 2011). That response raises the following issues with reference to Sub-Areas 7 and 10 of the Caithness Pilot Area.  The purpose for identifying Sub-Area 10 ‘Houstry’ is to ‘identify potential for Large Windfarm development’. This statement pre- judges the capacity of the landscape to accommodate large scale windfarm development. This is of particular concern as the area boundaries become indistinct to the southwest in the vicinity of the Morven and Scaraben Hills. If the purpose for identifying Sub-

5 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition Area 5 is ‘to protect this important landmark...’ and a similar logic is applied to the Morven and Scaraben Hills then a larger area of significant protection (to reflect the relative prominence of these hills) should be defined so as to protect these important landmarks.

 Furthermore the purpose for making Sub-Area 7 ‘West of A9’ (to the north of Sub-Area 10) an area for significant protection is that it ‘protects the representative view across the flow country to distant mountains’. However it is apparent from Map 6 that the boundary between Sub-Area 7 and Sub-Area 10 would need to be redrawn for this to be achieved (as Sub-Area 10 is in the foreground of the ‘distant mountains’). This is demonstrated by Viewpoint 4 in Landscape and Visual Report Illustrations (CD 5.22) figure B4. Viewpoint 4 is located on the A9 approximately centrally on the eastern boundary of Sub-Area 7. The Dunbeath Windfarm (which is located in Sub-Area 10) is in the foreground of the ‘distant mountains’ that Sub-Area 7 seeks to protect. Therefore the boundary between Sub-Areas 7 and 10 should be redrawn on a line projected from the southeastern edge of the Scaraben hill range and the northern edge of the existing Buolfruich Windfarm. This would achieve the desired protection of ‘the representative view across the flow country to distant mountains’.

 The redrafting of the boundary would also assist in the protection of the wild land characteristics within the Flow Country Area of Great Landscape Value (Special Landscape Area) which approximately coincides with Sub-Area 7.

6 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition

3.4 Siting and Design 3.4.1 The LVR section on siting and design (paragraphs 5.4 to 5.24) does not explain the rationale for the design iterations illustrated in LVR Illustrations (CD 5.22) Figure 12. However paragraph 5.6 states that ‘...the main objective of the design and layout iteration process was to generate a layout, which took account of DWEL’s objectives of optimising energy output from the available land area, as well as other constraints, and achieved a balanced composition of turbines that related to the landform of the site and immediately surrounding area...’. However, as we know, the final layout was not the result of any design iteration. It merely reflects the position adopted at Committee, by the Highland Council.

3.4.2 LVR paragraph also refers to ‘...the scale and prominence of the turbines against the back drop of Scaraben.’ However the turbines are out of scale with the hills as they exceed a third of their height as referred to in ‘Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ (CD 5.15) paragraph 4.33 (e.g. ES Viewpoint 5). Furthermore the turbines are a prominent distraction to the main focus of the view from Viewpoints 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Refer to MSC Topic Paper 1 (WI 1) paragraph 2.1.5).

3.4.3 LVR paragraph 5.11 describes three loosely arranged rows of turbines and contends that the updated illustrations ‘…generally demonstrate that this arrangement translates into a reasonably balanced composition when seen from most nearby locations’. However ES Viewpoints 5, 8, 17 and 20 clearly demonstrate that the composition is not balanced.

7 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition 3.4.4 Siting and design is a key consideration for determining the nature of effect of the proposed windfarm (Refer to MSC Topic Paper 2 (WI 1) paragraph 2.9.3) and this is addressed in MSC Topic Paper section 4.0.

3.5 Viewpoint Assessment 3.5.1 LVR paragraph 6.20 concludes that significant effects would occur (‘where open views to the majority of the turbines would be obtained’) on:  landscape character up to 8km;  residents and recreational users up to 13km; and  road users up to 8km.

3.5.2 This implies that significant landscape effects can be anticipated for a large proportion of the AGLV/SLA and Wild Land Search Area. Furthermore significant visual and perceptual effects would extend further still.

3.6 Revised Cumulative Viewpoint Assessment 3.6.1 LVR paragraphs 7.20 to 7.91 reassess cumulative effects from the ES viewpoints. The assessment finds (including existing and proposed windfarms) significant effects from visual receptors at Viewpoints 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20 and 22.

3.6.2 If a moderate level of significance were used as the threshold then visual receptors at Viewpoints 4, 12, and 24 would also be subject to significant effects. These findings of significant cumulative effect accord with the MSC assessment set out in paragraph 4.29.1 of Topic Paper 2 (WI 1).

8 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition 3.6.3 LVR paragraphs 7.93 to 7.102 address sequential cumulative effects for users of the A9 and paragraphs 7.103 and 7.104 address users of the A99.

3.6.4 Specific assessment of effects relates to seven viewpoints located on the A9, three of which are subject to significant effects (Viewpoints 4, 15 and 17). However if the MSC assessment of sensitivity and threshold of significance were applied then some users at Viewpoints 6 and 16 would also be subject to significant effects.

3.6.5 LVR paragraph 7.103 states that the LVR assessment finds no significant cumulative effects at ES Viewpoints 10, 11 and 12. However if the MSC assessment of sensitivity and threshold of significance were applied then some users at these Viewpoints would be subject to significant effects. Paragraph 7.104 acknowledges that there will be significant cumulative effects on users of the southern section of the A99.

3.6.6 The LVR assessment repeatedly uses the term ‘intermittent’ to downplay the level of effect. However, repeated views of the same windfarm can compound sequential cumulative effects.

3.6.7 The MSC assessment of cumulative effects on users of the A9 and A99 is set out in Topic Paper 2 (WI 1) section 5.3.

3.7 Landscape Character 3.7.1 Rather than duplicate evidence, the MSC Topic Papers defer to the SNH evidence with regard to landscape character.

9 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition 3.7.2 SNH Landscape and Visual Appraisal paragraphs 4.11 and 4.14 conclude that there would be major and significant effects on the Sweeping Moorland LCT and the Lone Mountain LCT. I agree.

3.8 AGLV / SLA 3.8.1 LVR paragraph 4.25 confirms that the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) is synonymous with the ‘Berriedale, Langwell and Knockfin Heights Special Landscape Area’ (CD 5.24).

3.8.2 LVR section 10.0 addresses the AGLV/SLA and in particular the ‘Assessment of Highland Special Landscape Areas’, the executive summary of which states that: ‘This study was undertaken for consultation alongside the Proposed Highland-wide Local Development Plan. It reviews the existing local landscape designations within The Highland Council area, known as AGLVs, and provides a brief citation for each area which summarises its key landscape and visual characteristics, the special qualities for which it is valued, its key sensitivities to landscape change, and possible measures for its enhancement.’

3.8.3 LVR paragraph 10.10 quotes the SLA’s key sensitivities to change:  ‘development which could compromise views of the exposed and striking profile of the lone mountains and peatlands’; and  ‘the introduction of large scale structures could be prominent in views and would affect the perception of the scale of the mountains and the extent of the peatlands’. The prominence of the proposed Dunbeath Windfarm would affect the perception of scale as well as compromise views of the lone mountains and peatlands.

10 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition

3.8.4 LVR paragraphs 10.11 to 10.24 then seek to undermine the conclusions of the report due to the presence of existing windfarms. However it is self evident from ES Viewpoint 20 that the magnitude of effects arising from the Dunbeath Windfarm is of a significantly greater magnitude than existing windfarms. Furthermore Updated Cumulative Illustrations Figure Cum 14 clearly demonstrates that the Dunbeath Windfarm would be visible from core SLA areas that do not have visibility of other windfarms.

3.8.5 The Berriedale, Langwell and Knockfin Heights SLA citation description of ‘Key Landscape and Visual Characteristics’ and ‘Special Qualities’ emphasis the wild land characteristics of the landscape.

3.9 Wild Land 3.9.1 LVR section 11.0 addresses wild land and paragraph 11.1 acknowledges that Scottish Planning Policy (CD 3.1) advises that wild land should be protected through the planning process. LVR paragraph 11.5 also acknowledges that the Search Area for Wild Land (SAWL) adjacent to the site possesses the physical attributes of wild land but that in some areas these attributes are compromised by existing windfarms.

3.9.2 The LVR treats the SAWL as if it were a fixed boundary designation. However ‘Assessing the Impacts on Wild Land – Interim Guidance Note’ (SNH 2007) paragraph 2.1 states that ‘The SNH identified search areas do not delimit wild land, and confirming the presence and extent of the wild land area is therefore required which may be within or outwith the present search areas.’

11 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition 3.9.3 Furthermore ‘Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy’ (April 2011) paragraph 4.35 states that (in advance of a planned SNH / THC assessment of wild land) ‘...proposals that may have an adverse impact on the wild land resource should undergo an assessment process’.

3.9.4 The applicant has neither determined the extent of wild land nor provided a detailed assessment of the degree to which the Dunbeath Windfarm would affect wild land attributes (apart from paragraph 11.15 which concedes that ‘...there would be some significant effects on the east and south east parts of the SAWL).

3.9.5 SNH Landscape and Visual Appraisal Table 1 provides a full assessment of the nature and significance of effects on wild land characteristics. Paragraph 6.8 concludes that ‘the proposal would result in significant adverse effects on physical attributes that contribute to the area of wild land character, and thus the perceptual responses evoked by these physical attributes’ and ‘Together these significantly detrimental effects will erode the experience of wildness that can be appreciated in a valued area of wild land character.’

3.9.6 MSC Topic Paper 2 (WI I) paragraph 3.3.4 makes a number of observations with reference to wild land.

3.10 Visual Amenity 3.10.1 ‘Draft Supplementary Guidance: Onshore Wind Energy’ (April 2011) paragraph 4.59 states that ‘Any proposal for a wind energy development must demonstrate that the development including its associated infrastructure will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality and quantity of public access. This will include any effect on a route included

12 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition in a Core Path Plan...’ Neither the ES nor the LVR assess the significance of visual effects on users of Core Path Plan routes.

3.10.2 MSC Topic Paper 2 section 5.2 assesses the significance of effects on users of Core Path Plan routes.

3.10.3 Effects on residential receptors are addressed by LVR paragraphs 9.1 to 9.11, paragraphs 12.11 to 12.17 and Appendix 1.

3.10.4 LVR paragraph 12.12 states that 3km is ‘...the maximum distance at which I consider wind farm development could potentially cause an over bearing significant effect on living conditions in residential properties’. However the term ‘over bearing’ is neither defined in the LVR nor any relevant guidance.

3.10.5 LVR paragraph 12.14 confirms that direct views relate to a 90° cone perpendicular to the front or rear elevation of the dwelling. This is misguided as the human field of vision is close to 180° and current practice assesses effects from the property curtilage as well as approaches to the dwelling.

3.10.6 Even with the limited scope of assessment, LVR paragraph 12.16 concludes that there will be significant effects on 26 dwellings (5 between 1.5km and 2km and 21 between 2km and 3km). Furthermore LVR paragraph 9.10 concludes that residential receptors up to 13km from the proposed turbines would be subject to significant effects and significant cumulative effects.

13 Dunbeath Windfarm – Mark Steele – Precognition

4.0 Conclusion 4.1 Conclusion 4.1.1 For these reasons, I submit that on landscape and visual grounds alone the Reporter can safely recommend to Scottish Ministers that refusal of this application would be fully justified.

Mark Steele - June 2011