ITEM 6

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 – PROPOSED WIND FARM AT EARLSHAUGH – REVISED SCHEME AND SUPPLEMENTARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

14 NOVEMBER 2011

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise the Scottish Government of the response from Scottish Borders Council on the Supplementary Environmental Information submitted in relation to a reduced scheme by Wind Energy (Earlshaugh) Ltd under Section 36 of the Electricity Act (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and deemed planning permission under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, for a wind farm comprising 24 wind turbines and ancilliary equipment in the Earlshaugh area of the Tweed Valley.

2 PROCEDURE

2.1 The Scottish Government process applications for wind energy developments exceeding 50MW generating capacity but consult relevant Local Authorities for their views on such proposals. They advertise the application and have carried out direct consultation with other interested bodies. They have also followed this procedure for the revised scheme and the Supplementary Environmental Information. There is, therefore, no need for Scottish Borders Council to undertake a tandem process although consultation has taken place with relevant officers within the Council.

3 BACKGROUND TO REPORT

3.1 The original Section 36 application was considered in November 2008 by the Planning and Building Standards Committee and the full report is attached to this report as a detailed reference. The Council concluded that they should object to the original scheme for the following reasons:

The proposed development would be contrary to policy I20 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the erection of 36 wind turbines and associated equipment would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area. The proposed wind turbines would interfere with prominent skylines and high sensitivity receptors, particularly on views from the south where the A701 tourist route and the well known Devil’s Beef Tub viewpoint would be significantly affected.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 1 The proposed development would be contrary to Policy N11 – Areas of Great Landscape Value of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy EP2 – Areas of Great Landscape Value of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the erection of 36 turbines and associated equipment would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape quality of the Tweedsmuir Hills Area of Great Landscape Value. The proposed wind turbines would set an unacceptable precedent for wind farm development in the area which cannot be accommodated in the landscape.

The proposed development would be contrary to Policy N2 – International Sites of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy NE1 – International Conservation Sites of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that there is insufficient information to inform an Appropriate Assessment on the adverse effects on the integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. The erection of 36 wind turbines and associated equipment would not offer substantial benefits that outweigh the national nature conservation of the site.

The proposed development would be contrary to Policy N5 – Local Biodiversity Action of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the erection of 36 turbines and associated equipment would have an unacceptable adverse impact on a Local Wildlife Site. The proposed windfarm development would not offer substantial public benefits that outweigh the value of the habitat for biodiversity conservation.

3.2 The purpose of this report is to consider whether the reductions and amendments in the scheme would affect the Council’s position of objection to the scheme.

4 SITE AND APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

4.1 The applicant states in the SEI that the scheme has been revised following the objections from Scottish Borders Council, Scottish Natural Heritage (see previous Committee Report) and comments from and Galloway Council on access design. The main revisions are a reduction from 36 to 24 turbines, the micro-siting of four remaining turbines and removal of sections of access track that previously connected turbines. The site access revision cannot be made within the S36 Application and will be the subject of a separate planning application.

4.2 The turbines remain 125m high to blade tip generating up to 3MW per turbine. The remainder of the proposals are as described in para 4.3 of the original Committee Report although access tracks are reduced in coverage and only one permanent meteorological mast is now proposed.

4.3 The Supplementary Environmental Information has been submitted together with a range of technical appendices, providing an assessment of the amended proposals together with additional information on landscape and visual assessment, ecological surveys and peat landslide assessment. The SEI should be read in conjunction with the original Environmental Statement.

4.4 The SEI contains an updated Design Statement which states that the majority of amendments were to satisfy SBC and SNH, especially to reduce impacts on the Devil’s Beef Tub viewpoint on the A701 and broader reductions in visual impacts across the wider local area viewpoints, especially from the A701 and from . The micro-siting of turbines was in recognition of peat landslide assessment work and ownership boundaries.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 2 4.5 An updated Supporting Statement has also been submitted which describes the revised project proposals in the context of national and local policies. It also updates the National Policy position including the 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland (2011) which sets an ambitious target of 100% of electricity demand from renewable energy by 2020. NATS and MOD objections were also lodged on radar and Eskdalemuir Seismic Array impacts and the Supporting Statement reports the intention to seek further dialogue and solutions.

4.6 Although Members have already considered the Environmental Statement, it will be made available again in the Members’ Library together with the revised SEI, Figures, Appendices and Supporting Statement. . 5 PLANNING ISSUES

5.1 As with the original scheme, the main issues in considering amended proposal are whether the revisions and reductions would allow the wind farm to now comply with Development Plan Policies on renewable energy development, designated landscape areas and nature conservation sites. The proposal should also now be considered against the Wind Farm SPG and Spatial Strategy Map.

6 ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION

6.1 The attached original Committee report listed all appropriate and relevant National and Local Policies and Guidance that required to be considered in assessing the proposals. As there have been various changes in Policy and Guidance since then, the following documents require to now be considered in assessing the revised proposals:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan – The New Way Forward 2001-2018

PRINCIPLE S1 Environmental Impact POLICY N1- Local Biodiversity Action Plan POLICY N2- International sites POLICY N3- National Sites POLICY N5– Local Biodiversity Action POLICY N6- Environmental Impact POLICY N7- Protection of Nature Conservation Interest POLICY N8- River Tweed System POLICY N9 - Maintaining Landscape Character POLICY N13- Gardens and Designed Landscapes POLICY N14- National Archaeological Sites POLICY N15- Regional and Local Archaeological Sites POLICY N16- Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording POLICY N17- Listed Buildings POLICY N20 – Design POLICY E16 – Rural Economic Development POLICY E22 - Protection of the Tourist Industry POLICY C8 - Access Network POLICY I5 - Cycling POLICY I13 - Water Quality POLICY I14 - Surface Water POLICY I19 - Renewable Energy POLICY I20 - Wind Energy Developments

Planning & Building Standards Committee 3 Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan: Adopted February 2011:

PRINCIPLE 1 – Sustainability POLICY G1 - Quality Standards for New Development POLICY BE1 - Listed Buildings POLICY BE2 - Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments POLICY BE3 - Gardens and Designed Landscapes POLICY NE1 - International Nature Conservation Sites POLICY NE2 - National Nature Conservation Sites POLICY NE3 - Local Biodiversity POLICY NE4 - Trees Woodlands and Hedgerows POLICY NE5 - Development affecting the Water Environment POLICY EP1 - National Scenic Areas POLICY EP2 - Areas of Great Landscape Value POLICY D4 – Renewable Energy POLICY H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity POLICY INF2 - Protection of Access Routes POLICY INF6 - Sustainable Urban Drainage POLICY D1 - Business, Tourism and Leisure Developments in the Countryside

Other Planning Considerations

x A Planning Framework for Wind Energy Developments: Policy Guidelines 1995 – now superseded by Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy - approved May 2011 x The Borders Landscape Assessment 1998. x Visibility Mapping for Windfarm Developments – The Scottish Borders October 2003. x Landscape and Development SPG (approved March 2008) x Local Biodiversity Action Plan (launched June 2001) x Renewable energy SPG (approved March 2007) x The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) (Scotland) 1999 x Scottish Planning Policy x National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 x National Planning Policy Guideline 5: Archaeology and Planning1994. x National Planning Policy Guideline 6: Renewable Energy Developments (Revised 2000) x National Planning Policy Guideline 18: Planning and the Historic Environment 1999. x Planning Advice Note 42: Archaeology – the Planning Process and Scheduled Ancient Monuments 1994. x Planning Advice Note 45: Renewable Energy Technologies 2002 (Now replaced by Web-based advice) x Planning Advice Note 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation 2006. x Planning Advice Note 56: Planning and Noise 1999. x Planning Advice Note 58: Environmental Assessment 1999. x Planning Advice Note 60: Planning for Natural Heritage 2000. x Planning Advice Note 73: Rural Diversification 2005. x Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape SNH 2009

6.2 The original Committee report had concentrated on Ecology and Landscape and Visual Impacts, especially considering Policies I20 of the Structure Plan and D4 of the Local Plan in relation to Renewable Energy and Policies N9 and N11 of the

Planning & Building Standards Committee 4 Structure Plan and EP2 of the Local Plan on landscape character. Any assessment should now also include the recommendations of the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy.

6.3 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy for the Scottish Borders has been developed as a requirement of Scottish Planning Policy to give more detailed advice on this type of development. The SPG was presented to the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 16 May 2011 and was approved. In addition, it should be noted that the Council is in the process of carrying out a review of local landscape designations across the whole Council. The emerging work is recommending that the site should fall within a new Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape Area replacing the current AGLV.

6.4 The Wind Energy SPG should be considered in assessing this application as it indicates the Council’s more detailed guidance and recent thinking on renewable energy and wind farm developments. It advises that there are only limited opportunities remaining for windfarm proposals of a sufficient scale in the Scottish Borders. The spatial strategy of the Wind Energy SPG clearly demonstrates this. The application site is identified as being within an Area of Moderate Constraints (Higher).

6.5 Using the same issues highlighted in the original Committee report, the revised scheme does not raise any additional problems in relation to archaeology, cultural heritage, noise, public access, traffic and transport. Mitigation can be controlled by conditions or within a Legal Agreement. However, there remain significant issues regarding landscape/visual impact and ecology in terms of compliance of the reduced scheme with the relevant Policies and criteria.

Landscape Character

6.6 The previous Committee report highlighted the upland setting of the site and surrounding area, identified as “Landscape Type 4: Type with Scattered Forest” from the Borders Landscape Assessment (1995). It was concluded that this “Broad Law” group had unique scale and remoteness more than any other upland area within the Borders. Combined with “Landscape Type 19 Southern Uplands: North Moffat”, the area had the majority of the 800m+ summits in the Southern Uplands. It was also recognised that the adjoining areas of and South Ayrshire had similar level landscape designations in the form of “Regional Scenic Areas”.

6.7 The original scheme was objected to in terms of the impacts on this wild land and most mountainous part of the Borders. It was felt that there was significant “viewer expectation” that the qualities comprising such wild land and scenery were preserved and not interrupted with large man-made structures such as wind turbines. The impacts of the original scheme were considered to be inappropriate on the AGLV and against the relevant Criterion in Policy D4, resulting in a reason to oppose the application.

6.8 Although the new proposal removes 12 turbines, it is still a scheme for 24 turbines within an important AGLV which is protected by Structure Plan Policy I19, classifying the AGLV as “potentially sensitive”. This designation has now been reviewed and is proposed as the “Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape Area” in the Draft Local Landscape Designations SPG. This states the importance of the area as:

Planning & Building Standards Committee 5 “…a highly scenic area of dramatic landform, though often with little visual diversity, and has a strong sense of remoteness with little overt human influence on the landscape”.

6.9 The management recommendations included:

“Seek to maintain the undisturbed wild land character of the great majority of the hills”, and “Consider the visual effects of tall development on views to and from this landscape”.

6.10 The fragility and susceptibility to change of this wild landscape is recognised in these statements and gives greater weight to the landscape designation of the site, following the comprehensive review of all local landscape designations. The reduction in the number of turbines still results in 24 at 125m to blade tip, being significantly at odds with the two main management recommendations mentioned above.

6.11 It was felt with the previous scheme that a large windfarm close to the summit of Hart Fell would change the character of the core area and that there were several other points where the enjoyment of the wild land qualities would be severely impaired. Given the review and Draft designation of the Tweedsmuir Uplands as a Special Landscape Area with specific management recommendations, even a reduced scheme of 24 turbines would remain significantly detrimental to the landscape character of the area and would justify sustained objection for this reason.

6.12 In addition, it is worth noting that the adjoining areas of Dumfries and Galloway, including Moffat, sections of the A701 road, the Devils Beef Tub Viewpoint and the headwaters of the Annan are all included within the Regional Scenic Area designation which is described in Technical Paper No 6 of the Dumfries and Galloway Structure Plan. The designation includes the following description:

The area centres on the Southern Uplands of Hart Fell, with their characteristic smooth, high, steep sided rounded hills, dissected by steep clefts and patterned with a mosaic of rough grassland, heather, scree, and montane vegetation on the high summits.

6.13 The introduction to the Technical Paper sets out the following context:

This paper examines the existing locally designated scenic areas within Dumfries and Galloway in the context of the Dumfries and Galloway Landscape Assessment, and proposes 10 Regional Scenic Areas (RSAs), to be protected by Policy E2 of the Structure Plan. The RSAs form part of a wider framework of designated scenic areas which include the existing National Scenic Areas and/or their successors. Together these provide protection to those areas of special scenic interest which form our most cherished landscapes. The designations are supported by a range of policies, strategies and guidelines for the wider landscape. The paper forms Technical Paper No 6 to the Structure Plan.

6.14 The designation of the adjoining areas in Dumfries and Galloway further reinforces concerns about the suitability of the Earlshaugh site and underlines many of the comments below where receptors in Dumfries and Galloway would be affected.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 6 Visual Impacts

6.15 Criteria 3 and 4 of Policy D4 refer to impacts on sensitive skylines and receptors including residential receptors. In the previous Committee report, it was recognised that there was a significant degree of landform containment from distance and that within 5km, much of the land was either screened or was open hillside or forest. 20 individual properties were identified within the 5km zone but this was not considered to be significant in terms of the levels of impact considered acceptable and experienced elsewhere within the Borders. The reduction in turbines and footprint of the ZTV is obviously welcomed in this respect and the amended scheme does not, therefore, cause any additional concerns regarding impact on residential receptors.

6.16 The major issue with sensitive receptors related to interference with prominent skylines, especially when viewed from the south. It was considered that northbound traffic on the A701 could view at least 20 turbines from certain sections of the road when heading towards the Devil’s Beef Tub, impacting significantly on a tourist’s appreciation of this historical landscape feature. Viewpoint 4 and views from adjoining sections of the road were of major concern.

6.17 Similarly, the impacts from the outskirts of Moffat were also of concern with views available from Viewpoints 8, 10, 14 and 15 – all interfering detrimentally with the skyline of the hills which form an important backdrop to the town.

6.18 The revised scheme has clearly lessened these impacts by removing twelve of the most prominent turbines. However, there is still significant and undesirable interference with important skylines as aforementioned. There is also the issue of the clarity of the photomontages which was highlighted in the previous Committee report, where it was felt that atmospheric haze was obscuring the actual impact of the wind turbines. Again it is stressed that actual views of the turbines in reality will vary with weather, light and movement of the blades allowing them to be more or less visible than actually depicted. Acceptance of this point is important as some Viewpoints such as Figure 27b Viewpoint 4 suggest the blades will be barely perceptible when, in fact, blade overtipping and movement will be particularly noticeable and distracting.

6.19 In particular, the following significant viewpoint impacts remain despite the reduction in turbine numbers and micro-siting:

x Viewpoint 4 from A701 at Devils Beef Tub – 9 blade tips are still visible on the skyline from one of the most iconic viewpoints in the Southern Uplands despite the design changes. These are unlikely to be missed by viewers who have been travelling north and have already been experiencing views of the windfarm from many kilometres further away. They are also directly above the landscape feature and are most unfortunately positioned.

x Viewpoint 5 from A701 between Moffat and Devils Beef Tub – 16 blades and 9 turbine hubs are visible from here on the skyline and distracting from the view to Hart Fell on the opposite side of the valley.

x Viewpoint 8, A701 north of Moffat – Impacts on this view reduced but there are still 6 hubs and 12 blades visible on the skyline.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 7 x Viewpoint 10, residential receptors near Moffat – 8 hubs and 16 blades would be visible and prominent from here on the skyline. Atmospheric haze is also reducing the potential visibility of the turbines on this photomontage

x Viewpoint 14 near the M74/A701 junction – 7 hubs and 15 blades would be clearly visible on the northern skyline on the shoulder of Hart Fell.

x Viewpoint 15 on M74 – 7 hubs and 17 blades visible as a skyline feature despite the reducing impacts of atmospheric haze on the photomontage.

x Viewpoint 16 – 18 hubs and all 24 blades visible from this location on Southern Upland Way.

x Viewpoint 23 on M74 – 9 hubs and 21 blades visible on the shoulder of Hart Fell. Although at some 26km distance, the turbines are in direct line of sight to northbound traffic on the M74.

x Viewpoint 27 from A701 south of Tweedsmuir – There would be an angled (and perhaps unexpected) view of the windfarm for south bound travellers, looking up the valley of the Fruid Water to the windfarm on the skyline at the head of the valley. This would involve 11 hubs and 12 blades.

6.20 In summary and in relation to visual impact and compliance with Criteria 3 and 4 of Local Plan Policy D4, the revised scheme has clearly lessened these impacts by removing twelve of the most prominent turbines. However, there remains significant and undesirable interference with important skylines with detrimental impacts on sensitive receptors such as the A701 and on the character and quality of wild land within this part of the AGLV and Draft Special Landscape Area.

Cumulative Impacts

6.21 This is an important part of the visual impact assessment of wind farm proposals and requires to be assessed by Criterion 5(ix) of Policy D4. The previous Committee report identified that the main potential for cumulative impact was with the Clyde wind farm recently approved at the time of the report. Proximity and distance led to some significant impacts although Viewpoint 3 from Hart Fell, for example, gave the impression of a “wind farm landscape” and gave credence to the argument that Earlshaugh would have less impact because of the dominance of Clyde. It was also recognised, however, that the Clyde wind farm occupied a different “rolling hills” landscape type and that Earlshaugh was within a higher “core” area.

6.22 Despite the reduction in the Earlshaugh scheme, there is still some concern over sequential cumulative impact especially along a 15km stretch of the A701 from Greystone Rig to the Devil’s Beef Tub.

6.23 Since the Earlshaugh SEI submission in August, the Clyde Wind Farm extension of 52 additional turbines has now been submitted as a Section 36 Application with potential greater proximity and impacts from the various viewpoints identified in the Earlshaugh submission. The Council has been in discussion with the Scottish Government about the need for the Earlshaugh Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to be updated to include the 52 additional turbines rather than merely showing the extension as a dot on a location plan. It is felt that a proper and informed assessment of the likely cumulative impacts cannot be undertaken without the Earlshaugh CLVIA being updated, given both S36 submissions were only two

Planning & Building Standards Committee 8 months apart. Members will be updated on any response from the Scottish Government on this issue at the Committee meeting.

6.24 In the absence of this revised CLVIA and as identified in the last Committee report, the assessment of cumulative impact for windfarms is extremely complex and although a cumulative impact does potentially exist, especially with the Clyde Wind Farm and its extension, the significance of these impacts cannot be fully determined with any certainty. It is not possible, therefore, to conclude whether the impacts are sufficiently significant to warrant opposition to the Earlshaugh scheme. This is also in recognition of the 12 turbine reduction in the Earlshaugh proposal.

Ecology, Habitats and Wildlife

6.25 It was identified in the last Committee Report that the main ecological concerns related to the potential impacts on designated sites (SAC, SSSI), risks to regionally important habitat sites (local wildlife sites), impacts on blanket bog and on key bird species, especially peregrine and black grouse. It was also identified that the Environmental Statement and SEI should meet the requirements of the Council’s SPG on Biodiversity, especially with regard to Ecological Impact Assessment, statutory protected species/habitats and Borders Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.

6.26 Previously, Scottish Natural Heritage had objected to the proposal as they believed there was insufficient information to allow the competent authority (Scottish Government) to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the potential significant effects on the River Tweed SAC. Even with additional information, they did not believe some impacts could be satisfactorily overcome. Given this concern and the lack of compliance with Policies N2 of the Structure Plan and NE1 of the Consolidated Local Plan, the Council objected to the initial proposals for 36 wind turbines at Earlshaugh.

6.27 In their response to the reduced scheme with additional SEI, SNH advise that there is still insufficient information to inform an appropriate assessment for the River Tweed SAC. They maintain their objection until further information is provided on likely impact of peat slides on the River Tweed SAC, detail on mitigation measures, demonstration of the type of rainfall event built into the drainage design, detail on bridge construction methods and confirmation that drained turbine bases will not be used.

6.28 The position of SNH is supported with regard to designated nature conservation sites. Adopting Structure Plan Policy N2 (International Sites) and its precautionary principle, Local Plan Policy NE1 (International Nature Conservation Sites), and the advice within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for biodiversity, there remains insufficient information to inform an Appropriate Assessment on the adverse effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC. The reduced proposal should continue to be opposed for this reason.

6.29 The previous proposal was also opposed by the Council for reasons of detrimental impact on the Falla Moss Local Wildlife Site which was also a regionally important blanket bog habitat site. Five turbines were considered to have a potentially significant adverse impact together with access infrastructure passing through the site. In the revised scheme, turbines 4 and 5 have been micro-sited to reduce impacts on peat habitats and turbines 2 and 7 (of the original scheme) have been removed. It is now acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure avoids the Local Wildlife Site. It is possible that hydrological impacts may still arise and that impacts

Planning & Building Standards Committee 9 from dust and aerial pollutants could have an impact, but it is likely that these impacts could be mitigated or compensated for. There are likely to be impacts on wet modified bog habitats across the site including the larger Falla Moss site outwith the LWS and the head of the Glencraigie burn. Significant mitigation will be required to avoid significant adverse impacts on the blanket bog and wet modified bog habitats. An appropriate Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan could enhance blanket bog on site through improved management of blanket bog and wet modified bog areas, through control of grazing, burning and drainage.

6.30 In conclusion, the revised scheme would not have a significant adverse impact on the Falla Moss Local Wildlife Site and other areas of blanket bog and wet modified bog in the proposed development site provided mitigation is implemented through a Construction Method Statement and a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan. This reason for objection is, therefore, no longer valid subject to the aforementioned controls.

Bats, birds and mammals

6.31 The previous Report detailed concerns over peregrine, black grouse, bats, otters, red squirrel, badgers and reptiles. None of the Council’s concerns led to any specific recommendation for refusal as it was felt that revised surveys and a range of mitigation measures could address the issues.

6,32 Although the Council do not appear to have been afforded access to the Confidential Annex on merlin, it is noted that SNH do not oppose the scheme provided appropriate mitigation is adopted.

7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 The revisions and reduction to the Earlshaugh Wind Farm proposal are welcomed and have been carefully considered. Clearly, there is a reduction in impact as 12 turbines have been removed from the scheme and this is demonstrated across the various ZTVs and wireframes/photomontages. Nevertheless, the reductions are still not sufficient to reduce the visual impacts to acceptable levels or negate the major intrusion into the wild uplands area which is covered by AGLV and Draft SLA designations.

7.2 As per the previous report, notwithstanding the fact that the application site falls within Landscape Type 4: Southern Uplands with Scattered Forest which is characterised by a large scale rolling landform, high summits and a degree of remoteness (suitable for absorbing large scale developments such as windfarms), the area is located within the Tweedsmuir Hills Area of Great Landscape Value/Tweedsmuir Uplands Draft Special Landscape Area and the adjoining Dumfries and Galloway and South Ayrshire Regional Scenic Areas, thus the whole site and surrounding area can be considered as potentially sensitive.

7.3 The site is in an elevated area, within the AGLV/Draft SLA in an area described in Borders Landscape Assessment as having a ‘Degree of remoteness, ‘wildland’ quality and grandeur of scale unique within the region.’ This is also recognised in the “Moderate Constraints (Higher)” classification in the Wind Farm Spatial Strategy which is part of the Wind Energy SPG. In terms of Structure Plan Policy I19 it is ‘potentially sensitive’. In terms of Local Plan Policy D4, although it may be suitable in terms of large landscape scale, the site fails criteria 3 and 4 because of potential interference with prominent skylines, particularly on views from the south where the

Planning & Building Standards Committee 10 A701 tourist route, roads around Moffat and the well know Devil’s Beef Tub viewpoint are potentially significantly affected.

7.4 In addition, the affected (Moffat Hills) landscape is part of the core of the Southern Uplands and includes the most mountainous parts of the Borders/ Southern Uplands. The landscape character is therefore sensitive and there are several points where the enjoyment of this area for its distinctive ‘wild land’ qualities, would be impaired by the presence of a large windfarm on the shoulder of Hart Fell which would change the character of the core area. Criterion 5(i) is therefore not satisfied.

7.5 Of all the parts of the Southern Uplands where windfarms may be considered, it is this most mountainous core area, including the site of this application that is most deserving of protection from development, so that its special qualities can continue to be enjoyed.

7.6 It is recognised that the micro-siting of turbines and Supplementary Environmental Information have resolved the concerns of the Council over the Falla Moss Local Wildlife Site. However, there remain deficiencies in the assessment of impacts on the River Tweed SAC. Adopting the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for biodiversity, it is considered that the proposed development fails to comply with Development Plan Policies.

8 RECOMMENDATION OF HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES

8.1 That the Council indicate to the Scottish Government that it objects to the application at Earlshaugh for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would be contrary to policy I20 – Wind Energy Developments of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2018, Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and the Wind Energy SPG in that the erection of 24 wind turbines and associated equipment would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area. The proposed wind turbines would interfere with prominent skylines and high sensitivity receptors, particularly on views from the south where the A701 tourist route and the well known Devil’s Beef Tub viewpoint would be significantly affected.

2. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy N11 – Areas of Great Landscape Value of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2018 and Policy EP2 – Areas of Great Landscape Value of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that the erection of 24 turbines and associated equipment would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape quality of the Tweedsmuir Hills Area of Great Landscape Value and Tweedsmuir Uplands Draft Special Landscape Area. The proposed wind turbines would set an unacceptable precedent for wind farm development in the area which cannot be accommodated in the landscape.

3. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy N2 – International Sites of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2018 and Policy NE1 – International Conservation Sites of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that there is insufficient information to inform an Appropriate Assessment on the adverse effects on the integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. The erection of 24 wind turbines and associated equipment would not offer substantial benefits that outweigh the national nature conservation of the site.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 11 Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Craig Miller Principal Planning Officer – 01835 825029

Background Papers: Committee Report Nov 2008 (Appendix 1) Previous Minute Reference: Planning and Building Standards Committee Nov 2008

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Alison Clifton can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Telephone: 01835 825060. E- mail: [email protected]

Planning & Building Standards Committee 12