Celtic Sea Ltd: Erection of 50Kw Wind Turbine (34 Metres to Blade Tip)

Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure

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

Reference No : 14/00403/PP

Planning Hierarchy : Local Development

Applicant : Celtic Sea Ltd

Proposal : Erection of 50kW Wind Turbine (34 Metres to Blade Tip)

Site Address : Celtic Sea Ltd, Arduaine, by Oban ______

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Erection of 50kw wind turbine (34 metres to blade tip) ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons appended to this report. ______

11/00704/PP - Erection of dwellinghouse and ancillary accommodation unit – granted: 19/07/11 08/01705/DET – Erection of breakwater – granted: 20/03/09 06/01367/DET - Connection of walkway to shore – granted: 03/10/06 05/02077/DET - Extension to storage shed – granted: 18/04/06 02/02008/DET - Erection of storage and dispatch shed, depuration holding tanks, shed for mussel farm and slipway – amended proposal to 01/01693/DET – granted: 18/03/03 01/01693/DET - Formation of access and slipway and erection of storage shed – granted: 07/02/02 ______

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Area Roads Manager Report dated 04/03/14 advising no objections.

Environmental Health Unit Memo dated 17/03/14 advising that there is insufficient information with regards to noise from the proposed turbine and a noise assessment is required.

Scottish Natural Heritage E-mail dated 10/03/14 advising that the scale of the turbine is in keeping with the WECS and will be visually associated with the other Celtic Sea building in this location. If permission is to be granted it would he advisable that the tower and blades are coloured a matt green colour which will significantly reduce the intrusiveness of the development on the landscape. Bats may be present in nearby trees and consultation with the Biodiversity Officer is advised.

National Air Traffic Systems E-mail dated 25/02/14 advising that the proposal does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria and accordingly they have no objection.

Ministry of Defence Letter dated 18/03/14 advising no objection.

Kilninver & Kilmelford Community Council Letter dated 10/04/14 objecting to the proposed development on the following grounds.

• Approval of this application would set a precedent for other wind turbines on the coast; • The proposed wind turbine would be a very visible feature and would have an adverse visual impact on the wider landscape; • The proposed wind turbine would have an adverse impact on tourism for the area; • The proposed wind turbine would be visible from the A816 public road and would pose a risk to road users; • The proposed wind turbine would obstruct the view from the dwellinghouse currently under construction at ‘Eathie’; • The proposed wind turbine would cause intrusive noise on nearby residents and also those further afield; • There is increasing evidence on the potential health hazards of wind turbines. • The site for the proposed wind turbine in a sheltered cove would not appear to be the most efficient spot for a wind turbine; • The proposed wind turbine would have an adverse impact on wildlife in the surrounding area; • The application suggests that the turbine would create 5 more jobs, possibly in the building stage, but surely not after construction which leads to the assumption that the overall site is to be developed further which would be a worry for tourism in the area.

These comments reflect those made by third parties and the issues of concern are individually assessed at Section F below.

Biodiversity Officer No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time.

RSPB No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time. ______

(E) PUBLICITY:

The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 2o procedures, closing date 27/03/14. ______

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

34 objections have been received regarding the proposed development.

Mr James Robb, Arduaine Farm Lodge, Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (20/03/14) Mrs Winifred Campbell-Robb, Arduaine Farm Lodge, Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (20/03/14) Mr Peter Salmond, 18 The Glebe, Kilmelford, PA34 4XF (19/03/14) Mr A D F Dalton, Maolachy House, Lochavich, PA35 1HJ (22/03/14) Mrs Mhairi Taylor, 10 Cramond Road North, Edinburgh, EH4 6HS (25/03/14) Mr James Dinsmore, Tulloch Beag, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (26/03/14) A M Timmins, The Old Kirk, Kilmelford, PA34 4XD (20/03/14) Mrs Lorna Hill, Kames Lodge, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (27/03/14) Mr Robert Hill, Kames Lodge, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (27/03/14) Mrs Gillian Dinsmore, Tulloch Beag, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (27/03/14) Mrs Ruth MacCowan, 49 The Glebe, Kilmelford, PA34 4XF (27/03/14) Mrs Rachel Ross, Largian, Arduaine, PA34 4XN (27/03/14) Jane Davidson, Eathie, Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (26/03/14) Mrs Georgina Dalton, Maolachy, Lochavich, PA35 1HJ (24/03/14) Helen Keate, Kilchoan Farm, Kilmelford, PA34 4XD (24/03/14) Mr Andrew Vivers, Arniefoul, Glamis, Forfar, DD8 1UD (09/04/14) Mr Rick Potter, Old Cottage, Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (05/03/14) Mr Michael Campbell, Arduaine Farm, Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (26/03/14) Mrs Antoinette Mitchell, Barochreal, Kilninver, PA34 4UT (16/03/14) Mr Nigel Mitchell, Barochreal, Kilninver, PA34 4UT (12/03/14) Mr Fergus Gillanders, Craigaol, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (07/03/14) Mrs Caroline Gillanders, Craigaol, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (18/03/14) Mr Maurice Wilkins, Arduaine Gardens , Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (14/03/14) Mr John Stannard, Seall Na Mara, Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (13/03/14) Ms Jane Rentoul, Laroch, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (25/03/14) Mrs Linda Battison, Gleancrion, Lerags, PA34 4SE (27/03/14) Mr David Wilkie, Ardrowan, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (13/03/14) Mr Calum Ross, Loch Melfort Hotel, Arduaine, PA34 4XG (27/03/14) Mrs Shelagh Cannon, Kames Bay, Kilmelford, PA34 4XA (27/03/14) Hamish Taylor, Eathie, Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (26/03/14) Peter J Taylor, 11A Rothesay Mews, Edinburgh, EH3 7SG (25/03/14) Mr PS Metcalfe & Mrs VCK Metcalfe, no address given (08/03/14) Jose Vega - Lozano by e-mail (30/04/14) Ewan G Kennedy by e-mail (08/03/14)

(i) Summary of issues raised

• The proposed wind turbine it too large, would be an intrusive feature and would have a significant adverse visual impact on the landscape, both from land and sea, which has been identified as an Area of Panoramic Quality.

Comment: This concern is shared by the Planning Service and is fully assessed in Appendix A of this report.

• Visual impact on the scenic environment and from neighbouring houses. The existing mussel farm is already detrimental to the landscape at this location and this would be exacerbated by the proposed wind turbine. The visual assessment submitted with the Project Report has not been prepared by a qualified person and it is inaccurate.

Comment: This concern is noted with the impact of the proposed wind turbine being fully assessed in Appendix A of this report.

• The location of the proposed wind turbine adjacent to the main A816 public road would be a distraction to road users and could cause accidents.

Comment: The Area Roads Engineer has been consulted and raised no concerns with regards to road safety issues associated with the proposed turbine.

• The turbine would result in loss of residential amenity through loss of rural character. Impact on approved house at the Celtic Sea Ltd site.

Comment: The rural character of the area would not be so strongly affected as to reduce residential amenity at neighbouring houses and the issues of character and residential amenity appear to be somewhat disconnected. Adjacent housing is more likely to be affected by impacts on private views (which are not a material consideration) and noise levels, which are evaluated below. Impact on the approved house at Celtic Sea would be in respect of accommodation within the applicant’s control and therefore is less critical than impacts on third party houses which are outwith the applicant’s control.

• Various criticisms of the accuracy, competency and lack of independence in the submitted Project Report, which was compiled by the applicant in support of their own application.

Comment: The criticisms are noted and in many cases verified by the Planning Service Assessment, but could likely have been minimised or avoided altogether had an independent specialist been appointed to prepare the supporting statements. The degree of impact arising from the development does appear to have been under-estimated.

• The road which runs adjacent to the application site is the main coastal tourist route for this area renowned for its beauty and in the holiday months carries a large volume of traffic. The proposed wind turbine would have an adverse impact on both land and water based tourism in the area, including the Arduaine Gardens and the sheltered anchorages in the bay.

Comment: This concern is noted and is assessed in Appendix A of this report.

• The amenity of nearby residents, especially at night time, would be adversely affected by noise from the proposed wind turbine. The noise assessment submitted is generic rather than site specific. Noise would carry over the water to properties further afield from the site. Comparison to road noise is not appropriate given the different character of noise produced by a turbine and timing of such noise (24 hours a day).

Comment: This concern is shared by the Council’s Environmental Health Unit who require further detail on noise to be able to reach definitive conclusions. However, as the application is not being supported by the Planning Service for other reasons, this requirement has not been pursued with the applicant. In the event that Members are minded to support the application a noise assessment would require to be commissioned and evaluated in advance of any decision being reached. .

• The proposed wind turbine would not be effective in the position proposed as it would be sheltered from the prevailing wind direction.

Comment: The site selection is constrained in this case by the landownership of the applicant. It is accepted that a more efficient location could exist elsewhere, but that would go beyond the applicant’s landholding and as such has not been explored.

• The proposed wind turbine would have an adverse impact on the health of human and other life forms as a result of vibrations, emissions and pressure changes caused by turning blades.

Comment: The Council’s Environmental Health Unit was consulted on the proposal and raised no concerns with regard to the impact on health related issues associated with wind turbines.

• The application states that the wind turbine is essential for further development but no detail of such development has been submitted.

Comment: Given the lack of detail supplied, any impact on jobs or any other aspect of the business cannot be considered as material in the determination of this application.

• The proposed wind turbine would have an adverse impact on a wide range of wildlife and their habitats including sea eagles, otters and bats.

Comment: Scottish Natural Heritage was consulted on the proposed development and raised no objection with regard to the impact on wildlife. As the turbine is not being supported, further investigation of wildlife impacts is not necessary at this stage.

• The approval of the application would set a dangerous precedent for wind turbine development on the coastline.

Comment: Each planning application is considered on its own merits and the granting of planning permission for a particular site in no way implies that permission would be granted for similar development elsewhere.

• The proposed wind turbine would result in the reduction in value of house prices in the area.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.

• The viewpoints contained in the application are not representative and present the best case scenario taken from locations most suitable for the applicant. The impacts of this development would be high. The quality and accuracy of the visualisations is questioned.

Comment: These comments are noted, but the visualisations have not been challenged by SNH. The site can be viewed from a number of angles and it is regrettable that the submitted visualisations include so many that are obscured by trees, when in reality a moving vehicle passing the site would perceive the turbine in a more obvious way than the visualisations can represent given their ‘snapshot’ nature.

• The proposed wind turbine is contrary to the terms of the current Development Plan, including policy STRAT RE1, LP REN 1, LP ENV 1 and LP CST 2 as well as the Wind Energy Capacity Study, which identifies the site within Craggy Coasts and Islands (character type 7b).

Comment: This point is noted and the turbine is assessed against the Development Plan in Appendix A of this report.

• SNH’s position on the application is commented on. Painting the turbine dark green might help mask it from views when set against the land, but it would increase the visual impacts when seen against either the sky or sea as would occur in this case.

Comment: These comments are noted, but the views of SNH as a consultee with expertise in such matters remain valid. This low lying site would often be viewed set against a landscape backdrop.

• The proposed wind turbine would have no benefit to the local population in any way.

Comment: This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application as the applicant is not expected to have to demonstrate benefit to the wider community.

• The site offers a potential opportunity for a smaller turbine.

Comment: This is noted and has been intimated to the applicant.

• Range of comment provided regarding the efficiency of wind turbines generally and criticism of the funding mechanisms employed to cover the FIT.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.

The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the letters of representation are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess . ______

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: (iii) A project report: Yes

The Project Report, prepared by Celtic Sea Ltd, states:

“Arduaine is the centre of activity for the shellfish farms of Celtic Sea Ltd (CSL) in Argyll which have been operated during the last 20 years. The harvested shellfish are transported from the farms on the Isle of Mull and on the mainland to Arduaine for central purification, packing and dispatch to the markets.

CSL has installed a substantial onshore seawater system consisting of large seawater pumps, filter and UV systems in order to operate the purification system to FSA standards. This maintains the quality of the products and secures that the shellfish are safe for the consumer.

The sophisticated technical system requires a considerable amount of electricity. The past rises in the electricity price have result in a significant cost increase for CSL and the trend to further price increases in future are threatening the economical viability of the operation at Arduaine which is paramount for the successful running of the CSL shellfish farms in the remote rural areas of Argyll.

CSL has no other option than to find a more cost effective power supply in order to reduce the costs allowing the continuation of the Arduaine operation and the related employment. In addition the further expansion of the business is relaying on energy intensive production processes depending on a cost efficient power supply.

The proposed development consists of the installation of one small scale wind turbine on the site of CSL at Arduaine. The wind turbine is expected to generate all electricity required by CSL on site at present and in future. The turbine is also to be connected to the national grid which will allow exporting any surplus electricity for the local use in the Arduaine/Kilmelford Area”..

The above represents an extract only from the documents. Full details are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development No e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ______

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

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

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

Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002

STRAT DC 5 – Development in Sensitive Countryside STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control STRAT RE 1 – Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development STRAT SI 1 – Sustainable Development

Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009

LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment LP ENV 10 – Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) LP ENV 19 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LP CST 2 – Coastal Development on the Undeveloped Coast LP REN 1 – Wind Farms and Wind Turbines

Appendix A – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles

Proposed Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2013 LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables SG LDP REN 2 Wind turbine Development up to 50 Metres High

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

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

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

Wind Energy Capacity Study, 2012 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014

Annex 1 to Planning Advice Note 45 : Renewable Energy Technologies ______

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

A screening opinion has been issued which confirms that a formal EIA is not required in this case. ______

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

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

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

(O) Requirement for a hearing: No

In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, Members should consider:

• How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance.

In this case, the application has been the subject of 34 individual objections to the proposed development along with objection from the community council. Many of the grounds of objections are shared by the Planning Services assessment, and contribute to the recommendation of refusal. That being the case, it is not considered that a hearing would add value to the determination process and therefore it is recommended that Members do not undertake a hearing provided that the recommendation is accepted. In the event that Members are minded to approve the application then the adverse representations received would warrant a hearing being convened. . ______

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

Planning permission is sought for erection of 1 x 34 metre (to blade tip) wind turbine within the Celtic Sea Ltd’s land base at Arduaine, on the coast of Loch Melfort.

In terms of the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’, Policy STRAT RE 1 confirms wind energy proposals will be tested against STRAT DC 7, 8 and 9, and will be supported if there is no significant adverse impact on local communities, natural environment, landscape character, visual amenity, historic environment, and telecoms infrastructure.

Policy REN 1, Wind Farms and Wind Turbines, states that wind farm development will be supported in forms, scales and sites where the technology can operate efficiently, where servicing and access implications are acceptable and where the proposed development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively on the economic, social or physical aspects of sustainable development. Furthermore, the following must be satisfactorily addressed in any submission. § communities, settlements and their settings; § areas and interests of nature conservation significance including local biodiversity, ecology and the water environment; § landscape and townscape character, scenic quality and visual and general amenity § core paths, rights of way; or other important access routes § sites of historic or archaeological interest and their settings § telecommunications, transmitting and receiving systems § important tourist facilities, attractions or routes § stability of peat deposits

The site is also situated within the Knapdale and Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality where Policy LP ENV 10, Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQ), states that development in, or adjacent to, an APQ will be resisted where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape.

Policy CST 2, Coastal Development on the Undeveloped Coast, states that applications for development will not generally be supported unless they comply with a range of criteria.

Appendix A of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ outlines why impact on the landscape is a major consideration when new development is proposed. All significant developments require to be assessed for their compatibility with the present landscape character as detailed in the SNH Landscape Character Assessment. Policy LP ENV 10 affords the landscape a designation of regional importance, where a more cautious approach to wind turbine development is justified.

The ‘Proposed Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ 2013 following the issuing of the Reporter’s post-Examination report may now be accorded material weight in decision- making and Policy LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REN 2 Wind turbine Development up to 50 Metres High are applicable in this case. These largely reflect the position already established by the adopted local plan, with recognition of the more recent stance in Scottish Planning Policy that sustainable development should be supported other than in cases where unacceptable significant adverse effects can be demonstrated.

The approved ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (LWECS) is a technical document which aims to inform strategic planning for wind energy development in line with Scottish Planning Policy and to provide guidance on the appraisal of individual windfarm and wind turbine proposals across Argyll and Bute.

The LWECS identifies the site subject of the application as being within Landscape Character Type 7b, ‘Craggy Coasts and Islands’ and states that there is very limited scope for single and small groups of the small typology (20-35 metres) to be associated with the less complex landform and vegetation cover. The LWECS advises that turbines should avoid intrusion on skylines where these form the backdrop to settlement and on key views from the A816 to the coast and sea. Page 146 of the Detailed Sensitivity Assessments advises that: “They should avoid intrusion on sky-lines, particularly where these form the backdrop to settlement and on key views from the A816 to the coast and sea” and “There is likely to be more scope to accommodate a greater number of well- sited turbines below 20m height than the small typology considered in this assessment.” The LWECS identifies opportunities for turbines within landscape type 7b as “Areas of

less complex craggy landform away from the coastal edge where smaller typologies could be accommodated so visually associated with existing buildings.”

The proposal has elicited 34 objections, many from residents of the surrounding area plus an objection from the community council. A number of concerns raised by the objectors are shared by the Planning Service assessment.

The site is in a prominent position open to short range views from the A816 public road when heading south across to Arduaine Point and Loch Melfort. It is considered that the introduction of a 34 metre (to tip) high wind turbine, by reason of its height siting, and motion would introduce an incongruous feature into the landscape to the detriment of the scenic qualities and the landscape character of the Knapdale and Melfort designated Area of Panoramic Quality.

The proposal would be would be contrary to Development Plan Policy and the approved Wind Energy Capacity Study which seeks to safeguard designated scenic areas from inappropriate development which would undermine the visual quality and landscape character of such areas. Benefits in terms of the contribution which the proposal would make to renewable energy generation targets and the economic benefit to the business concerned would not outweigh the identified shortcomings of the proposal. ______

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

(R) Reasons why planning permission should be refused.

The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons appended below. ______

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

N/A ______

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

Author of Report: Stephen Fair Date: 02/12/14

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 03/12/14

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 14/00403/PP

1. The erection of a 34m high (to blade tip) wind turbine, by virtue of its siting, height and motion, close to a sensitive coastal edge with recognised scenic qualities, would introduce an incongruous feature into the Knapdale and Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality, which is an area specifically identified as being worthy of special protection in view of its landscape and scenic qualities, which are derived in part from the relationship between the land and the sea, which recognises that coastal locations are vulnerable to change and are subject to particular sensitivity to inappropriate forms and scales of development. As recognised by the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) this sensitive landscape does not lend itself to a turbine of this height in such proximity to the coast, as is scale and movement would impose significant change upon its immediate surroundings and would impact adversely upon the wider landscape, including an important coastal tourist route.

The proposal is contrary to Policies STRAT DC 5, STRAT DC 8, STRAT RE 1 and STRAT SI 1 of the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ and Policies LP CST 2, LP ENV 1, LP ENV 10 and LP ENV 19 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’, and to Policy LDP 6: and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REN 1 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Council Proposed Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination 2014) and to the guidance set out in the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012). There are no other material considerations of sufficient weight, including the contribution which the development could make to renewable energy generation, offsetting the energy costs for the existing business, or to addressing the consequences of climate change, which are of sufficient weight to warrant anything other than the application being determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan.

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/00403/PP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

The site lies in Sensitive Countryside as per the adopted local plan development control zone policy STRAT DC 5 (which remains unaltered in the context of the Proposed LDP), however the appropriate policy assessment is against Policy LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (as modified post-Examination) and associated Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REN 2: Wind Turbine Development up to 50 Metres High.

In terms of the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’, Policy STRAT RE 1 confirms wind energy proposals will be tested against STRAT DC 7, 8 and 9, and will be supported if there is no significant adverse impact on local communities, natural environment, landscape character and visual amenity, historic environment, and telecoms infrastructure.

Policy REN 1, Wind Farms and Wind Turbines, states the wind energy development will be supported in forms, scales and sites where the technology can operate efficiently, where servicing and access implications are acceptable and where the proposed development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively on the economic, social or physical aspects of sustainable development. Furthermore, the following must be satisfactorily addressed in any submission. § communities, settlements and their settings; § areas and interests of nature conservation significance including local biodiversity, ecology and the water environment; § landscape and townscape character, scenic quality and visual and general amenity § core paths, rights of way; or other important access routes § sites of historic or archaeological interest and their settings § telecommunications, transmitting and receiving systems § important tourist facilities, attractions or routes § stability of peat deposits

Policy CST 2, Coastal Development on the Undeveloped Coast, states that applications for development will not generally be supported unless they comply with a range of criteria.

Appendix A of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ outlines why impact on the landscape is a major consideration when new development is proposed and all significant developments require to be assessed for their compatibility with the present landscape character as detailed in the SNH Landscape Character Assessment. Policy LP ENV 10 affords the landscape a designation of regional importance, where a more cautious approach to wind energy development is justified.

The proposed ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (2013 as modified post- Examination) may now be accorded material weight in the determination of this

application, as it represents the most up to date expression of policy following the issuing of the latest Scottish Planning Policy earlier in the year. This establishes support for renewables where they are consistent with the principles of sustainable development provided that there are no unacceptable significant adverse effects upon specified local environmental considerations, which is a position which replicates that established by the latest SPP. Criteria against which all wind turbines are to be assessed are set out in Policy LDP 6 of the plan and supplementary guidance in respect of the scale of turbine proposed is detailed in SG REN 2.

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

The approved Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012 (LWECS) identifies the site as being within the ‘Craggy Coasts and Islands’ designation and states that there is ‘very limited’ scope for single and small groups of the small typology (20-35 metres) to be associated with less complex landform and vegetation cover. The LWECS advises that turbines should avoid intrusion on skylines where these form the backdrop to settlement and on key views from the A816 to the coast and sea. Opportunities may exist for smaller turbines alongside existing buildings away from the sensitive coastal edge. The LWCS represents a technical landscape assessment of development capacity and has the status of guidance rather than that of policy. Nonetheless it represents a consideration of material weight in the determination of this proposal.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The proposal is for a single 34 metre high three bladed wind turbine within the existing Celtic Sea landbase for its shellfish business at Arduaine, situated on the coast of Loch Melfort and below the A816 Lochgilphead to Oban public road.

The turbine measures 24 metres from base to hub with three blades forming a rotor diameter of 20 metres. The overall height of the turbine is 34 metres to blade tip. The turbine is set on the coast alongside an existing slipway.

The application states that the proposed wind turbine is required in order to find a more cost effective power supply for the operation of the Celtic Sea Ltd land base in order to reduce the costs of the Arduaine operation, which at times requires the pumping of seawater for the operation of a depuration plant for the cleansing of shellfish. The proposed wind turbine is expected to generate all electricity required by Celtic Sea Ltd on site at present and in the future.

The proposal requires to be assessed against the provisions of adopted local plan Policy LP REN 1, Wind Farms and Wind Turbines, which states that wind farm development will be supported in forms, scales and sites where the technology can operate efficiently, where servicing and access implications are acceptable, and where proposed development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively on the economic, social or physical aspects of sustainable development. For all proposals, the following issues must be satisfactorily addressed.

• Communities, settlements and their settings

It is considered that the proposed development will result in the introduction of an incongruous feature into the landscape which would be significant in terms of the immediate site and have an adverse impact on the wider landscape setting of this area due to the open and visually prominent position of the site on the coast. The site is close to the small settlement of Arduaine and would be visible from a small number of existing houses. It would adversely affect the setting of Arduaine by virtue of the introduction of a 34m high turbine in a prominent location at the northern approach to the settlement.

• Areas and interests of nature conservation significant including local biodiversity, ecology, and the water environment.

The proposed development is not located within or adjacent to any Nature Conservation designation. Objectors raise concern regarding impacts on a number of wildlife species. No concerns have been raised by Scottish Natural Heritage on nature conservation grounds. Given the recommended reasons for refusal, wildlife impacts need not be investigated further, but if Members were minded to approve the application possible impacts on bats and otters would warrant further investigation prior to any decision being reached.

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

It is considered that the proposed development would introduce an incongruous feature which would dominate the wider landscape and have an adverse environmental impact on the designated Knapdale and Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality. The adverse visual impacts are not considered to be acceptable or desirable and they would detract from the special qualities of this attractive and important coastal route.

The site is well contained from some public vantage points and is situated below the main road, but is it directly on the coastal edge where the approved LWECS advises against favourable consideration of proposals of this scale. The roadside trees are deciduous and drivers would be well aware to the presence of the turbine turning so close to the road. As this is a sensitive coastal area, protected by virtue of the APQ designation, it is considered that the 34m high turbine cannot be supported at this location.

A turbine of less than 20m high close to the building might prove to be more acceptable, but would be less productive than the current location and size of turbine, and that option has not been taken up by the applicant.

• Core paths, right of way; or other important access routes.

The proposed site is not within the vicinity of any core paths, right of way or access routes. It is visible from the sea and the adjacent public road and impacts from these directions would be adverse and unacceptable as discussed below.

• Sites of historic or archaeological interest and their settings.

There are no sites of historic or archaeological interest so near the site as to be adversely affected by it. The Arduaine peninsula does have features of historic

interest but these are far enough away and the site is relatively separated from them so as to avoid adverse impacts upon setting.

• Telecommunications, transmitting and receiving systems.

The proposed development will not impact upon any telecommunications, transmitting and receiving systems.

• Important tourist facilities, attractions or routes.

The development site is close to, and situated below, the main coastal tourist road (A816) from Lochgilphead to Oban. The landscape and scenic qualities of the route are important in creating a sense of place for visitors to the area and the open and rugged coastal landscape within which the development is to be situated is therefore particularly sensitive to change, as recognised by the designation of the Area of Panoramic Quality. This is a scenic designation of regional importance.

The site is also open to views from sea, where it would sit down low right on the coastal edge where it would be backdropped by the rising landform. Painting the turbine green as suggested by SNH would diminish its visual impacts from sea, but increase its prominence when viewed against the sky or sea backdrop as would be experienced from the landward side and from the A816 in particular. The current proposed light coloured turbine would generate adverse visual impacts from sea due to the turbine height and prominence right on the coastal edge.

Notwithstanding the presence of existing land base structures, which are generally concealed from the road by topography, it is considered that the introduction of a 34 metre high wind turbine close to the A816 road and in such an open and visually prominent coastal position would introduce change with unacceptable adverse impacts on the existing rural and scenic character of the area, which in turn would detract from the existing qualities of this important tourist route.

• Stability of peat deposits.

The site is not within the vicinity of any peat deposits.

It is concluded that due to its height and prominent coastal location, the proposed wind turbine is contrary to the terms of Policy LP REN 1 as it will introduce an incongruous feature to the detriment of landscape character, which in turn will have an adverse environmental impact on the Knapdale and Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality and the main tourist route from Lochgilphead to Oban.

The emergent LDP largely re-states the relevant considerations set out in the adopted local plan but renewables policy is prefaced by the more recent stance established by Scottish Planning Policy 2014 that sustainable development should be supported other than in cases where unacceptable significant adverse effects can be demonstrated. Therefore there is a more definitive support for renewables as an important component of sustainable development, other than in those cases where there are sound and clear cut local environmental reasons which would warrant permission being refused, despite the sustainability benefits of the proposal.

In line with the recommendations of the LWECS, and notwithstanding the above assessment of the current proposal, it is considered that the site may offer a potential

opportunity for a smaller wind turbine up to 20 metres high to blade tip, in a set back position away from the coastal fringe and closer to the land base building to give it an appropriate association in terms of scale and perception with the existing buildings. The applicant has been advised of this potential opportunity and the Planning Service has offered to work towards a mutually acceptable proposal, however, to date, this offer has not been taken up.

C. Landscape Character

The site is situated within the defined Knapdale and Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality, which is a scenic designation of regional importance. . Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC 8, Landscape and Development Control, states that development which by reason of location, siting, scale, form design or cumulative impact, damages or undermines the key environmental features of a visually contained or wider landscape or coastscape shall be treated as ‘non-sustainable’ and is contrary to this policy. Furthermore, Policy LP ENV 10 Policy, Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan states that development in, or adjacent to, an Area of Panoramic Quality will be resisted where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape.

Policy LP CST 2, Coastal Development on the Undeveloped Coasts, gives a general presumption against development on the undeveloped cost unless the development needs a coastal location and subject to compliance with other relevant criteria.

In terms of The SNH ‘Landscape Assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde’ (1996), this characterises the area as ‘Craggy Upland’ and states that upland valleys and coastlines are the most scenic and sensitive parts of this landscape and any new development in these areas should be strictly controlled.

This assessment feeds into the approved WECS which aims to inform strategic planning for wind energy development in line with Scottish Planning Policy and to provide guidance on the appraisal of wind turbine proposals in Argyll and Bute.

The LWECS identifies the site subject of the application as being within Landscape Character Type 7b, ‘Craggy Coasts and Islands’ and states that there is very limited scoped for single and small groups of the small typology (20-35 metres) to be associated with less complex landform and vegetation cover. The WECS advises that turbines should avoid intrusion on skylines where these form the backdrop to settlement and on key views from the A816 to the coast and sea. The study further states that there is likely to be more scope to accommodate a greater number of well sited turbines below 20 metre height than the small typology. Opportunities are likely to exist away from the coastal edge and alongside existing buildings where they would form an obvious visual association.

The proposal would result in the introduction of a prominent and incongruous addition to the landscape, which by virtue of its height, siting and motion, will give rise to significant harm to the landscape setting and visual amenity of the wider area.

In this regard, due to its height and location it is considered that the proposal will introduce an incongruous feature to the detriment of landscape character which would have an adverse environmental impact on the Knapdale and Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality and therefore be contrary to the terms of Policies STRAT DC 8, LP CST 2, LP ENV 10 and the approved Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study.

D. Climate change and economic considerations

In assessing any application associated with the generation of renewable energy it is necessary to have regard to macro environmental consequences as a material consideration. Government and Development Plan policy supports renewable electricity generation in principle, in the interests of addressing climate change, provided that development does not impinge to an unacceptable degree upon its surroundings as well as other caveats. As part of the decision making process, it is necessary to consider whether the advantages associated with the production of electricity from renewable sources, consequent CO 2 savings and the contribution which a development might make to the tackling of global warming.

In this case, although the presence of the turbine will be significant in the landscape, the turbine size at 50kW is limited, and therefore the contribution which the development will make to climate change will inevitably be very small. The generating capacity of the development is a material consideration, as is the contribution which electricity generated on site could make to the economics of the existing business operation. However the weight which these factors should be accorded in this case are not sufficient to set aside the policy presumption against the development in terms of its locally adverse environmental impact.

In summary, the benefits of the development for the environment and existing business are small in this case, whilst the impacts of the development upon its sensitive surroundings are significant. Any advantages in terms of climate change considerations and business economics are not sufficient to offset the identified shortcomings of the proposal.