Redirecting to East Ayrshire Council

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE: 18 JANUARY 2013

11/0868/PP: ERECTION OF EIGHT WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AT CHALMERSTON, DALMELLINGTON

BY BURNHEAD WIND FARM LTD

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development

Click for Application Details: http://eplanning.east- ayrshire.gov.uk/online/centralDistribution.do?action=dispatch&caseType=Application&ca seNo=11/0868/PP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET

1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.1 The development proposes the following:

• 8 wind turbines of up to 100 metres to tip height (i.e. height from ground level to the tip of the blade when vertical); • Transformers, foundations and crane hardstandings; • New and upgraded access tracks with passing bays and turning points; • underground power cabling; • on site control building and sub station; • one permanent 60m high meteorological mast;

In addition to the above components of the operational windfarm proposal, the construction phase proposals include:

• a temporary construction compound; • two temporary performance monitoring masts; • laydown areas adjacent to crane hardstandings; • conversion of an existing compound into a temporary laydown area for wind turbine components and storage containers; • one potential borrow pit (areas of stone excavation);

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons on the attached sheet.

3. CONCLUSIONS

3.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Section) Act 1997 require that planning applications be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

3.2 Scottish Government legislation and policy gives strong support for developments that generate electricity from a renewable source. The proposal would make a modest contribution towards the 100% equivalent target for electricity generation from renewable sources. However, that support is not unconditional and it relies upon the proposal satisfying a range of criteria which are largely replicated and expanded upon within the Development Plan.

3.3 The key issues which this proposal presents are its landscape and visual impact, its effect on the historic environment, its effect on tourism and recreational interests and its impact on local communities.

3.4 By the very nature of such developments, commercial windfarms form significant elements within a landscape due to their vertical emphasis and moving parts. In the case of Burnhead, the development is partly located within the Loch Doon Valley designated Sensitive Landscape Character Area and is likely to significantly change the landscape character of the area. These changes are considered to be relatively localised and not experienced at all locations however in those locations where turbines are visible they will alter the appearance of the landscape by forming the dominant feature and appearing out of proportion with the landscape. At greater distances and particularly from southerly directions, the imposing landscape around and behind the turbines allows the development to fit with the landscape and not significantly alter the landscape perception or views towards the Loch Doon Valley area. The higher ground to the north of the development largely allows for no views of the development. Within their consultation response Scottish Natural Heritage largely agree with this assessment.

3.5 At a more localised level, the development will offer significant visual impacts on parts of the settlements of Burton, Bellsbank and Dalmellington, the rural residential properties of Laight and Minnivey and sections of various transport and tourist routes and destinations within approximately 5 -6km’s. This localised impact is of particular concern for objectors who note that the turbines will not only be visible from a number of key local areas but that their size is out of scale with the surrounding environment. The intervening landscape at Craigmark Hill provides a buffer between the development and the local settlements. However, the development appears as a haphazard collection of moving parts of turbines on the skyline, created by this landscape feature. This is a distracting feature visually and alters the perception of the enclosed landscape around Burnton. It should be noted that Scottish Natural Heritage describe the significant landscape impacts as being localised in nature therefore whilst this proposal has significantly reduced in size from the previous application to the extent that its landscape and visual impact at distance has significantly improved, it continues to fail at a local level.

3.6 The proposal will have varying degrees of impact on the historic environment. There are a number of listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments and a Garden and Designed Landscape within 5km’s of the development. A minority of these features will experience a direct and/or an indirect effect from the windfarm. Although the development may be visible from some of these features, it does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on their setting. The exception to this is Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape to the south of the development. It is anticipated that a degree of adverse impact will occur on the setting of this area, particularly in its northern and north western portions and will also suffer a degree of cumulative impact with the Dersalloch proposal to the west. Historic Scotland does not consider these impacts to be significant and do not object to the development.

3.7 The letters of objection and Community Council consultation response raises significant concern over the adverse impact on tourism that the proposal will cause. This is largely two fold with the adverse visual and landscape impacts considered to discourage visitors and the direct effects that the proposal could have on the observatory should it be night lit, as requested by the MoD. The local area sits at the periphery of the Dark Sky Park boundary and is within the transition area of the Biosphere and is therefore well placed to exploit these features. The recent opening of the observatory and extension of the Dark Sky Park offer significant tourism benefits for the local community. Furthermore, a number of core paths and other routes allow access and exploitation of the Galloway national tourist route which could attract visitors to the area. The applicant considers that the development will have a negligible impact on tourism given the limited number of recreational opportunities.

3.8 It is considered that the proposal could have an adverse impact on the tourism potential of the area. The recent designations noted above have the potential to grow and attract tourists to a world class resource which has no comparison in Scotland and perhaps indeed Europe. Whilst this is a relatively new feature, any adverse impact on these designations should be resisted. The visual impact of the turbines from the observatory is significant given its elevated position. However, the observatory is primarily for use at night to take advantage of the dark sky designation therefore visual impact is considered to be a lesser issue. However, any lighting of the turbines has the potential to adversely affect the designation and the objectors advise that infra red lighting does not address this issue. The applicant has not provided any rebuttal of this claim therefore a cautious approach to this matter should be pursued. The development is not considered to adversely affect the Biosphere or its sustainable aims as the development seeks to contribute towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and in this respect can be described as being sustainable at a national level. The visual impact of the development on other tourism related facilities such as the paths and key transport routes will be significant however this significance is reduced as many of these views will be fleeting owing to the nature of the activity.

3.9 Turning now to the impact on the local community, a number of benefits could result from the proposal. The applicant has indicated a willingness to contribute to the Renewable Energy Fund which would be used in the local area. However, Scottish Government policy is clear that such financial benefits do not carry any weight. The applicant envisages that some jobs may be created and that spin off benefits to the local economy from employment of local contractors and use of local facilities may occur but acknowledges that this is likely to be short term.

3.10 Set against these benefits, there is the potential for adverse impact on tourism which is set out in the preceding paragraphs. Whilst tourism does not currently contribute to East Ayrshire in the same manner as South or North Ayrshire, the Council does have strategies to increase visitor numbers and tourist revenues. The designation of the Biosphere and Dark Sky Park will contribute to the desirability of the area for tourists which will also create other local opportunities therefore the development has the potential to discourage tourists to the area given its significant local presence and its impact on the landscape character and amenity of the area. Furthermore, the local communities stands to receive the most significant visual impacts from the development. The community is largely a permanent receptor that will experience continual exposure to the windfarm. The properties on the north and north west boundaries of Burnton and the western boundary of Dalmellington will experience the disjointed appearance referred to in paragraph 8.5 above from their properties and rear and front gardens respectively. This impact is considered to be significant.

3.11 Based on the above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies ECON 6, ECON 7 (E), (F) & (G), ENV 1 AND ENV 2 of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan. Furthermore the proposal is to be contrary to policies SD 1(i), (ii) & (iii), CS 12 (ii) & (iv), CS 14 (E), (F) & (G), ENV 3, ENV 15 (i), (v) & (vi), ENV 16, ENV 17 and ENV 20 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTE

Should the Committee agree that the application be approved contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development, in terms of the principle of the proposed development, then the application will not require to be referred to Council as it would not represent a significant departure from Council policy.

Alan Neish Head of Planning and Economic Development

Note: This document combines key sections of the associated report for quick reference and should not in itself be considered as having been the basis for recommendation preparation or decision making by the Planning Authority.

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE: 18 JANUARY 2013

11/0868/PP: ERECTION OF EIGHT WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AT CHALMERSTON, DALMELLINGTON

BY BURNHEAD WIND FARM LTD

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present for determination an application for planning permission, to be considered by the Planning Committee under the current scheme of delegation as it is a Major Development as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 Site Description: The site area is approximately 127 hectares and is located within and adjacent to the western part of the Chalmerston opencast coal site. The main body of the site, excepting the site access, is approximately 2km to the north west of Dalmellington. The site is immediately bounded to the north by Benquhat Hill with commercial forestry further north and to the west by rough grazing on sloping ground with Waterside village approximately 1.5km’s from the site boundary. To the east of the site are the opencast workings including restored and un-restored land. To the south of the site is agricultural land and opencast workings with site access following the opencast access to the A713.

2.2 The application site has been partially developed for opencast purposes at the northern, eastern and southern section, the majority of which has been restored. The site currently has internal access roads and tracks as well as small man made water bodies centrally located within the site. The ground is generally undulating in nature although generally rises towards the north and Benquhat Hill.

2.3 The site is within a Sensitive Landscape Character Area and part of the site is designated as a Provisional Wildlife Site. The Dunaskin Glen SSSI is located outwith but in very close proximity to the west of the site. A number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments associated with the Dunaskin Ironworks are located close to the site with a part of the Mineral Railway coming within the application site.

2.4 Proposed Development: The development proposes the following:

In addition to the above components of the operational windfarm proposal, the construction phase proposals include:

2.5 The windfarm proposal comprises the erection of 8 three bladed horizontal axis wind turbines with a hub height of 60 metres and a maximum base to tip height of 100 metres with the diameter of the blades up to 82.4 metres. The turbines are computer controlled to ensure that the turbines operate at optimum performance level. Turbines with a rating of up to 2.3 megawatts are under consideration for this proposed wind farm providing a potential maximum total generating capacity of 18.4 megawatts.

2.6 A permanent substation and control building measuring 23 metres by 7 metres is proposed on the eastern part of the site. The building will be single storey in nature with a pitched roof and has an outdoor switchgear area that is surrounded by palisade fencing.

2.7 The principle access for construction and operations relative to the site would be from the previously consented opencast site entrance off the A713. The turbine towers, nacelles and blades will be delivered to Port of Ayr harbour. These will then be transported to the site via the A79, A719 and A77 onto the A713 at Bankfield roundabout. On site, the proposed development includes the formation of approximately 2.3 kilometres of new access tracks and will utilise 4 kilometres of existing access track. Cabling will be laid adjacent to the roads that link the turbines and transformers to each other and the on site sub station.

2.8 The applicant estimates that approximately 70,000 m³ of stone will be required for construction of the windfarm (including access tracks, structural fill beneath turbine foundations and hardstanding at turbine bases and compounds). The applicant has advised that the potential for an on site borrow pit will be investigated however based on the submitted information it is most likely that stone will be sourced from local quarries and brought to the site by road.

2.9 A temporary construction compound will be required, providing site accommodation and staff welfare facilities, materials and small component storage and car parking facilities. The proposed compound will measure approximately 100 metres by 50 metres. The southern boundary of the compound will be screened by an earth bund formed from the topsoil scrape of the compound. When the wind farm is complete the compound will be removed from site and the topsoil reinstated. The stone removed will thereafter be kept on site and used for undertaking repairs to roads and hardstanding throughout the project life.

2.10 A permanent meteorological mast is proposed for the site to a height of 60 metres. The mast is required to collect and store meteorological data throughout the operational lifetime of the development. A further two temporary performance masts may be required during the commissioning of the development. These are guyed structures up to 60 metres in height and would be on site for approximately 3-4 months.

2.11 The application is accompanied by a comprehensive Environmental Statement that covers a wide range of environmental considerations particularly in respect of landscape and visual impact and impact on the natural and built environment. An addendum to the original Environmental Statement was submitted which focuses on local landscape and visual effects. The application promotes a 25 year period of operation, following final commissioning. The construction period for the proposed development is anticipated to be nine months and decommissioning is expected to take a further six to nine months.

2.12 The proposal has been the subject of pre-application consultation with the local community and other relevant stakeholders / interested parties. A Pre- Application Consultation Report accompanies the application that details the measures undertaken by the applicant to engage with the community, including a public exhibition held on 25 August 2011 which was attended by approximately 82 people.

3. CONSULTATIONS AND ISSUES RAISED

3.1 East Ayrshire Environmental Health Service has provided comments advising that the predicted noise levels for sensitive receptors as described in Section 10.4.2 of the Environmental Impact assessment would, if found to be the case when the development is operational, not give rise to concerns about noise impacts, and fall well below those limits specified in ETSU R-97. Furthermore they provide standard comments relating to construction phase working hours, noise levels from construction, suitable dust suppression measures should be introduced during the construction phase, waste arising should be disposed of satisfactorily and otherwise than by burning and finally all drainage should be completed to the satisfaction of SEPA and/or Scottish Water.

Conditions or advisory notes can be attached to any grant of consent to address matters raised by the Environmental Health Service. The comments relating to noise are particularly noted.

3.2 East Ayrshire Council Roads and Transportation Service has no objections to the development subject to conditions. These include access to the site utilising the existing right turn lane access and further discussions on the axle configurations and loadings for abnormal load movements, particularly in relation to Boneston Bridge by Hollybush which may require detailed information and works. Furthermore any alterations to be carried out to the public road system to accommodate traffic in connection with the development, or any repairs as a result of damage will require to be carried out at the applicants expense. The applicant must also ensure that a wheel/body wash are undertaken on site to prevent mud and debris being carried onto the public road and a traffic management plan will require to be drawn up and agreed with Roads Department prior to works commencing. Finally, East Ayrshire Council reserves the right to recover the cost of any extraordinary damage caused by traffic related to the application and will be carried out at the applicant expense.

The matters raised by the Roads Division can largely be addressed by planning conditions should any consent be granted. There is potential for aggregate being brought to the site should suitable material not be found on site. This has the potential to create a short term haul route which could have adverse impact on communities along that route. The Roads Division has raised no objections to this however should consent be granted it is recommended that a full assessment of any such route be provided through planning condition including appropriate mitigation where necessary.

3.3 BAA airports safeguarding has no objection to the development.

Noted.

3.4 Glasgow Prestwick International Airport (GPA) has no objection to the proposal subject to a planning condition that restricts the micro siting of turbine 1 to ensure that the risk of any detection by their radar is minimised.

An appropriate condition can be attached to any grant of planning consent to address the concerns of Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

3.5 NATS (En Route) has no objection to the development.

Noted.

3.6 The Civil Aviation Authority has raised no objection to the proposal and advised that there is an international civil aviation requirement for all structures of 300 feet (91.4 metres)* or more to be charted on aeronautical charts.

• Any structure of 150 metres* or more must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation Order and should be appropriately marked. Smaller structures may also be required to be lit by aviation stakeholders particularly if they fall under Section 47 of the Aviation Act. • Cumulative effects of turbines may lead to unacceptable impacts in certain geographic areas.

Noted.

3.7 The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (Ministry of Defence) has raised no objection to the development but has requested that all turbines be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared aviation lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point.

Noted. A planning condition to address this matter could be attached to any grant of planning consent.

3.8 The Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Team has considered this application and the supporting information advises that the application does not accord with Structure Plan policy and has a direct impact on a number of strategic interests including the historic setting of Waterside, the setting of a nationally recognised designed landscape at Craigengillan, tourism and recreational interest such a views from and along the A713 and the designated sensitive landscape area in the vicinity of the proposal. They also consider that the proposal could have adverse cumulative impacts and note that the area is sensitive for Glasgow Prestwick.

Each of the matters raised by the Structure Plan team are considered in more detail elsewhere within this report. It should be noted that Glasgow Prestwick has raised no objections to the developments as advised at section 3.4.

3.9 Dalmellington Community Council has objected to the development. The grounds for objection are as follows:

3.9.1 The proposed scheme is for the construction of eight turbines with a tip height of 100 metres, each equivalent in height to a 33 storey office block. They would tower over the village, the moving blades exaggerating the severely adverse visual impact. Dalmellington is a former coal mining community and was hit very hard by the closure of the deep mines a generation ago. The consequent high levels of unemployment, in the absence of other opportunities, led to social problems, a sense of isolation and a lack of belief in the future. Parts of the community fall within the worst affected areas of deprivation in Scotland.

Having visited Dalmellington in 1844, the great circuit Judge and educationalist Lord Cockburn wrote:

‘When it’s time shall come (as come it will), what a village Dalmellington may be. A few old trees, irregular ground, tumbling burns, a spire, and a mill – what more is wanted?’

Three years later Cockburn grieved for progress:

‘It has the appearance, and the reputation of being a singularly virtuous and happy village; and I am told is perhaps the last place in Ayrshire where, with a good deal of old primitive manufacture, rural simplicity and contentment still linger. But it is now to taste of manufactures in an improved state. The devil has disclosed his iron and speculation has begun to work it. There seemed to be about a dozen of pits sinking within half a mile of the village, and before another year is out those now solitary and peaceful hills will be blazing with furnaces, and blighted by the presence and the vices of a new population of black scoundrels. They were already lying snoring and, I presume, drunk on many indignant knolls.’

There are parallels with the threat we face today.

In Rob Close’s Ayrshire & Arran Architectural Guide of 1992, he writes:

‘Iron works and coal mines have come and gone. The little town remains depressed and neglected, and the peaceful and solitary hills are being carted away in the search for open-cast coal.’

The community is, despite the above, a very strong and spirited one. Over the last 10 years the local community has embraced a vision for a new future based on nature tourism and outdoor activities. The essential foundation is a beautiful natural environment and enormous local efforts have been made to restore and enhance a landscape previously scarred by past coal mining and iron smelting. The Georgian Society has awarded it the ‘Best Restoration of a Georgian Landscape in Britain’. Re-industrialisation by these turbines would destroy our new future.

Thanks to the energy and vision of the community a new future dawns. We must not see that hope and promise crushed.

The Community Council clearly consider that this development is not compatible with their view that the area should be focusing on nature tourism and outdoor activities based on the natural environment and a restored landscape. It is agreed that adverse impact will occur on the localised landscape which includes the settlments and Craigengillan.

3.9.2 The Valley is attracting increasing numbers of visitors. Its natural beauty and interest is becoming increasingly appreciated, reinforced by inclusion within the forthcoming UN Biosphere and the building of the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory. The Valley offers great potential for increased sustainable development, if left alone. It would be blighted by the erection of these wind turbines.

It is agreed that the surrounding area has recently been subject to a number of designations including the Biosphere and Dark Sky Park. These designations will provide improved opportunities for the surrounding area by way of tourism and economic spin offs which should be protected. The impact of the development on these designations must be fully considered.

3.9.3 By the Applicants own admission, the adverse visual effect on our landscape and houses would be ‘significant’. The Applicant also states that otters, badgers, bats and fish have the potential to be significantly affected.

The visual impact of the development on the local area is indeed adverse with effects likely to be significant. The development is in proximity to the settlements and will be visually intrusive by its very nature. However, this visual impact is exacerbated by the lack of cohesion in appearance on the skyline of the intervening topography where no clear layout of turbines is apparent and only the uppermost parts of various turbines are visible. This for example allows for blades to appear on the skyline which do not appear to be attached to turbines. Such an appearance catches the eye and brings more attention to the turbines than just their size.

The impact on the species listed is noted however mitigation can be brought forward by the applicant to ensure that they are protected. None of the natural heritage consultees have raised concerns over these matters.

3.9.4 Ospreys are returning and there have been recent recorded sightings on the Doe’s Loch, next to the application site. They would be mangled by the turbine blades.

There has been no evidence provided that Ospreys would be particularly affected by this development and the Environmental Statement does not raise particular concern. SNH, the RSPB and the Wildlife Trust has raised no specific concern over impact to Osprey from this development.

3.9.5 The turbines would have a massive and dreadful visual impact on the communities of Burnton, Dalmellington and Bellsbank.

As noted at 3.9.3 above, it is agreed that there will be a significant adverse visual impact on these communities and in particular Burnton and Dalmellington.

3.9.6 The turbines would dominate the setting of the Dalmellington Conservation Area, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments including Dalnean Hill, 5 SSSI’s and the Designed Landscape of Craigengillan. The Applicant’s own Environmental Statement refers to the exceptional quality of the Craigengillan landscape, confirming it as amongst only three others in the whole of Scotland to be assessed by Historic Scotland as ‘outstanding’ in all seven of the criteria employed. This landscape is a source of pride to the entire community and the foundation for much of its revival.

The importance of the Craigengillan Estate as one of the best examples of a Garden and Designed Landscape is noted and it is agreed that various degrees of adverse impact on the setting and views to and from the various heritage designations will occur. The applicant considers, through the Environmental Statement, that such impact will be acceptable and Historic Scotland has agreed with this view. Notwithstanding this, the impact of the development on Craigengillan is considered to be significant particularly in the outer parts of the Estate.

3.9.7 The Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) has advised East Ayrshire Council that the figures in the Environmental Statement relating to Whooper Swan numbers may not be correct. SWT recommends further study. The Whooper Swans are a familiar sight over Bogton Loch throughout the winter months, numbering between 45 and 50 each season. They fly daily between Bogton Loch and the open water by the application site. Infinis acknowledged this fact in its ‘consultation’ but a spokesperson for the company said ‘there is no need to worry – we will drain the open water by the proposed site’. So, the swans either get killed by the turbine blades or have an essential part of their winter habitat destroyed.

The Scottish Wildlife Trust did indeed ask for more detailed survey of whooper swan. The applicant responded to this by asking their consultants to reconsider the information. The applicant appears not to have undertaken further specific study in this respect but has advised that the flight activity surveys have indicated that little activity occurs over the localised area of the development therefore increased numbers will not be affected. During the reconsultation period of this application, no specific comments were received from the SWT or other natural heritage bodies on this matter.

3.9.8 The proposed development is contrary to a key objective of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan, specifically ‘To develop strong and vibrant communities by realising their potential for regeneration and growth and through the promotion of appropriate development for rural area’. Ayrshire has great assets, having a skilled labour force, successful businesses, a high quality environment, natural resources and a good quality of life – all of which offer tremendous potential for development. Being strategically positioned on the western edge of Lowland Scotland’s major population and market centres provides key locational potential that can be promoted for economic benefit.

The area is covered by Loch Doon and its surrounding hills together with Craigengillan and the Doon Valley is recognised as one of the most beautiful in Ayrshire, with a marvellous array of natural habitats, flora and fauna. It is also a place of great historic, architectural and cultural interest. All this creates a strong foundation for an economy based on green and cultural tourism.

Regeneration and sustainable development based on a natural environment that is respected and cared for leads to ever greater care and positive enhancement of natural habitats and landscapes as they become recognised for their economic and employment creating foundations. Hence the many regeneration projects and enterprises which are springing up following tremendous recent efforts to preserve and enhance the landscape and natural heritage of the area.

The content and objectives of the Structure Plan, as quoted by the Community Council are noted. Whilst they consider that the proposal is contrary to such content and objectives, they do not provide any particular reason within this section of their objection.

3.9.9 The proposed development is contrary to a key objective of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan, specifically ‘To safeguard and enhance the quality of the environment’. The turbines would brutally dominate this beautiful valley, classified as a Sensitive Landscape in the Local Plan. The landscape here is identified within the Ayrshire Landscape Character Area as ‘Upper River Valleys’. The landscape evaluation for this category has an overall assessment of value as high. It states that the landscape of this part of the Doon Valley is the best representation of ‘Landscape as a Resource’ and has a particularly high ‘sense of place’ and ‘conservation interest’.

The proposal and the consequences that would follow are contrary to the overall philosophy of the Structure Plan, a concentration on sustainable growth against a background of the sort of society in which we wish to live. Jobs and investment based on the quality of the environment.

This philosophy and aim is incompatible with a plan that would destroy a Sensitive Landscape Area and deter visitors. It is because of this that the Supplementary Guidelines prepared by the Ayrshire Joint Planning Service and subsequently formally adopted exclude this area as a favourable site for wind turbine developments.

Any wind farm, if built, would likely to create less than one, and probably not local, full time job once commissioned. It would destroy existing jobs and very many future ones.

As noted above, the localised landscape impact and the visual appearance of the development at the local level in particular is considered to be adverse and indeed significant. The development, by its nature, is visually intrusive however this is experienced most at the local level and is exacerbated by the local landscape. Long term local jobs from the development are exceedingly unlikely, a point conceded within the Environmental Statement.

3.9.10 The proposed development is contrary to paragraph 6 ‘Delivering the Vision’ of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan, specifically ‘Ayrshire’s great assets include a high quality environment, natural resources and a good quality of life – ‘all of which offer tremendous potential for development’.

The Community Council do not specifically advise why they consider the development to be contrary to this paragraph however it is considered that all of these matters are addressed elsewhere within their objection.

3.9.11 The proposed development is contrary to paragraph 7 ‘Delivering the Vision’ of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan, specifically ‘To realise this potential and to contribute fully to sustainable growth a Plan is proposed which protects, enhances and capitalises on human and natural assets, regenerates communities, sets outs a proactive economic agenda to grow and diversify the local economy and seeks to achieve closer integration with the Glasgow City Region’. As stated above, the Plan has been designed to protect, enhance and capitalise on human and natural assets. The proposed development would very greatly harm these assets.

Once more, the Plan emphasises the importance of conserving the built and natural heritage. The proposed development would mortally damage it. Having to object to this proposal is akin to having to do the unbelievable and oppose a plan to spray graffiti on one of the finest landscape paintings in the National Gallery of Scotland.

The landscape impact from this proposal is considered to be adverse, particularly at the local level. Turbines and wind farm development are visually prominent by their very nature therefore only having sight of the turbines alone should not be sufficient to describe their impact as adverse. However, in this case the nature of the local landscape is dominated by the development with skylines interrupted and the valley landscape appearance altered. This impact is also experienced visually by the settlements and historic assets nearby on a long term, sustained basis as well as by those passing nearby the development.

3.9.12 The proposed development is contrary to paragraph 9 ‘Delivering the Vision’ of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan, specifically ‘Sustainable development is enshrined in international and national policy. It touches all aspects of policy and action. On a global scale it embraces issues such as climate change and the exploitation of non renewable resources. At an Ayrshire level the concept of sustainable development requires the promotion of development that meets the needs of today, respects the limits of ecology and safeguards options for future generations. It is not just a concept about the environment but about economic growth, social development – about the type of society in which we wish to live’.

When residents move away because of noise and visual intrusion of the turbines and the tourists, astronomers, walkers and riders don’t visit, we’ll be left with an industrialised dead landscape. Schools and local businesses will be affected. Then where do our young people go? The compensation money is already dividing our communities and what will there be left to spend it on?

We can build a thriving economy on tourism, outdoor sports etc. We are close to confirmation of a Biosphere reserve here, putting us on a par with the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone National Park. The International Dark Skies Association has recognised this area as having the purest air and darkest skies in Europe which is what astronomers are looking for. To realise the potential this offers, the Scottish Dark Skies Observatory is currently being built by a charitable company. We are already developing a nationally recognised path network. Visitors need refreshment, accommodation, information, souvenirs, sports etc creating further opportunities for employment and raising local confidence.

The proposed scheme would undo all the work of this community over the last ten years. The massive turbines would tower over the valley and industrialise the landscape. They would prevent sustainable development.

As part of the Scottish Government national targets, renewable energy developments are considered to be at the forefront of sustainability in respect of reducing carbon emissions. On this basis it is considered that the Community Council are slightly misdirected in viewing this proposal as preventing sustainable development.

The applicant has assessed noise impact and found it to be within acceptable noise limits, a view shared by the Councils Environmental Health section. The visual impact of turbines has been discussed above and it is considered that an adverse visual impact could result in an adverse impact on tourism from those visiting to enjoy the surrounding landscape. As noted elsewhere, the Biosphere designation and acceptance of the area as a Dark Sky Park have been confirmed and the observatory has been completed. Any adverse impacts on these designations is likely to affect tourism. The applicant considers that these impacts are negligible at best and are not backed up with fact. However, these designations are sensitive, particularly the Dark Sky Park and associated observatory. The aviation lighting requested by the MoD could affect the quality of the Dark Skies and the impact of using infrared are unknown although as noted within the objections at section 4, the Observatory manager considers such impact to be adverse.

3.9.13 Contrary to ECON 7 of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan: The proposal is outwith the Preferred Areas of Search identified in the Addendum to the Structure Plan. Consent for development here would set an undesirable precedent for yet more turbines outwith recognised search areas. While the Structure Plan does not rule out development is such cases, proposals have to be assessed against a number of constraints, including communities, historic environment, areas designated for their regional and local natural heritage value, tourism and recreational interests. The proposed development would be disastrously damaging in respect of all the above categories.

The proposed development is outwith the two areas of search. These two areas cover some 10% of Ayrshire and are capable of making a huge and disproportionate contribution from Ayrshire to national renewable energy targets. There can be no justification for exceeding this already very high contribution by damaging landscapes and local communities outwith the two areas of search. East Ayrshire contributes quite disproportionally already to the energy needs of this country, including nearly half of all the coal within the United Kingdom.

The significant contribution of East Ayrshire towards the energy requirements of both the UK and Scotland through open cast mining and wind farm development is noted however this alone should not preclude new development and is not an approach advocated by the Scottish Government. A detailed response to this policy is set out at section 5 as well as at 3.9.14 below where the Community Council has set out their specific issues under each heading.

3.9.14 Contrary to the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan policy ECON 7 section E) outwith the Areas of Search: all wind farm proposal will be assessed against the following constraints, any positive or adverse effects on them and how the latter can be overcome or minimised:

• Historic Environment: The application site is located close to the Designed Landscape of Craigengillan, rated by Historic Scotland as being one of the four most important in the country. The proposed turbines would tower over all this beauty. This natural asset is a foundation for green tourism and a sustainable future where natural resources and local employment combine. This is a central part of the philosophy of the proposed Biosphere. In addition, the conservation area of Dalmellington and Scheduled Ancient Monument of Dalnean Hill and numerous other listed buildings would be adversely affected.

It is agreed that the turbines will be clearly visible from parts of the Craigengillan Estate and Dalnean Hill Monument and will have a degree of adverse impact on their settings and views to and from them. It should be noted that Historic Scotland has raised no objection to the impact of the development on these features.

• Areas designated for their regional and cultural heritage value: Visitors including walkers and fishermen come to the Sensitive Landscape of Ayrshire for its peace and beauty. It is impossible to overcome or minimise the adverse visual impact that any turbines would have. The proposed development immediately adjoins the adjacent SAC’s and SSSI’s and would have an adverse impact upon them. Birds and bats are killed by turbine blades and the construction of roads, concrete bases and the turbines themselves would cause great disturbance. NPPG14 stresses ‘the importance of safe guarding and enhancing natural heritage beyond the confines of designated areas’.

The visual impact of a wind farm development can only be minimised through its initial design given the nature of such development. It is agreed that the wind farm will be readily visible from many views. SNH has raised no objection with regard to the impact on SSSI’s and SAC’s nor with the impact on birds or bats.

• Tourism and Recreational interests: Loss of present and future sustainable development as a result of deterring visitors has a damaging effect on local employment. The severely adverse impact on the historic environment, areas designated for their regional and local natural heritage value, tourism and recreational interests and communities means that the application would fail the tests for this scheme which is outside the Area of Search. Tourist attractions created with great effort and imagination include the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, the successful Riding stables, nearly 20 miles of new footpaths and the Fort at Craigengillan. They would all be severely and adversely affected by the turbines. The proposed development site is within a Sensitive Landscape Character Area which has been evaluated as of high importance.

There is conflicting evidence as to the impact of wind farm development on tourism. They certainly alter the character and appearance of an area and this may have an impact on a visitor’s perception of an area. In this case there are a diverse range of tourism interests in the surrounding area, most of which relate to outdoor activity where the perception of the surrounding environment is likely to be higher. The Observatory, it is argued by objectors, is also sensitive to the impact of lighting required by the development therefore this could be a direct adverse impact on one of the tourism elements of the local area.

• Communities: Many people, both those from our communities and regular visitors, are completing and signing letters of objection. We would like to explain how this came about and why each one should be counted seriously and given full weight.

The majority of members of our community are very concerned by the proposal and are firmly opposed to it. We listened carefully to all their individual concerns and prepared pro forma letters setting out these concerns in the context of the Development Plan. Very few people have experience with the procedures to be followed or of the planning policies which deal with their individual concerns which must be examined and addressed when preparing letters of objection. We have listened carefully to people’s concerns and translated them into the appropriate planning policies.

There are no long term employment or other benefits. Instead there are likely to be employment losses through tourism being adversely affected. Opinion polls can be devised to produce pretty well whatever the bodies commissioning them want. It is however becoming clearer by the day that people do not believe in wind turbines and would avoid formerly beautiful and wild areas that have been brutally industrialised.

All letters of objection are given full consideration and the pro forma basis of the majority of objections does not reduce the weighting that would be attached to the particular concerns being raised. It is agreed that employment opportunities are short term at best and largely concentrated within the initial construction phase. As noted above, the impact on tourism and the change in perception of an area as a result of wind farm development appears to be minimal based on various national studies.

• Buffer Zones: The application site is within the overall boundaries of the proposed Biosphere. The scheme is contrary to the ideals of sustainable development promoted by Biospheres.

It is unclear from the information provided why the development does not meet the principles of sustainable development. The proposal, should it be consented, will make a modest contribution to the Scottish Government target for generated 100% equivalent of Scotlands electricity needs from renewable sources. This contributes to reducing carbon emissions and can be seen as a good example of high level sustainability.

3.9.15 Contrary to the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan policy ECON 7 section F): ‘Proposals affecting Sensitive Landscape Character Areas shall satisfactorily address any impacts on the particular interest that the designation is intended to protect but the designation shall not unreasonably restrict the overall ability of the plan area to contribute to national targets’.

The intention of the Sensitive Landscape Character Areas is ‘to be a means of ensuring that the important qualities and characteristics of the landscapes in certain areas are safe guarded’. What is at stake is not just the landscape of the application site but the whole character and atmosphere of the Upper Doon Valley and its surrounding hills, designated as sensitive. NPPG 14 accepts that the more sensitive landscapes have little or no capacity to absorb the kind of development envisaged in this scheme.

A considerable proportion of the application site is within the Sensitive Landscape Character Area. Whilst this does not in itself present a barrier to the proposal, it does require that greater consideration be given to the impact on the landscape.

The landscape of the site slopes from north to south, making the proposal a significant feature in the landscape when looking from the south in particular and generally within 3-5km’s of the development. The effect on the Sensitive Landscape Character Area diminishes as the distance from the development increases and whilst the development remains prominent and visible it benefits from the scale of the surrounding landform, backclothing and the layout of the turbines. However, at closer proximity the turbines do offer a significant effect on the landscape character of the Sensitive Landscape Character Area.

3.9.16 Contrary to the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan policy ECON 7 section G): ‘In all cases, applications for windfarms should be assessed in relation to criteria including, as appropriate, grid capacity, impacts on the landscape and historic environment, ecology (including birds), biodiversity and nature conservation, the water environment, communities, aviation, telecommunications, noise and shadow flicker’.

• Biodiversity and nature conservation – see comments for the relevant corresponding policies of the Local Plan. • Water Environment: The evidence of other sites where this kind of development has happened is of the changing of acidity and silting of the burns and consequent destruction of most species of fauna and flora including trout and salmon spawning grounds. • Noise: We attach as appendix 1 a report by Dick Bowdler BSc, Ceng, Cphys, FIOA, FCI, BSE, MCIRAb, the world renowned acoustician, relating to noise levels from wind turbines. His findings dismiss the use of ETSU-R-97 to assess wind farm noise in planning applications and show the considerable impact of noise from turbines when set against the low levels of background noise in this peaceful rural area.

SEPA has raised no objection subject to conditions which includes a Water Management Plan to ensure that the impact on the water environment is minimised and appropriate mitigation provided. The comments on noise and the attached report are noted however this is a general dismissal of ETSU-R-97. However, Scottish Government advice is clear that ETS-R-97 is the appropriate method for assessing noise from wind turbines. In this instance the applicants own assessment indicates that the development will not have adverse noise impact, a view shared by the Councils Environmental Health section.

3.9.17 Contrary to ECON 12 The Tourism Resource which states that ‘The three Ayrshire Councils shall, in conjunction with other agencies, promote the development of tourism to increase the range, geographic spread and quality of accommodation, facilities, attractions and supporting infrastructure where it contributes to environmental quality, extends the visitor season, provides further job opportunities, supports communities and encourages rural diversity’. See comments on TOUR 1, TOUR 4, PROP 2 and PROP 3 of the Local Plan.

See comments below for a detailed response to these matters.

3.9.18 Contrary to ECON 13 Tourism Opportunities of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan which states that ‘The three Ayrshire Councils shall, in conjunction with other agencies: a) support the development of outdoor access tourism, together with associated accommodation and infrastructure; b) support proposals that would contribute to the development of a major integrated coast based tourist, leisure and recreational area focused on the Firth of Clyde and the Islands of Arran, the Cumbraes and Ailsa Craig in context of ENV 10; c) safeguard and promote the locations, landscapes and buildings associated with Robert Burns and seek designation of these locations as a possible World Heritage Site; and d)explore the potential offered by the natural environment in developing marine based tourism opportunities in the Firth of Clyde, a Biosphere Reserve in southern Ayrshire and a Geopark on Arran’. See comments on TOUR 1, TOUR 4, PROP 2 and PROP 3 of the Local Plan.

See comments below for a detailed response to these matters.

3.9.19 Contrary to ECON 14 Rural Diversification of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan which states that ‘The three Ayrshire Councils shall a) support the principle of rural diversification, particularly through proposals for small scale renewable energy; forest based products and industries; leisure, recreation and tourism; non food crops and local quality food initiatives; appropriate rural housing and small scale business development; and b) identify appropriate criteria for the assessment of proposals related to the diversification and growth of existing rural businesses and for the establishment of appropriate new business development in rural areas’. Examples of the above are the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, the Fort at Craigengillan (and with it the involvement of all four Cadet Forces and Scouts Scotland) and 18 miles of new core footpaths, which, in the absence of wind turbines, will promote outdoor activities, crafts and green cultural tourism.

As noted elsewhere within this report, the Scottish Government makes it clear, based on studies undertaken by Visit Scotland, that the impact on tourism does not appear to be adversely affected by wind farm development. However, the particular nature of the tourist attractions of the local area should be considered in more detail for an assessment of potential impact.

Most of the tourism related development and potential within the area is related to outdoor activity, nature and landscape given the examples provided above and the Biosphere and Dark Sky Park Designations. The impact on these elements is difficult to predict as the proposal will be visible in the landscape and will affect the character of the area. Solely on the basis of visual impact it is considered that the most adverse effects are localised in nature with most outdoor pursuits experiencing short term impacts as most are not static in nature e.g. walking, riding. However, the impact on the observatory from lighting is unclear and may indeed be adverse. This facility has potential to exploit the Dark Sky Park designation and bring visitors to the area therefore any direct adverse impact on this particular element should be resisted.

3.9.20 Paragraph 60, 61 and 62 of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan on rural diversification states ‘ Ayrshire’s rural areas offer great potential to sustain and encourage rural business development and diversification without compromising the environmental quality of the countryside itself. As the rural economic base and particularly agriculture are undergoing a period of considerable change it is essential that rural areas increase their capacity to adjust to and accommodate this change whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality. This will be particularly necessary if local benefits such as new and higher quality jobs are to be created and rural communities regenerated.

‘Policies throughout the plan are aimed at protecting and enhancing the essential rural character of Ayrshire at a time of increasing change. Environmental quality is itself a key economic driver that increasingly underpins the future of the countryside and must be protected and enhanced. While change must be anticipated and accommodated this must be in the form of a managed evolution and not at the expense of the environment’

‘While many traditional rural activities in agriculture and forestry will continue to develop and diversify, many new business opportunities will either be in the service sector or have a high service and knowledge content. These activities tend to be much less visibly intrusive and may, therefore, be accommodated with less obvious impact. Many of these activities can be located within the service centres and other local communities where accessibility is at its highest and, provided this meets operational and market requirements should be supported by the provision’.

The structure Plan recognises the vital importance that a beautiful landscape lends towards strong local communities and sustainable development. We highlight the particular points within 60, 61 and 62 of the Environmental Section where the proposal is contrary to the Structure Plan.

The community council has offered no specific explanation as to which parts of the development run contrary to these paragraphs. Specific comments on the policies of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan are provided at section 5 below.

3.9.21 Policy ENV 1 of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan deals with Landscape Quality. This states that ‘The quality of Ayrshire’s landscape and its distinctive local characteristics shall be maintained and enhanced. In providing for new development, particular care shall be taken to conserve those features that contribute to local distinctiveness including:

A) Settings of communities and buildings within the landscape; B) Patterns of woodland, fields hedgerows and tree features; C) Special qualities of rivers , estuaries and coasts; D) Historic landscapes; and E) Skylines and hill features, including prominent views.

Local plans shall seek to protect and enhance landscape character and establish criteria for the assessment of future development proposals in the context of the particular local landscape type within which the development is proposed’.

Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan state that ‘Ayrshire benefits from having an attractive and high quality environment and the landscape character, biodiversity, natural environment, historic and cultural heritage of the area all provide a sense of place and local distinctiveness. The care of the processes that contribute to excellence in the environment, such as good air and water quality, can cumulatively also support quality of life. As pressures on the environment evolve and increase, the need to manage change requires a more direct approach to safequard and enhance the rich diversity of local environments. In some areas the countryside can also deteriorate through a lack of human intervention just as much as from development pressures.

In recognition of increasing environmental change there requires to be an extension to the concept of value as applied to the whole environment. This means that although statutory designations are important it is necessary to go further and develop policies to embrace the totality of environment and promote quality of life. Areas of change should be recognised as opportunities within which future natural, built and cultural environments of quality can be created’.

The whole of paragraphs 89 and 90 are directly relevant and any turbine development would be completely contrary.

3.9.22 Policy ENV 2 Landscape Protection of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan states that ‘The three Ayrshire Councils shall: a) Recognise international and national natural heritage designations and the statutory protection afforded by them; b) Support the identification of additional Local Nature Reserves and continue to work with other stakeholders to implement the Ayrshire |Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Local Plans shall include policies based on the Scottish Executive Model Policy for the protection of all sites of recognised international and national natural heritage importance.

See comments on the relevant corresponding Environmental Policies of the Local Plan.

Comments with regard to these issues are provided below.

3.9.23 Section 104 relates to the Protection of the Natural Heritage. It states that; ‘In addition to statutory obligations to conserve and enhance wildlife habitats and species, the EU Habitats Directive also requires the planning system to look beyond designations and encourage positive management of features of the wider countryside that form a network to support the survival of important species’.

Our earlier comments on the serious adverse impact on otters, bats, ospreys, hen harriers and peregrine falcons are relevant.

See responses to 3.9.4 and 3.9.14 above.

3.9.24 Although the proposed development site is just within the ‘foothills with forestry’ designation the landscape which the turbines would tower over is ‘upper river valleys’. Landscape evaluation for this category has an overall assessment of value as ‘high’. It states that the landscape of this part of the Doon Valley is the best representation of ‘landscape as a resource’ and has a particularly high ‘sense of place’ and ‘conservation interest’.

The Upper Doon Valley unit which is an ‘upper river valley’, is approximately 0.5km’s from the nearest turbine. The development will have an effect on this landscape unit given its close proximity.

Analysis of the Application in the Context of the East Ayrshire Local Plan

3.9.25 The proposal is contrary to the strategic aims of encouraging economic development, developing strong and vibrant communities and safeguarding and enhancing the quality of the built and natural environment. Re-industrialisation of the landscape and the severely adverse visual and noise impact would lead to loss of the future which we, as a community, have embraced – a future founded on nature tourism within a celebrated landscape.

The Local Plan has, as a priority, the regeneration of the former coal field communities. The proposal is completely at odds with this. The vision for our future, which is fast becoming a reality, is incompatible with the adverse visual and aural impact of these giant turbines.

The Council is committed to protecting, conserving and enhancing the character, appearance and amenity of the East Ayrshire Communities and their rural settings, especially as regards their landscape quality and the built and natural environment. The Local Plan therefore aims:

• to protect, preserve and, where appropriate, enhance all built and natural heritage resources requiring conservation. • to protect, preserve and enhance the landscape character and appearance of the area.

Even the Applicant’s assessment of the impact of the turbines is ‘adverse’.

At the local level in particular, it is agreed that the turbines will offer significant visual impact in certain views towards the development.

3.9.26 The proposed development would destroy the setting of the Dalmellington Conservation Area, many listed buildings, five SSSI’s, a Scheduled Monument, one of the four most highly rated Designed Landscapes and a Sensitive Landscape.

Within the Local Plan (volume 1, page 13) the East Ayrshire Community Plan is described as the most important strategic operational document produced by the Council. The theme of Delivering Community Regeneration is of particular relevance to the Local Plan. The Council is committed to ‘regenerating town centres and villages and dealing with rundown areas’, ‘growing and supporting new and existing businesses’, ‘growing tourism and increasing visits’, ‘participation in cultural and leisure activities’ and ‘protecting, conserving and enhancing the natural environment’.

As detailed elsewhere, our community has a clear vision for regeneration, based on nature and cultural tourism within a celebrated landscape, a Conservation Area, Designated Sensitive Landscape and five SSSI’s. Tourists come not just to facilities themselves, such as the miles of wonderful footpaths, the Observatory, the Riding Stables, but for the setting.

The setting would be very severely compromised by the proposed development. Our recovery is a fragile one, which could not withstand it. The extinguishing of job opportunities and the consequent collapse of community well-being and self- confidence would be exceptionally sad.

Under 3.5 of Volume 1 of the Local Plan ‘the Council considers it imperative that all new developments should integrate fully with any existing or proposed developments in the area’. The proposed scheme cannot be so integrated. It is diametrically opposed to the regeneration projects which have been and will otherwise continue to be successfully developed.

A wind farm, by its very nature, cannot fully integrate in terms of its visual impact as it cannot be screened in the way other developments can. However, the degree of visual impact can be reduced through sensitive siting and design. In this case it is considered that the localised adverse visual impacts are significant and will adversely affect the setting of a number of receptors including the local communities and heritage assets. This adverse effect will, as noted by the Community Council, have an adverse impact on the setting of the area which could have adverse impacts on the regeneration and tourism and business growth prospects of the local area.

3.9.27 The successful development of tourism to bring about regeneration is a prime objective in the Local Plan, as set out on page 22 of Volume 1. The tourism strategy aims to maximise the role that tourism can play in regeneration and to ‘increase visitor numbers based on the area’s built and cultural heritage and the sustainable use and promotion of the landscape quality of the area and its associated nature conservation interest.’ This is exactly what is happening here – regeneration based on nature and cultural tourism and outdoor activities.

We may have had hard times until now, but we recognise the natural assets we have to enable our vision for the future to become a real and enduring one. We have one of the most highly rated landscapes in Scotland, five SSSI’s, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, native hardwood woodlands and forests, lochs and rivers, twenty miles of completed footpaths, attracting over 30,000 visitors each year, a successful riding stables of high repute, a Fort and activity area for Cadet Forces, Scouts and other youth organisations and many others.

See response to 3.9.26 above.

3.9.28 The most recent project, which has the potential to really shape the future, is the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory. Fund-raising is complete, the contractors (a local East Ayrshire firm) are on site and the Observatory should be operational this summer. It will be the only one of its kind in Britain and one of only three in the whole of Europe. Anything that compromises its success will be disastrous. The turbine blades would protrude into the pristine skyline and the turbine noise would destroy the peace that is one of the greatest attractions of the setting of the Observatory. Should the turbines have to be night-lit in the future, even with infra-red, the ability of the telescopes to be used for imaging and research would be lost. The Dark Sky designation is a unique asset which must not be allowed to be harmed in any way.

The plan also makes a commitment to safeguarding the landscapes and buildings associated with Robert Burns and promoting the Doon and Irvine Valleys as gateways to East Ayrshire.

Opinion polls can be designed to produce pretty well whatever outcome the companies commissioning them want, but the truth of the matter is that visitors coming to areas of natural beauty and biodiversity interest do not want to come to an industrialised landscape.

The comments of the Community Council were submitted some time ago and events have overtaken these comments as the Dark Sky Observatory has now opened. The degree of impact on this important asset is difficult to establish given that there could be technical impact as well as an impact on the setting of the Observatory and the Garden and Designed Landscape within which it sits.

3.9.29 (Contrary to) TOUR 1: ’The Council will actively support and encourage the development of appropriate sustainable tourism throughout East Ayrshire’.

This Council has done. We, too, are right behind the policy and through huge hard work have created tourism initiatives to make this a place that increasing numbers of tourists will wish to come too. The very nature of these initiatives, as explained earlier, is incompatible with the turbine proposal.

Policy TOUR 1 is a strategic policy that supports new tourism related developments and does not relate to this development. However, comments with regard to the relationship of the development with tourism development are provided above.

3.9.30 (Contrary to) TOUR 2: ‘Encourages the development of a strategic footpath network’.

This we have done and nearly twenty miles of local footpaths take visitors through our beautiful landscape to famous destinations, including Ness Glen and Dalcairnie Linn. The paths are increasingly well used and explored, with over 30,000 walkers attracted each year. Walkers attracted by the superb and peaceful landscape, cultural interest and the remarkable biodiversity to be found here will be driven away by an industrialised landscape. This landscape has been protected and enhanced at huge and recognised effort following previous industrialisation. It would not be fair or just to have this work destroyed.

The achievements in relation to path creation are noted. However Policy TOUR 2 is solely related to the provision of paths and cycleways and in this respect it is not relevant to this development.

3.9.31 (Contrary to) TOUR 4:‘The Council will encourage and support the retention of existing tourist attractions.’

This again the Council has done. We will not, though, be able to retain such attractions if their setting is destroyed. Visitors will not return, jobs will be lost and, with them, the opportunity for regeneration.

Tourism creates jobs, not only directly at the attractions themselves, but also indirectly by supporting local shops, businesses, accommodation providers etc.

The response provided above under 3.9.29 is also relevant under Policy TOUR 4. Tour 4 seeks to encourage and support retention and improvement of existing attractions and provides support for new developments. In this regard it is not a relevant policy against which to assess this development although the affect that the development has on tourism assets is considered under other Development Plan polices.

3.9.32 (Contrary to) PROP 2: This relates to the safeguarding and promotion of locations, landscapes and buildings associated with Robert Burns and the aim of achieving their designation as part of a World Heritage Site. Burns was a frequent visitor to Craigengillan and wrote a poem to the McAdam of the time, one of his earliest supporters and patrons.

Proposals within the Local Plan detail the committed development intentions of the Council, other public agencies or private developers and are an indication of the proposals identified for implementation during the life of the plan. PROP 2 is given medium priority within the Local Plan. The impact of the development on Craigengillan and the surrounding area are considered in more detail under other Development Plan polices detailed at section 5 below.

3.9.33 (Contrary to) PROP 3: Relates to the forthcoming Biosphere designation, a hugely important development for East Ayrshire. The central ethos of the Biosphere is the mutual benefit to man and the natural environment that comes from caring for and protecting our landscapes and natural environment. This principle is at the core of our vision for the future, as explained earlier.

The sustainable development becoming a reality as a result of this foundation would be destroyed by the proposed scheme, which is therefore contrary to the ideals of the Biosphere.

The Biosphere designation has now been achieved (and had been rated a high priority within the Local Plan through proposal PROP3) and further consideration of this designation and an assessment of the development against the principles of the Biosphere are provided at section 6 below.

3.9.34 (Contrary to) CS14: This policy reflects ECON 7 in the Structure Plan, which has been analysed earlier in the letter. The severely adverse impact on the historic environment, areas designated for their regional and local natural heritage value tourism and recreational interests and communities means that the application would fail the tests for this scheme which is outside the Area of Search.

The proposed development site adjoins and overbears a Sensitive Landscape Character Area which, as detailed earlier in this letter, has been evaluated as of high importance.

The response to policy ECON 7 is provided at sections 3.9.13 to 3.9.16 above.

3.9.35 (Contrary to) CS14(F): States that ‘Sensitive Landscape designation shall ‘not unreasonably restrict the overall ability of the plan area to contribute to national targets’.

East Ayrshire already contributes disproportionately to both renewable energy generation and coal. Production of the latter from opencast sites is equivalent to over 40% of the whole nation’s output. For generations before, we have contributed to coal production from the deep mines, iron for our ships and armies, hydro-electricity and commercial forestry. We are just emerging from the legacy of past industrial activity and have restored a huge area of the landscape and natural environment to create the foundation for our sustainable future. It would not be reasonable to expect further sacrifice.

See 3.9.15 above which provides a response to this matter.

3.9.36 (Contrary to) ENV1: Numerous Listed Buildings, the Conservation Area and Motte of Dalmellington, the Scheduled Ancient Monument of Dalnean Hill, five SSSI’s, 35 archaeological site and the important Craigengillan Designed Landscape will be affected by the severe adverse visual and aural impact of the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to this policy.

Fully considered comments under policy ENV 1 are provided at section 5.14 below.

3.9.37 (Contrary to) ENV2: Although the site is not itself an SSSI it is very close to two of them. As referred to earlier, even the Applicant’s assessment acknowledges significant potential impact on birds, bats, otters and badgers.

The need for further research into the numbers of Whooper Swans that would be affected has been raised by the Scottish Wildlife Trust in their most recent response.

The comments of the Scottish Wildlife Trust were noted however SWT provided no further comments on the response of the applicant to this matter. Whilst the site is close to two SSSI’s, the level of impact is minimal at best with no direct physical impact given its separate location. On this basis it is considered that policy ENV 2 is not particularly relevant to this development.

3.9.38 (Contrary to) ENV3: ‘The Council will give priority and prime consideration to the protection and enhancement of the landscape in its consideration of development proposals within the Sensitive Landscape Character Areas, to ensure that their quality is maintained for the benefit of local communities’.

The Applicant’s own Environmental Survey acknowledges the severe adverse impact, which it is hard to overstate. The planned turbines could never be accommodated within this much loved landscape, which is so important to our future.

Consideration of policy ENV 3 is provided at section 5.15 below.

3.9.39 (Contrary to) ENV4: The proposal is contrary to this policy. The giant turbines would dominate the setting of Listed Buildings, unlisted buildings in the Dalmellington Conservation Area and other locally important traditional buildings within the area.

Full consideration on the impact on the setting of all the listed buildings in the local area is provided within the Environmental Statement. It is agreed that the setting of some of the buildings will be affected adversely however this impact is considered to be minimal at best given matters such as intervening landscape, other built development and the nature of the buildings themselves with regard to how they are interpreted/viewed. On this basis the proposal is not considered to be contrary to policy ENV 4.

3.9.40 (Contrary to) ENV6: The proposal is contrary to this policy, as it would have an adverse effect on the setting of the Dalnean Hill Scheduled Ancient Monument (S.A.M).

Dalnean Hill S.A.M consists of the remains of a medieval or later farmstead and is on a hill to the south of Doon Bridge and to the west of Bogton Loch. The development will be visible from the Monument at Dalnean Hill and its setting. However, it is agreed that the assessment provided within the Environmental Statement is reasonable in that the effect on the monument is not significant as it does not appear in designed views from or towards the monument, overshadow or fragment the monuments setting. Historic Scotland have raised no concern on this matter.

3.9.41 (Contrary to) ENV8: The Designed Landscape and Historic Garden of Craigengillan is included in the Inventory and rated by Historic Scotland as being within the Top 4 in Scotland, achieving the top award of ‘Outstanding’ in each of the seven criteria employed. Views from the majority of the key elements of the Designed Landscape would suffer a severe adverse visual impact from the turbines.

The Applicant was asked to provide Visual Impact Projections for the Fort and Observatory. They agreed and sent their Landscape Consultants, ‘Optimized Landscapes’, to visit. Shortly afterwards, ‘Optimize Landscapes’ was instructed not to detail its assessment in the Environmental Statement, a move which the company themselves described in a letter as ‘not ideal’.

An assessment of the development under policy ENV 8 is provided at section 5.16 below. With regard to the lack of viewpoints/photomontage from the fort and observatory, the Planning Authority is content with the level of information provided and officers have undertaken a site visit to these features to assess the impact.

3.9.42 (Contrary to) ENV13: Reference has already been made to the effects of the proposed turbines on otters, bats, badgers, peregrine falcons, ospreys and her harriers.

The proposed development directly impacts on the Whooper Swans and other birds, as well as bats that are found on the Bogton Loch SSSI, which also includes the surrounding wetlands.

ENV13 refers to developments that affect SSSI’s, not just developments which are within an SSSI.

It is agreed that a degree of impact on some bird species may occur as a result of this development however this is not considered to be as significant as to result in it being contrary to ENV 13. Furthermore, mitigation measures proposed by the applicant and endorsed by Scottish Natural Heritage will result in improvement in habitat which will have a beneficial effect on native and important species.

3.9.43 (Contrary to) ENV14: This confirms the precautionary principle in assessing potential impacts on the natural heritage.

It is unclear what the Community Council refer to by this comment. A full assessment has been undertaken and detailed within the Environmental Statement. This Statement has been fully assessed by Scottish Natural Heritage, the national body for such matters, and found to be largely acceptable from a natural heritage perspective subject to planning conditions.

3.9.44 (Contrary to) ENV16: ‘The Council will not be supportive of development that would create unacceptable visual intrusion to the landscape character of local areas’. As referred to earlier, the impact would be severe and adverse. The turbines would, if built, be a daily reminder of a vision and a future lost. The strength of local feeling against the proposal is hard to overstate. The number of letters of objection submitted give some idea of this.

It is important to explain again how the ‘Standard Objection Letters’, which are an abbreviated version of this one, came about.

Members of the community attended a public meeting and were invited to raise their view and concerns regarding the proposed turbine development. As most people are not familiar with the planning process, we were asked to prepare the letter, putting the concerns raised within the context of planning policies. The letter thus represents the clear opinion of all those who signed a copy.

An assessment of the development under policy ENV 16 is provided at section 5.18 below. The standard objection letter format is noted.

3.9.45 (Contrary to) ENV16: requires that developments be sensitively sited, landscaped and screened, so as to blend into, respect and complement the landscape characteristics of the area where the development is proposed.

The proposed massive turbines, with their moving blades, could never be screened or made to blend into the Sensitive Landscape.

An assessment of the development under policy ENV 16 is provided at section 5.18 below.

3.9.46 (Contrary to) ENV20: The proposed development adjoins the strategic and tourist route to the Galloway Forest Park. It would not be possible to screen or landscape the turbines so as to avoid the adverse visual impact. The result would be to reduce the attraction of this part of the Doon Valley for visitors and so blight the future based on green and cultural tourism, for which we have all worked so hard.

In Volume 3 of the Local Plan (page 15) it is stated: ‘strategically located on the A713, Dalmellington has considerable potential for development as a service/visitor centre for tourists and tourism development is seen as a major factor in the economic regeneration of the settlement.’

An assessment of the development under policy ENV 20 is provided at section 5.20 below.

3.9.47 On 28th September 2012 the International Dark-sky Association (IDA) confirmed a significant extension to the Galloway Forest Dark Sky Park. The confirmation was announced by Steve Owens of the IDA, at the formal opening of The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory on 5th October 2012.

We attach a plan showing the extension area, which brings the boundaries of the Dark Sky Park to within 2km of the application site.

The Environmental Statement confirmed that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) requested the turbines be lit at night, either with conventional lighting or infra-red.

Conventional lighting of structures up to 100 metres to blade tip will have a severely adverse impact on the Galloway Forest Dark Sky Park, where the whole principle is that of protecting dark skies. Although the proposed turbines are not within the Park, they are close enough and tall enough to be very damaging indeed. The Galloway Forest Dark Sky Park is incredibly important, both in itself and as a strong tourism asset for East Ayrshire and beyond. It is one of only 5 gold standard Dark Sky Parks in the whole world (gold standard is the highest possible IDA designation). It is possible that the designation could be downgraded should the turbines be built and night-lit.

The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory was formally opened by the First Minister of Scotland on Friday 5th October 2012. It is the only public use observatory within a gold standard Dark Sky Park in the world. It is a research grade facility.

As reported in the Cumnock Chronicle of 10th October 2012, the First Minister said:

‘It’s amazing for Dalmellington, for Ayrshire and for the whole country’.

‘It’s a huge visitor attraction but it’s also something that will provide huge regeneration for this area’.

‘It will be a stimulus for tourism and it’s a great learning facility. This area has talent, dramatic scenery and now it’s got this world class facility’.

The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory will be a huge tourism asset for East Ayrshire, as also recognised by Visit Scotland and the Ayrshire & Arran Tourism Leadership Group. Comparable evidence comes from the Kielder Observatory in Northumberland. The potential here though is even greater, because:-

a. we are within a gold standard Dark Sky Park; b. The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory is within a 2 hour drive for the majority of the population of Scotland; c. the vision and scope of the project is far greater; d. the telescopes and other instruments are of the very best.

We have seen observatory manager James Silvester’s letter of 12th October 2012 to you, which details the harmful impacts of these proposed turbines. The proposed turbines would be clearly visible from The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory.

We understand that there are very serious adverse impacts that the proposed turbines would have on The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, including:-

1. Infra red lighting of the turbines would appear as searchlights on the imaging equipment of the powerful telescopes.

2. Visual impact. The 360° landscape horizon is pristine, with no man-made structures visible. The proposed turbines would break the horizon, their moving blades accentuating the adverse impact. This would diminish the visitor experience.

3. Air turbulence from the turbine blades would result in poorer visibility conditions for the telescopes and other viewing equipment.

4. Vibrations from the turbines would be likely to reach the observatory telescopes, which are powerful and very sensitive.

5. The low frequency noise from the turbines would likewise result in vibration, damaging the effectiveness of the telescopes and present and future associated instrumentation, such as spectrographs and radio telescopes.

Another significant material development since the original application was made has been the designation of the UNESCO Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere, the first in Scotland. We are at the heart of it.

Because the proposed development would fatally harm The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, a perfect example of true sustainable development, if ever there was one, it is contrary to the central principle of the Biosphere; the mutual benefit to man and the natural environment that comes from us caring for landscapes and the natural world.

As noted elsewhere within this report, the physical impact on the observatory is unclear. It is correct that the MoD has requested the provision of lighting on the turbines at the highest practical point. This would be either through standard, visible lighting or infra-red lighting. The location of the turbines is outwith the Dark Sky Park and the separation distance from the nearest turbine to the observatory is approximately 6.5km’s. The applicant advises that there is no evidence that there will be a significant impact on discouraging economic development or regeneration of East Ayrshire, such as the Dark Sky Observatory or Biosphere.

On the basis that the degree of physical impact is largely unquantified, it is considered that a precautionary approach should be adopted on this matter given the significant tourism and economic benefit that the Dark Sky Park and Observatory could bring to East Ayrshire.

3.9.48 We understand that, since the application was made, the Scottish Wildlife Trust amended their initial advice and recommended further work, especially as far as Whooper Swans are concerned. The numbers recorded in the Environmental Statement are very significantly lower than those recorded over many years by local ornithologists. During the winter, there are always between 45 and 50 Whooper Swans resident on Bogton Loch. During the day they fly to the 6 acres of open water by the application site, as every local birdwatcher will confirm. Many would be killed by the turbine blades. Asked at a public meeting if they were aware of this, the applicants confirmed that they were but said ‘you don’t have to worry though, because we’re going to drain the areas of open water’. Both their attitude and intended destruction of these aquatic habitats is disgraceful.

The importance of protecting this endangered species is highlighted in the attached article from The Times of 13th September 2012. A substantial report by Scottish Natural Heritage (SMH) on collision risk to geese and Whooper Swans was reported in BBC online on 14th August 2012. It confirmed that ‘most wild geese (and there are many flocks here in the winter months) foraging for grass fly at a height that could put them at risk of colliding with wind turbines’ and that ‘Whooper Swans were also recorded flying at a level that would put them at risk of collision with wind turbine blades’.

The applicant provided further information relating to whooper swans and advised that based on flight activity surveys, even if larger numbers of whooper swans are present in the area, there is little activity indicated over the localised area of the development. Neither SNH nor the Scottish Wildlife Trust raised further concern over these matters.

3.9.49 The applicant has provided no further information on the impact, described as ‘significant’ on what they themselves term ‘valued Ecological Receptors’ – otters, badgers, bats and fish. This despite the issue being raised in representations to the original application.

It is unclear what further information the Community Council refers to in relation to ‘valued ecological receptors’. Scottish Natural Heritage has raised no objection to such matters.

3.9.50 A further material development since the original application has been the increase in sightings of ospreys over Bogton Loch and the Does Loch, most recently by the Dean Castle ranger service. The Does Loch is very close indeed to the application site. The Ayrshire Rivers Trust have been monitoring the increased sightings and believe that it is only a matter of time before the ospreys return to breed, which will be wonderful. The ospreys would be in severe danger of being killed by the turbine blades.

No evidence has been presented to the Planning Authority by the natural heritage consultees regarding this matter therefore further, and more up to date surveys, are not considered to be necessary.

3.9.51 The importance of Glasgow Prestwick Airport to the Ayrshire economy is recognised by appropriate safeguarding policies within the Development Plan. This proposal is contrary to those policies.

Glasgow Prestwick Airport has raised no objections to this development subject to planning conditions therefore there will be no adverse impact on the airport.

3.9.52 We have read the consultation response from South Ayrshire Council of 11th September 2012, confirming that the proposed wind farm location does not fall within an Area of Search and that the proposal may raise matters of concern regarding the qualifying interests of ECON7. We believe that these concerns are greatly magnified by recent material developments, including the extension of the Dark Sky Park to within a short distance of the proposed site and the completion and opening of The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory. We also note and agree with South Ayrshire Council’s assessment that the proposed development is not in accordance with the principles of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan.

A response to the consultation response from South Ayrshire Council is provided at section 3.22 below with consideration given to the policies of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan at section 5 below.

3.9.53 Craigengillan Estate is very important to this community. It is included within the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, rated as one of the top 4 in Scotland. The boundary of the Designed Landscape was extended earlier this year, doubling the area to about 3000 acres. Craigengillan Estate provides the setting for many of our regeneration projects.

The importance of Craigengillan to East Ayrshire, and indeed to Scotland, on the basis of its heritage value, is clear. The proposed turbines would severely and adversely impact on the Designed Landscape, particularly the northern and southern portion, including Bogton Loch, The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory and Fort Carrick. Many of the new core footpaths would also suffer adverse visual impact.

An assessment of the Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape is provided under section 5.14 below.

3.10 Scottish Wildlife Trust has no objection to this planning application but have advised that the number of flight lines recorded for whooper swan, an annex 1 species in the European Bird Directive, be closely examined. Local ornithological knowledge suggests that a higher rate of passage may be taking place than that recorded in the EIA.

The applicant has advised that their consultant has revisited the original information on the basis of these concerns. They have advised that even if there were higher numbers of whooper swans in the local area, flight activity surveys have indicated that little activity occurs over the localised area of the development. The SWT did not raise this matter again after reconsultation.

3.11 Scottish Power Energy Networks has no objection and have provided information on the location of their equipment.

Noted.

3.12 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has no objection to the development and confirm that although close to nationally important sites the proposal does not raise any natural heritage issues of national interest. With regard to landscape, SNH advise that there are significant impacts caused by the wind farm but they are considered localised in nature and the revised layout has addressed concerns raised under the 2009 application. These concerns were the significant adverse impacts on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity of the Upper Doon Valley, significant adverse impacts upon the integrity of the Sensitive Landscape Area of the Upper Doon Valley, significant visual impact upon the Nationally Important Craigengillan Inventoried Garden and Designed Landscape and significant cumulative visual impacts on setting of the Craigengillan in combination with Dersalloch.

In terms of ecology, SNH recommends adherence to more recent advice on habitat, and in particular peat and for ornithology they advise levels of activity for any bird species is not high enough to merit considering a wider countryside objection in terms of national interest. They do however have concerns that some of the work undertaken to provide information on birds is lacking in some areas and SNH therefore advise the Planning Authority to seek clarification on various matters to allow a full assessment of the impacts on local bird populations and confirm the suitability of mitigation.

Furthermore SNH have recommended various mitigation measures which should be incorporated into the mitigation strategy which should be adopted as a condition of planning approval:

• Strongly advise that the applicants be required to adopt the full range of mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Statement (ES). In particular an Ecological Clerk of Works should be appointed to oversee all construction activities and both a Habitat Management Plan and a Species Protection Plan should be produced detailing the mitigation measures to be implemented prior to, during and post construction. This appointment, and the content of the plan, should be approved by the planning authority in consultation with SNH prior to works commencing on site.

• The ES identifies pockets of suitable otter habitat across the survey area. Mitigation should include management to improve connectivity to better quality habitat

• No ground clearance or other operation activity will be undertaken during the main bird breeding season March to June inclusive without the approval in writing of the planning authority.

• The post construction monitoring regime should include bird collision mortality rates as standard practice.

• Installation of all infrastructure and storage or dumping of materials avoids areas of good blanket bog habitat.

• All water crossings places are designed to allow passage of fish and mammals.

• Prior to the start of the work on site a method statement will be prepared by the developer and agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH showing proposed ground conditions and drainage for areas receiving peat.

• Prior to work beginning on any part of the site the location and up to 100m around it will be inspected by the developer for signs of badger setts or badger foraging activity. If there is evidence of a badger sett then SNH should be contacted. Mitigation works or licensed mitigation work may be required.

• Prior to the start of work on site Habitat Management Plan will be prepared by the developer and agreed by the planning authority in consultation with SNH. This plan may be secured as part of legal planning agreement and should include:

o Improvement of habitats for birds outwith the turbine envelope to provide better breeding/feeding/hunting habitat as a buffer around wind farm to lesson risk of attracting birds into the turbine envelope. o Information on and justification for sites chosen for bog restoration. o Methods for blanket bog restoration o Location of areas identified for different restoration techniques o Timing of restoration work o Monitoring of restored areas o Alteration to restoration measures should monitoring indicate current activities are not successful

• Prior to any construction works, an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) approved by the planning authority in consultation with SNH will carry out a protected species survey and based on the findings of this survey, the company will submit a management plan for the approval of the planning authority. This plan will include mitigation measures designed to safeguard protected mammals within and adjacent to the operational areas of the site. During the course of construction, regular monitoring of the proposed mammal mitigation measures will be carried out by the ECoW to ensure best practicable mitigation will be carried out to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Should survey or ongoing monitoring work identify impacts from any part of the works proposed for this development of European Protected Species (EPS) such as otter, SNH will be informed and will advise on the need for an application for a license to disturb EPS, damage or destroy their place of shelter. No work which could cause disturbance to EPS may go ahead unless a licence is obtained.

• No construction work shall commence until a method statement for construction work for new tracks where these cross peatland habitats has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The method statement shall detail the following considerations:

o The role of the ECoW in decisions over location and construction methodologies for each section of track. o Method of defining track route and location (track corridors should be pegged out 500-1000m in advance of operations. o Track design approach: Maps of tracks indicating double and single tracks and position of passing places. Full extent of anticipated track ‘footprints’ including extent of supporting ‘geogrid’ below roadstone and cabling at the edges of the track. o Track construction: floating track construction over peat >1m deep and gradients of 1:10 or less. o Track construction for peat <1m deep, or on gradients >1:10, cross slopes or other ground unsuitable for floating roads. Where it is concluded that there is a high risk of instability, identification of the circumstances under which non-engineering solutions such as alternative routes would be considered. o Procedures to be followed when, during track construction, it becomes apparent that the chosen route is more unstable or sensitive than was previously concluded, including ceasing work until a solution, informed with reference to advice from ECoW, is identified. o Timing and extent of any necessary re-instatement. o Extent, design, treatment and reinstatement of embankments, track edges and other areas affected by track construction. o Drainage treatments, o Design of crossing points for water courses such as culverts and bridges.

Scottish Natural Heritage have raised no objection to the development subject to a number of planning conditions as noted above. The wording of the SNH response should be noted whereby they advise that it does not raise any natural heritage issues of national interest and that significant landscape impacts from the windfarm are localised in nature. Furthermore, they have raised no objections on ornithological matters but sought clarification on various matters such as vantage point locations and survey details. The applicant submitted this detail and SNH has raised no further comments.

3.13 Historic Scotland are content that any impacts on historic environment features within their statutory remit are not of such significance to warrant objection to the proposal. Should consent be granted, Historic Scotland would wish to see the preservation of Waterside, miners’ villages and mineral railways N of (Index No.7863) ensured through a condition requiring the avoidance of the monument by all works associated with the development. This position includes an assessment of Craigengillan House and its associated Inventory historic garden and designed landscape with impacts not considered to be significant.

A planning condition can be attached to any grant of consent, as requested. Historic Scotland’s advice with regard to the impact on Craigengillan is noted.

3.14 Ayrshire Rivers Trust has raised no objection to the proposal and have provided comments on the Dunaskin Burn and its importance as a salmon spawning burn and nursery habitat and its support for European Eel and that surface water drainage from the site will drain down the Dunaskin Burn with the remainder flowing down either the Cutler Burn into the Doon Catchment or to the River Ayr via the Water of Coyle.

Noted.

3.15 Scotland Gas Networks has no gas mains in the area and therefore has raised no objection.

Noted.

3.16 Transport Scotland has raised no objections subject to conditions regarding the proposed route for any abnormal loads on the trunk road network must be approved by the trunk roads authority and/or its operating company prior to the event and that any additional signing or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary due to the size or length of the loads being delivered must be undertaken by a recognised Quality Assured traffic management consultant, to be approved by Transport Scotland and/or its operating company before delivery commences.

Noted.

3.17 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has no objections subject to conditions as they do not believe that the application will have a significant impact on bird populations of conservation significance. RSPB would expect the following matters to be addressed through either condition or legal agreement to mitigate impacts:

• Employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works to: A. Oversee construction of turbines, tracks and other infrastructure and minimise ecological impact. In particular, their role should ensure impacts on blanker bog habitat are minimised and B. Oversee works and minimise ornithological impacts during the period from mid March to July inclusive.

• Avoidance of vegetation clearance or construction work during mid March to July inclusive. Where this is not avoidable, work to be started by early March.

• Use of preconstruction surveys to check for the presence of breeding birds if any work is to take place during the breeding season. If nests are found work to be rescheduled or areas cordoned off, with the agreement of SNH.

• Production of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) before construction commences and agreement of the plan with East Ayrshire Council and SNH. The HMP should include measures to restore areas of degraded bog to mitigate for the impact of the development.

Noted. Planning conditions can be attached to any grant of consent to address such matters.

3.18 Scottish Water does not object to this application as there are no public sewers or water mains in the vicinity of the site.

Noted.

3.19 Scottish Environment Protection Agency has no objections subject to conditions regarding a revised Water Management Plan, a detailed Peat Management Plan and macro invertebrate sampling.

Noted. Planning conditions can be attached to any grant of consent to address such matters.

3.20 East Ayrshire Council Planning and Economic Development Tourism Officer advises that tourism is crucial to Ayrshire and Arran’s economic well- being. It sustains a great diversity of businesses throughout the region, generating over £348 million for the economy and employing approximately 10% of its workforce. Tourism provides jobs in the private sector and stimulates the regeneration of rural areas.

According to the Visit Scotland Visitor Experience Survey (2008), scenery and the natural environment are the most important factors when choosing Scotland as a holiday location, with 90% citing it as either ‘very important’ or ‘important’. The character and visual appeal of Scotland’s landscape is also a key driver of our tourism product. Our landscape, scenery and wider environment support important primary visitor activities such as cycling, walking, wildlife watching and visiting historic sites. I would therefore welcome any measures that lessen the visual impact on East Ayrshire’s landscape, and therefore any related adverse effects on its economy.

The proposed site is in an area with relatively small numbers of tourism businesses, but there are a number of walking and cycling routes within a short distance. Walking is very popular amongst visitors, with a recent report projecting that walking tourism will contribute up to 22% of the overall UK tourism revenue by 2015. Several networks of paths exist around Dalmellington, Bellsbank and Waterside, as detailed in East Ayrshire Council’s “Doon Valley Path Network” publication. The new Ayrshire & Arran Tourism Strategy 2012- 2017 also highlights the significant growth potential of outdoor activities in the region, and there are aspirations for development work in this field.

Also notable within the vicinity of the site is the designation of the Dark Sky Park, development of the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory at Craigengillan Estate, and possible UNESCO Biosphere status to be announced within 2012. All of these opportunities contribute to the potential for outdoor activities and nature based tourism within the area. As a result it is important that any development does not hinder these opportunities by damaging the special environment which makes these designations possible.

While previous research on wind farms reflected a split in visitor opinion, Scottish Government commissioned research did conclude that wind farm developments would have a lesser impact on Scotland’s tourism industry provided they are not visible from important tourism corridors. In this respect I would note that the A713 is officially designated as the “Galloway Tourist Route”.

There are significant numbers of wind farm developments proposed for the Cumnock and Doon Valley area, and it is important from a tourism development perspective that views of wind turbines do not become the prominent feature from popular summits such as Auchenroy Hill, and Fort Carrick and stretching into the Galloway Forest Park.

Given the aforementioned importance of tourism to the economy of Ayrshire and Arran, and of Scotland’s scenery and environment to the visitor experience, it is crucial that any potential detrimental impact of the proposed development - visually, environmentally and economically - be considered. I would also urge due consideration of the cumulative impact of developments across the region.

The comments above do not specifically advise that the development will adversely affect tourism in the surrounding area however it has raised a number of matters including the potential for the development to adversely impact on specific tourist resources and the A713 tourist route as well as contributing to adverse cumulative impact with other such developments.

3.21 The Forestry Commission has no comments to make on this application.

Noted.

3.22 South Ayrshire Council has not objected to the proposal but has raised a number of comments on the proposal. They advise that the proposed wind farm location does not fall within an Area of Search for Large Scale Windfarms as indicated in the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan. The proposal should be considered against the principles of policies ECON6 and ECON 7 of that plan. They consider that the proposal may raise matters of concern regarding the qualifying interests of Policy ECON 7, particularly with regard to criterion E, such as the impact of the proposal on specific heritage resources including the Industrial Conservation area and listed buildings at Waterside and the Conservation Area within Dalmellington.

The proposal must be assessed in terms of its impact on the landscape through policy ECON 6. They note that there are locally designated sensitive landscape areas and that the proposal may also raise matters of concern regarding cumulative impacts associated with consented turbines/windfarms in the locality and others within the planning system. Best practice dictates that these proposals must also be taken into full consideration in the assessment of this application. Notable in this regard is the S36 application at Dersalloch, Straiton. The Scottish Government has yet to determine the application, but South Ayrshire Council did not object to that proposal when it considered it at a meeting of the Planning Committee in 2007.

In addition, it is understood that there may be implications for aviation safety arising from turbines being visible to air traffic control radar. Glasgow Prestwick International Airport is a significant economic resource not just for Ayrshire but for Scotland, as recognised in NPF2. Development that may compromise the operational efficiency of or economic benefits that may be accrued from the existence of the airport would be contrary to the principles of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan.

The comments of South Ayrshire Council are noted. A full assessment of the development against the relevant policies of both the Structure Plan and Local Plan is provided at section 5 below. Their comments regarding Glasgow Prestwick Airport have been superseded by a consultation response from that airport indicating that they have no objections to the development. It should be noted with regard to the Dersalloch proposal that South Ayrshire Council recently objected to that development on the basis of insufficient information on the lighting of turbines and the impact that this could have on the Galloway Forest Dark Sky Park and Scottish Dark Sky Observatory. Furthermore, as the South Ayrshire Council Local Development Plan has policies to protect this designation, without evidence to the contrary that lighting will not affect the Dark Sky Park, the proposal would be contrary to that policy. A final point relating to the lack of information on the contribution of the Dark Sky Observatory makes to the local tourist based economy and the impact the proposal could have on it and the Galloway Forest Dark Sky Park was cited.

4. REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 One thousand one hundred and eighty three (1183) letters of objection and five (5) letters of support have been received in connection with this application. Most letters of objection are in standard format and form a condensed version of the Dalmellington Community Council objection listed at section 3 above. The points of objection, with the exception of those by the Community Council already listed above and those of the condensed pro forma version which is based on the Community Council ‘full’ version are as follows:

4.2 The proposal is a mortal threat to all that this community has fought for and won during the last 10 years. We have all embraced a vision for the new future; one based on green and cultural tourism and outdoor activities. The great foundations are the talent and spirit of a strong community and its passionate love of this countryside, celebrated landscape, amazing bio diversity and associations with Robert Burns. Through hard work and determination we have achieved much including:

• Planting of over 1.5 million hardwood trees.

• Creation of 20 miles of new core footpaths, which now attract over 30,000 visitors each year, opening up hitherto inaccessible and magically beautiful places such as Ness Glen and Dalcairnie Falls.

• One of the finest natural white water kayaking destinations.

• Creation of 18 miles of new hedgerows.

• Building of the Fort at Craigengillan used by Cadet Forces from all over Scotland, John Muir Trust and Duke of Edinburgh Award Groups, local Scouts and Guides and many other youth organisation.

• The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory – a unique asset with the potential to really turn the tide for East Ayrshire as a whole.

• Restoration of listed buildings.

• Creation of 5 star holiday cottages, drawing visitors to the area throughout the whole year.

• Establishment of a Riding Stables which has developed a high reputation and has grown to a position where it employs 8 local people, the majority of whom have been local school leavers.

• Creation of 5 new lochs and conservation of 3 natural ones.

• Encouraging visitors to come and learn to fly fish, which is becoming increasingly popular, with tuition from a well respected angler for Dalmellington.

• Recognition from the Georgian Group through their award to us of ‘Best Restoration of a Landscape in Britain’.

Visitors are attracted here not just by the quality of the facilities but because of the beauty and peace of the surroundings. They would be deterred by the re- industrialisation of the landscape through the building of these proposed massive turbines. As people become increasingly aware that wind turbines do not and cannot deliver, attitudes towards them will become increasingly hostile. Visitors bring opportunities for new employment and prosperity to local shops and other businesses. These proposed turbines would destroy a vision for which the whole community has worked so hard and with such unity.

4.3 Having assessed the Craigengillan Designed Landscape as within the top 4 in Scotland, giving us the highest possible rating in all 7 criteria employed, Historic Scotland have made no objection to the proposed development. This is as a result of the new regime at both SNH and Historic Scotland, where they are guided by the Directorate for the Built Environment as to which developments they may or may not object. This renders planning advice from both organisations quite meaningless. The Environmental Statement produced by the applicant actually gives a good account of Craigengillan and its landscape and its importance for the community, as a resource on which to help build our future. Even the applicant assesses the sensitivity of many parts of this wonderful landscape to be ‘HIGH’.

The quality of the Craigengillan Estate is not in question and forms a significant material consideration in this application. Both SNH and Historic Scotland provide a statutory duty and provide comments in relation to each proposal and there is no evidence to suggest that they have not undertaken a full and detailed consideration of this proposal. A lack of objection from these bodies does not preclude the Planning Authority from undertaking its own assessment of these particular issues however.

4.4 The Environmental Statement produced by the applicant does not include an assessment of impact on the greatest tourism asset, the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, or on the fort.

The objector is correct in this assertion. Some comments on these features are provided in supporting information however the ES does not specifically address either of these two features.

4.5 The applicants landscape consultants requested a visit to assess the impacts on both projects. I agreed and they came. We agreed the relevant viewpoint positions. A few days later the landscape consultant wrote to say that the applicant was not prepared to include the assessment. The landscape consultant said herself that thus was ‘not ideal’ but that it was open to the Council or consultees to request the relevant information so that it could be taken into account in any determination.

The Planning Authority has no specific comments on this point and considers that sufficient information has been made available by the applicant, in combination with other information and site visits, to allow sufficient assessment to be undertaken.

4.6 The additional information supplied by the applicant in relation to Landscape and Visual Impact is, I believe, inadequate. The additional information confirms the ‘significant’ effect on houses in Dalmellington, Bellsbank and Patna, as well as individual houses in the nearby countryside. The applicant does not consider the impact to be ‘overwhelming/overbearingly dominant’. This is solely the view of the applicant – it is not one shared within this community. The applicant refers to the fact that some houses would have their outlook onto the turbines partially protected by trees. These trees may well not be there for the projected lifetime of the proposed turbine development.

The blade tip ZTV, shown in Figure 5.8 of the Environmental Statement, shows that over half of the area within 5km of the application site would be in sight of nearly all the proposed turbines. The applicant has concentrated its analysis on the visual impact on particular viewpoints/’receptors’. For both residents and visitors it is not just these positions that are important – it is the experience of views presently enjoyed by walkers, riders, cyclists and others that would be dominated by the brutal impact of the proposed turbines, if not from every point then certainly frequently enough to experience the dominating and overbearing influence of the 100m high turbines.

The most significant effects in terms of views would be experienced by static receptors such as dwellings within the settlements. Visitors and those passing through the area will also receive visual impact from the development however this is a different type of impact and, most likely, of lesser perceived impact. The comments with regard to the applicants assessment is noted however assessment of all of the information, including the comments of the applicant, will be assessed by the Planning Authority.

4.7 So much hard work has been done over the last 10 to 12 years to restore a landscape scarred by its industrial past, work which has been recognised in national awards and which is now bearing fruit by attracting thousands of visitors (the footpaths alone are walked by over 35,000 people each year and bring many benefits to the community). The landscape here acts as a beautiful setting for enterprises such as the Stables here at Craigengillan (which employs 8 people where before there were no jobs), Fort Carrick and the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory. Visitors come not just because of the quality of the facilities themselves but because of their wonderful landscape setting.

The potential for the development to adversely impact on the landscape setting and the visitor experience is noted and is expanded upon elsewhere in this report.

4.8 Two of the properties referred to in the ‘additional information’ – Laight and Minnivey Farm – are within 1.1km’s and 1.2km’s respectively, far closer than the recommended 2km separation distance.

The 2km separation recommendation is the buffer between settlements and wind farms rather than individual properties.

4.9 On page 3 of Jones Lang LaSalle’s letter to you of 4 September 2012, even the applicant confirms that there will be significant effects on the ‘Sensitive Landscape Area of the Upper Doon Valley’ and the nationally designated Craigengillan Designed Landscape. Both are protected by clear policies within the Development Plan.

A full consideration of the development from a Development Plan perspective is provided at section 5 below.

4.10 Since the application, with its accompanying Environmental Statement, was made the boundaries of the Craigengillan Designed Landscape have been enlarged and the area encompassed by them has doubled. No assessment of the Landscape and Visual Impact on this important additional area has been produced by the applicant.

A wider assessment, not specifically aimed towards the expanded Designed Landscape, has been undertaken by the applicant. Both Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage have been reconsulted on this specific issue and neither has raised any further comment in addition to those detailed at section 3 above. As part of the overall assessment of impact on the Designed Landscape the Planning Authority will consider the ‘as expanded’ position to ensure that full consideration is given to the matter.

4.11 The Craigengillan Designed Landscape is of national importance in itself. It is also of very great local importance as the setting for key regeneration projects, including the 18 miles of new footpaths, the riding stables, Fort Carrick and the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory. The Craigengillan Designed Landscape has been rated as ‘outstanding’ in each of the 7 criteria employed by Historic Scotland in making its assessments. Only 3 of the approximately 200 Designed Landscapes in Scotland enjoy this maximum rating.

The quality of the Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape is noted and will be given appropriate weighting in the assessment of this proposal reflecting this national importance.

4.12 Historic Scotland, strangely, has not referred to the extended area of the Designed Landscape, or the lack of assessment of the visual impact upon it. Both Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage are government departments. They are both put under enormous pressure not to object, which renders their consultation responses relatively meaningless. The writer of the Historic Scotland consultation responses, Nicola Hall, confirmed to you in her letter that ‘your Council’s conservation and archaeological services will be able to advise on the adequacy of [our] assessment, the likely impacts…’ suggesting that, free from pressure, you may be able to give a better assessment. The pressures exerted on assessment officers in both organisations (HS and SNH) are causing them great disquiet. Ironically, the importance of Craigengillan Designed Landscape is described more powerfully in the applicants Environmental Statement (chapter 5).

See response to 4.10 above.

4.13 I believe that the severely adverse impact on Craigengillan, Fort Carrick and the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory is only too clear and hope that you may be able to confirm it.

Full consideration of these matters will be taken into account in the consideration and assessment of this proposal.

4.14 In the letter to you dated 4 September 2012, the applicants agent Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) advises that ‘there is no significant effect [on tourism] identified…’. This is incredible. No assessment has been made on the impact on the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, Fort Carrick, Craigengillan Stables, walkers, riders or cyclists. James Silvester’s letter to you describes the severely adverse impact on the observatory and it would not have been difficult for the applicant to have conducted surveys based on interviews with people enjoying the footpaths, stables and other facilities here to assess the impact the proposed turbines would have on them.

The objector is correct in reference to the letter. An assessment of tourism impact was undertaken and detailed within the ES however as noted previously there was no specific assessment of the impact on the observatory.

4.15 On page 4 of JLL’s letter to you of 4 September 2012, JLL states that ‘the views expressed in relation to the acceptability of the proposal into the localised landscape and visual effects are those of the case officer and have not been informed by any landscape professional’. This is not only patronising but wrong. The harmful effects are certainly capable of assessment by the experienced case officer, backed up by the 1,500 or so letters of objection and specialist comments from the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory and others.

Notwithstanding any comments from the applicant to the contrary, it is for the Planning Authority using whatever means it considers prudent to undertake an assessment of the proposal based on all of the information available.

4.16 As JLL itself confirms, this development proposal needs to be considered on its own merits or otherwise, from a landscape and visual perspective, Appendix B has no real evidence.

Appendix B refers to previous wind farm decisions which the applicant has brought to the attention of the Planning Authority for a number of reasons. As noted by the objector and indeed the applicant however is that the case will be determined on its own merits.

4.17 JLL says that ‘at this point we would question whether East Ayrshire Council has undertaken an objective assessment, in terms of the effects in localised receptors etc’. You are obviously an experienced professional planner, quite capable of making a judgement backed up, in this case, by the hard evidence from letters of objection.

See response to 4.15 above.

4.18 Later in the letter of 4 September 2012 JLL reports that its client is aggrieved that there has been no scope to discuss the details or basis of concerns on the proposal…etc’. My own experience is that the applicant has not addressed concerns that we have, including the refusal to include an assessment on Fort Carrick or the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, as referred to earlier. The applicant has also failed to act on our request to them to assess the impact on the extension to the Craigengillan Designed Landscape.

The comments of the objector are noted.

4.19 The impact on the community is shown by the 1,500 individual written objections, rather than having to be predicted by a consultant.

The application has attracted 1183 letters of objection which raise a number of pertinent issues. These objections form a material consideration in the determination of this application.

4.20 In Appendix A of JLL’s letter, the agent tried to show that the adverse visual impact of the turbines affects relatively few ‘receptors’ within the nearby settlements. As referred to earlier it is the overall experience of being dominated by huge and often very noisy wind turbines that matters, not just the experience from particular view points. To walkers, riders, car drivers and others the impact of the turbines may be intermittent as they travel, but that does not lessen the overall effects on them.

See response to 4.6 above.

4.21 JLL says that the number of individual houses which would suffer adverse impact is relatively small. Other planning decisions to refuse consent for wind turbines which have been on the basis of adverse impact to even one or two houses have been upheld at appeal.

Noted.

4.22 I believe that the photomontages produced by the applicant are misleading. I attach a copy of ‘The Visual Issue’, an investigation by Alan Macdonald Dip Arch RIBA, into the techniques and methodology used in wind farm computer visualisations, which explains why this is the case.

The comments of the objector and the attached report are noted. However, the applicant, within the ES, has made clear that best practice has been followed in producing the wireframes and photomontage images. SNH has not queried the acceptability of these images and the Planning Authority has no reason to doubt that they are accurate representations.

4.23 In your letter of 10 August 2012 to Energy Consents Unit (attached), with reference to another wind farm proposal, you confirm that ‘the importance of Craigengillan to East Ayrshire and indeed Scotland on the basis of its heritage value is therefore clear’.

The objector refers to East Ayrshire Councils written comments on the proposed Dersalloch wind farm.

4.24 The Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Policy ENV6 indicates that development proposals considered to have an adverse impact on listed buildings or architectural and historic interest and historic gardens and designed landscapes shall not conform to the Structure Plan. This is taken forward in the East Ayrshire Local Plan (policies ENV1, 4 and 8), which place emphasis on the protection and enhancement of these important features as well as their respective settings.

Noted. Full consideration of these policies is provided at section 5 below.

4.25 The impact of the proposed turbines on Craigengillan and the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory would be significant and adverse. The magnitude of this impact is of a scale that makes the proposal unacceptable and therefore it fails to comply with the policies of the Joint Structure Plan and East Ayrshire Local Plan.

It is agreed that there will be a degree of impact on both Craigengillan Garden & Designed Landscape (GDL) and the Observatory. The applicants own assessment describes a significant impact on parts of the GDL albeit not the core area of that designation. The impact on the Observatory could be two fold. The first is the visual impact which, given the clear, elevated intervisibility, is likely to be significant. However, a degree of backclothing will exist and the surrounding landscape form will reduce the visual dominance of the turbines to an extent. The other possible impact comes from direct effect, as set out by the Observatory manager in his objection, detailed below. The MoD requires a form of lighting on the turbines which, according to the objector, will have an adverse impact on the function of the Observatory. No rebuttal to this claim has been submitted by the applicant.

4.26 In addition to the particular impacts on Craigengillan, I am concerned about visual and landscape impacts of the proposal in the wider surrounding area. The Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan provides protection for those landscape areas that make a particularly important contribution to landscape quality. As part of this principle, the Joint Structure Plan identifies a Sensitive Landscape Character Area in which ‘the protection and enhancement of the landscape shall be given full consideration in the preparation of the local plans and the determination of planning applications (Policy ENV 2). The proposed Burnhead wind farm sits within the Sensitive Landscape Character Area. Whilst it is accepted that this does not preclude development, it does require proposals to take account of the landscape implications. The proposal will undoubtedly have visual implications for views across the Sensitive Landscape Character Area in and around the Doon Valley.

Some views will include either all or parts of the development and this will have a degree of adverse effect on the setting and appearance of the surrounding landscape. A full assessment of this affect is provided at section 5 of the report.

4.27 Both the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan and the East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010 seek to promote and support the development of tourism. Of specific reference to this particular proposal, the tourism strategy of the Local Plan promotes the Doon Valley as a tourism destination and a tourism gateway into East Ayrshire. The ‘gold tier’ Dark Sky Park status presents new opportunities for the Doon Valley, in terms of attracting tourists to the area and providing knock on benefits to the local economy and the regeneration of the area. Such benefits are particularly important in the context of the difficult economic conditions that have faced the Doon Valley since the end of the deep mining and the subsequent high level of deprivation from which the area has suffered. Linked to the Dark Sky Park, the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory has been completed and formally opened. It is an incredibly precious tourism and regeneration asset, whose potential could be fatally compromised by the proposed development.

The protection and enhancement of existing tourism resources is of great importance which, as stated by the objector, is reflected in Development Plan policy. A full assessment of these policies is provided at section 5 below. It is agreed that the area has suffered from the closure of deep mines with resulting adverse economic impacts. New tourism opportunities have become available to the area particularly through the Biosphere and Dark Sky Park designations and the protection and enhancement of these should be avoided, including by this proposal.

4.28 There is no demand for this development locally as it does not produce electricity locally, like for instance solar power on every local house would.

The Scottish Government is broadly supportive of renewable energy developments which contribute to national targets for carbon reduction and electricity generation. In all cases the Planning Authority must determine the application presented therefore locally produced power from solar energy is not a material consideration in the determination of this application.

4.29 Why is it necessary for this firm Infinis to provide a community fund. Firms do not usually do this when trading here. Would it provide money if it was not trading here? If not I can only draw the conclusion that this is an inducement to the Council to influence its decision: a bribe and were you to accept it the Council would be committing itself to a criminal conspiracy.

Policy CS15 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan requires a mandatory payment towards a Renewable Energy Fund, should consent be granted. The objector is misdirected in the view that this is a bribe or that it influences the recommendation in any way.

4.30 I moved here to retire to a place of peace and quiet. If these wind farms have been up and running I would not have moved here. I know that people are unlikely to want to buy property within sight or sound of these gigantic unnecessary structures.

Any impact on the value of a house or on the ability to sell that house is not a material planning consideration.

4.31 They are not green. The manufacture, movement and erection of these structures cause pollution and destruction of wildlife and the environment.

Whilst wind farm developments do create a degree of impact in terms of carbon production during construction and delivery and impact on wildlife and environments, this is offset by their lifetime carbon saving ability. Furthermore mitigation and improvements to local environments also takes place whereby the local environment can be improved for protected and native species.

4.32 They do not produce electricity directly for the use of the community they are built in or permanent employment beyond a couple of nightwatchmen.

The proposal contributes to the national energy supply of which the local community has access to. It would also not be practical for developments such as this to only supply the local community where they are located. Long term permanent employment during the operational phase of the development is highly unlikely as confirmed by the ES.

4.33 There has been enough environmental damage already inflicted upon the Dalmellington area by the coal industry which has yet to meet its obligations to restore the damage of coal extraction has on the environment. Perhaps that is why we won’t mind about another round of destruction. A fledgling tourist attraction could be stillborn if the proposal goes ahead.

Open cast development and wind farms are very different development types with different environmental and visual impacts. It is unclear which particular tourist attraction the objector refers to however a full assessment of this impact is contained within this report.

4.34 There is more than enough supply of water from Loch Doon and local burns, if harnessed, as it was years ago, would be able to support the energy needs of the entire Valley. The feeling among residents here is that there is a hidden agenda and the truth is being kept from local communities.

The application is for a windfarm development and notwithstanding the views of the objector, the Planning Authority is required to determine the application that is submitted.

4.35 Dunaskin in the past was vibrant of dwellinghouses, central workshops and an energy power station that supplied 20 collieries from Houldsworth, Patna to Benbain Beoch, a distance of 10 miles. Plus the villages of Dunaskin, Patna, Kearse, Tongue Row, Rankinston, Lethanhill, Burnfoothill, Benwhat, Craigmark, Burnton, Dalmellington, Low Pennyvenie, High Pennyvenie and Beoch. If the funding being put to the wind farms was directed to our local supply this would make more common sense. But the question is who will benefit from the wind farms. The entire local community is suspicious. What is East Ayrshire Council’s position in all of this: are they for the people or are they for the wind farm company? Finally, I say, the people are not happy.

The Scottish Government has set renewable energy targets for Scotland to which on shore wind will contribute significantly therefore whilst the Planning Authority has no comment to make on the merits of funding for such proposals the drive for them is generated through national planning policy.

4.36 The developer lodging this application is called Burnhead Windfarm Ltd registered in Northampton, England. A credit check on this company shows it was incorporated on the 7th of October 2011 and therefore has no credit history. The company appears to have no assets and therefore classed as financially valueless. The directors of the company also hold other directorships, with one having as many as 82. There is no mention in the company structure of Infinis under whose banner this development has been promoted at public meetings. By the manner that Burnhead Wind Farm Ltd has been set up, I have grave concerns that this has been done in order to limit the liabilities so that should there be any long term detrimental issues, the company can be simply liquidated and allow all concerned to simply walk away.

I therefore request that you give serious consideration to requesting that Burnhead Wind Farm Ltd lodge a bond to cover restoration in case the venture should fail or the project become unviable at any stage in the future. Hopefully East Ayrshire Council will treat this high visual impact development similarly to the opencast developments so that the immediate community are not ever left with the legacy of rusting, broken down turbines in the future.

This is a pertinent issue for wind farm development. Should consent be granted it is recommended that a financial bond be required through legal obligation to address the matters expressed by the objector.

4.37 The International Dark-sky Association (IDA) announced on 5th October 2012, an extension of the Galloway Forest Dark Sky Park of some 10,000 acres, taking the northern boundary of the park to within 2 kilometres of the application. I attach a plan showing the boundary of the extension. The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory has been completed and was formally opened on 5 October 2012. It is a world class public visitor and research facility and is the only public use observatory within a gold tier Dark Sky Park (the highest level of designation granted by the IDA) on the planet. It is an incredibly important and precious asset for East Ayrshire and beyond.

The proposed development would be very harmful to the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory and would greatly compromise its potential. Infra red lighting of the turbines would appear as searchlights on the imaging equipment of the powerful telescopes. Imaging is a vital aspect of the work of the observatory and the value of what is a world class, research grade facility would be greatly diminished. Infra red filters would not remove the problem, as much of the light from the stars reaching the telescope is within the same band. Stars, too, would be ‘filtered out’, thus rendering the Dark Sky advantages null and void,

The objector has not provided specific scientific data to verify these claims however this has been offered to support the claim. The potential importance of the observatory to the local community is considered to be very high with opportunities to create spin off benefits. Any adverse impact on the ability of the observatory to function should be avoided and given the MoD’s lighting requirement it is considered that this issue is pertinent and must be given consideration. In the applicants rebuttal to the first phase of objections, no comment is provided on this matter.

4.38 There are other very serious adverse impacts that the proposed turbines would have on The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory. These include:

• Visual impact. The 360 degrees landscape horizon is pristine, with no man made structures visible. The proposed turbines would break the horizon, their moving blades accentuating the adverse impact. This would diminish the visitor experience.

• Air turbulence from the turbine blades would result in poorer visibility conditions for the telescopes and other viewing equipment.

• Vibrations from the turbines would be likely to reach the observatory telescopes which are powerful and very sensitive.

• The low frequency noise from the turbines could likewise result in vibration, damaging the effectiveness of the telescopes and present and future associated instrumentation, such as spectrographs and radio telescopes.

The precautionary principle should be followed.

See response to 4.37 above.

4.39 It is clear that any wind farm proposal will not only jeopardise the observatory’s operation but will also pose a significant threat to its commercial viability. The observatory represents a significant asset to the local community, who have a great deal invested in the project through participation in its operation and by way of the economic opportunities that it presents.

See response to 4.37 above.

4.38 I haven’t received letter of notification to object and as I am a direct neighbour surely I should have been one of the first to receive this.

All appropriate neighbour notification and advertisements have been undertaken as per the relevant planning and environmental legislation.

4.39 I shall be looking directly at these turbines from my kitchen and living room windows.

Solely being able to see turbines does not necessarily equate to an adverse impact on the objector as wind farm developments, by their very nature, are visually intrusive. However, it is considered that some properties will experience an adverse impact for the lifetime of the development which is unacceptable.

4.40 How much noise will this make, possibly a constant drone when windy.

The development has been assessed by the applicant as being within ETSU-R-97 guidelines. The Environmental Health section has raised no objections to the development in relation to noise.

4.41 How will the power be taken from this wind farm? Also all the disturbance caused by machinery going through farm to make such a power line?

The applicant is required to apply for a grid connection under s37 of the Electricity Act 1989. The applicant envisages that this will be by overhead line. All matters relating to the grid connection would be addressed through that application.

4.42 I believe there is also a ‘shadow flicker’; will this affect my TV reception?

Shadow flicker is a phenomenon that occurs where a turbine blade shadow passes over a small opening such as a window, briefly reducing the intensity of light which causes a perceived flicker. It does not affect TV reception however wind farm developments can create adverse effects in this regard. This proposal is not expected to create such adverse impact however mitigation can be provided through either planning condition or legal obligation should consent be granted and such impact occurs.

4.43 There are two barn owls with nesting boxes in one of the sheds, how will this effect them? I also see bats at night on a regular basis.

An assessment of birds and bats was undertaken as part of the production of the ES. No adverse impact is expected, a view shared by SNH and other consultees.

4.44 Our client has a secure agricultural tenancy over Laight Farm/Burnhead Farm, Dalmellington. The Lease was put in place in 1954 and remains intact. Our client has barely been consulted by Burnhead Windfarm Limited in connection with the proposed development. Certainly no agreement has been reached with our client to enable the developer to construct turbines on land which has been subject to a secure tenancy enjoyed by our client for the past 56 years. In our opinion the entire planning process being undertaken by Burnhead Windfarm Limited is a ‘red herring’ given that they are not in a position to construct turbines or other associated infrastructure on property subject to our clients tenancy. The developer has verbally advised our client that they will resume areas of land from the tenancy in order to enable the developer to complete their proposed project. For the avoidance of doubt, the landlord in terms of our clients tenancy is not capable of resuming land from our client in connection with the proposed project.

Appropriate notifications have been undertaken by the applicant as required by planning legislation however ownership and access rights are a private legal matter between the parties involved.

4.45 I have been granted planning permission for two log cabins for tourism purposes and fear that this would have an adverse effect on any future developments. The East Ayrshire Council reference no for this is 08/0413/FL.

Should consent be granted for this proposal, any future applications by the objector will require to be assessed in relation to the wind farm. This is not unusual as any development is assessed on a number of different factors including its impact on the surrounding area and whether it is compatible with that area.

4.46 The farm is already riddled with disused railway lines, road (industrial) foundations of old buildings from houses and there is subsidence from old pits.

The Planning Authority has no comment to make in this respect.

4.47 Where will the stone come from to make the roads to each turbine? Will is come from my leased area? Restricted grass growth and will not be the same grass types as the moss/peat soil grasses surrounding the wind turbine due to the shallow soil with the huge concrete bases of the turbines.

The applicant has advised that they intend to investigate the potential for a borrow pit on site but that if they cannot identify suitable material it will be sourced from an off site location. The ownership status of the land is not a material planning consideration.

4.48 The farm has had a lot of intense industrial activity – have to look at turbines after 100 years of coal spoil heaps and dirty grey roads.

Should consent be granted, planning conditions relating to site restoration would be attached to ensure that the site is restored to an acceptable condition. The consent would also be restricted to a 25 year lifespan for the operation of the turbines and they require to be removed unless a further application is submitted and approved.

4.49 Noise – there has been no noise monitoring done to my knowledge.

The applicant undertook noise monitoring with the details set out within the Environmental Statement which was found to be acceptable by the Councils Environmental Health Department.

4.50 I have been in talks with UPM Tillhill with regards to tree planting and forestation/shelters belts under grant schemes. I am restricted from doing this as the grants are a 12 year scheme and I do not want to have to remove them if they are affecting the wind turbines.

This is not a material planning consideration.

4.51 I will be unable to build out wintering sheds on the hill for the same reason – in case they affect the wind flow for the turbines.

This is not a material planning consideration.

4.52 An already damaged land due to opencast operations will further be destroyed with wind farm turbine bases, roads, transformer boxes etc. The last land on the Laight Farm (Chalmerston) was poorly reinstated and barely carries enough stock. Not only this but prior to the reinstating of the said land, top soil from the farm from this area was taken away and used on the Bellsbank adventure playground circa 1990.

Site restoration post development will be controlled through planning conditions should consent be granted. As part of the restoration plan the applicant will require to submit a detailed plan that sets out how the site will be restored. This will ensure that the objectors concerns are fully addressed.

4.53 The last anemometer Scottish Coal put on Benquhat for the Chalmerston wind farm was not taken away when finished recording date and still lies up the hill abandoned. It was supposed to have been taken away – condition of planning.

This matter has been brought to the attention of the applicant and should the mast not be removed from the land the Planning Authority could instigate enforcement action to ensure that it is removed.

4.54 Icing of blades – last 2 winters have been very poor.

The objector seems to be referring to the chance of ice throw from turbine blades. The Scottish Government advice on such matters is that such instances are rare and unlikely to present problems at most sites as the turbines own vibration sensors are likely to detect imbalance and inhibit the operation of the machines. The siting of this wind farm to avoid oversailing of public roads and footpaths further minimises the risk.

4.55 How will the power from the turbines get to the grid? (Through my land).

This is subject to a different consent regime, through Scottish Government and is not a material planning consideration in this application.

4.56 Both Infinis and Scottish Coal have been less than helpful on providing information or compensation for the turbines. In fact on the notice served to me it says signed on behalf of Burnhead Wind Farms Ltd?

The applicant has met the statutory duties placed upon it through planning legislation therefore the matters raised by the objector are not material planning considerations.

4.57 Is this wind farm company responsible enough to carry out a wind farm project like this if they did not do background checks to see if Scottish Coal has the authority to use the ground.

The Planning Authority has no comment to make in this respect.

4.58 Upset to my business.

It is unclear from the information provided what sort of upset the objector envisages and no further assessment can be undertaken in this regard.

4.59 I have two owl boxes at Minnivey with two pairs of breeding barn owls in both of them. These were put there by David B Grey address and phone number supplied on request.

A full ornithological assessment of the site was undertaken and detailed within the Environmental Statement by the applicant. The natural heritage consultees have raised no objections or adverse comments to the development or barn owls in particular.

4.60 Shadow flicker, will my television reception be affected as I will be one of the closest to it?

See response to 4.42 above.

4.61 How will the infrastructure for this be managed? Will there be cattle grids or will the roads be fenced? Will there be greater access to the public from the road? This is a major concern due to the theft of sheep in 2006 and again in 2010.

No specific detail has been provided on the use of cattle grids or fencing however the land will be accessible to the public under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 once the wind farm is operational. This would however be on the basis that no restrictions are in place from the operational open cast surface mine use. This does not change the current access provisions for the land.

Letters of support

4.62 The letters of support consider that the development is suitable and is in a good location.

Noted. A full assessment of the development is provided throughout the report.

5. ASSESSMENT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT PLAN

5.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of assessing the proposed development, the development plan comprises the Approved Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan (2007) and the Adopted East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010.

Approved Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan

5.2 Policy ECON 6 Renewable Energy advises that proposals for the generation and utilisation of renewable energy should be promoted and will conform to the plan both in stand along locations and as integral parts of new and existing developments where it can be demonstrated there will be no significant adverse impact, including adverse cumulative impact or infrastructure constraints, and where the design of the development is sensitive to landscape character, biodiversity and cultural heritage.

Through ECON6, all renewable energy proposals shall be supported where they are deemed appropriate in terms of a number of key considerations. These considerations are dealt with in substantial detail under ECON7 below, which deals specifically with large scale wind farm developments.

5.3 Policy ECON 7 (Wind Farms) states that:

(a) In Areas of Search proposals for large and small scale wind farm development will be supported subject to specific proposals satisfactorily addressing all other material considerations.

The proposed wind farm is not within either of the two areas of search identified in the Joint Structure Plan.

(b) Areas designated for their national or international natural heritage value, and green belts, will be afforded significant protection from large scale wind farms;

The proposed windfarm is not located in an area with any national or international designations or indeed any green belt. However, the site does incorporate a part of the Benbeoch SSSI and is within 100 metres of the Dunaskin Glen SSSI. As no turbine bases, tracks or other associated infrastructure is located within the Benbeoch SSSI it is considered that there will be no direct impact and similarly, given that the site does not include Dunaskin Glen SSSI, no direct impact is likely.

As stated above, the proposal is considered to not adversely impact on the SSSI’s. Part of the ‘Waterside, miners’ villages and mineral railway N of’ Scheduled Ancient Monument is located within the site and in close proximity to the site. The proposal does not entail direct development on the Monument and whilst the setting of the Monument will be affected, it is considered that the impact, based on the position of the turbines to the outer edge of the Monument and its non disruption of the historical relationship between the various elements of the Monument, that the setting, appearance and understanding of the Monument is not significantly adversely affected.

(d) Cumulative impact will be assessed in all relevant cases, taking into account existing wind farms, those which have permission and those that are the subject of valid but undetermined applications. The weight to be accorded to undetermined applications will reflect their position in the application process. Where the limit of acceptable cumulative impact has been reached the area will be afforded significant protection.

In terms of cumulative impact, of greatest interest to this application is the proposed Dersalloch wind farm in South Ayrshire, south of the B741 Dalmellington to Straiton Road. This comprises of 23 turbines and is the subject of a Section 36 application to Scottish Ministers. Whilst it is accepted that there will be some cumulative impact, given that in this locality only the Dersalloch proposal is at a relatively advanced stage, it is considered that the cumulative limit has not yet been reached in this area.

(e) Outside the Areas of Search: all wind farm proposals will be assessed against the following constraints, any positive or adverse effects on them and how the latter can be overcome or minimised:

Historic Environment

As noted at (c) above, the site incorporates an area of Scheduled Ancient Monument and there are Scheduled Ancient Monuments and listed buildings of various categories within 5km’s of the site. Intervisibility and views will be available to and from many of these features and different impacts will be experienced by each. The Craigengillan Estate is designated as a Designed Garden and Landscape and the viewpoint images show that the proposed wind farm will be visible from parts of the Estate. The development is not however considered to adversely affect the integrity or setting of any of these features to an extent that renders the proposal unacceptable.

Areas designated for their regional and local natural heritage value

Aside from the comments above in relation to the SSSI, there are no sites within the application site which have been designated on the basis of their natural heritage value.

Tourism and recreational interests

The proposed wind farm will be visible from parts of Loch Doon and Craigengillan Estate. Both these locations are key tourism resources, with the Local Plan strategy promoting the Doon Valley as a tourism Gateway for East Ayrshire and Loch Doon as a tourism destination. In particular Craigengillan Estate has, and is continuing to undergo an extensive development programme, focusing on opening up the Estate with a number of visitor-related facilities. In this respect, the Estate has developed an Observatory linked to the designation of the UK’s first Dark Sky Park at the Galloway Forest. It is, however, noted that the proposed development is to the north of the proposed Observatory, whilst the Dark Sky Park is predominantly to the South of the Observatory, therefore the potential impact of the proposed wind farm on this future tourism facility is likely to be minimised.

Communities

The relevant local communities in this instance are the settlements of Burnton, Dalmellington, Bellsbank, Waterside and Patna as well as two individual rural properties known as Laight and Minnivey. The separation distance from the edge of each settlement/property to the nearest turbine is as follows with a representative viewpoint number from the ES:

Burnton: 1.8km’s from turbine 8 VP26 Dalmellington: 2.4km’s from turbine 8 VP1 Bellsbank: 3.6km’s from turbine 8 VP18 Waterside: 1.85km’s from turbine 6 none Patna: 3.6km’s from turbine 6 VP31 Laight: 1.16km’s from turbine 7 (Laight) Minnivey: 1.22km’s from turbine 7 (Minnivey)

Wind farm developments pose a number of different impacts on communities. These include shadow flicker, noise and visual impact amongst others. Through the ‘Addendum to the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Technical Report TR03/2006: Guidance on the Location of Windfarms within Ayrshire.’, a 2km separation distance to towns is required and a distance of 10 times the turbine rotor blade diameter (whichever is the greater) (in this case approx. 824m) from an individual dwelling, work place or community facility should be observed.

However, Scottish Planning Policy does not advocate such a prescriptive approach and considers that the 2km separation distance should be treated as a guide rather than a rule with specific local circumstances to be considered in each case.

The closest settlement to the application site is Burnton, included as a settlement in the Local Plan in conjunction with Dalmellington. The development is within 2km’s from both the site boundary and from turbines. There are no individual dwellings within 824m of the proposed turbines.

Environmental Health has considered the submitted information and have confirmed that noise and shadow flicker will not adversely affect any of the residential properties in the surrounding area.

In terms of the wider community it is considered that the visual impact on Dalmellington and the surrounding rural area will be significant. The views out of the town will be considerably impacted upon by the proposed development, given its prominent hillside location, which slopes down towards Dalmellington and the A713. The intervening landscape partially screens the development from views, particularly the lower elements of the turbines. However, the rotor blades, nacelles and upper parts of the towers are visible to different degrees owing to the intervening landscape. This creates an impression of the turbines approaching the settlements from further away and gives a disjointed impression with no clear layout apparent. For this reason, it is considered that the setting and amenity of Dalmellington will be compromised by the development.

It is also worth noting that the amenity of Dalmellington and the views from the town have long been affected by the opencast coal industry. Whilst the renewables industry represents a wholly different land use, it is the case that any wind farm development will create prominent new man made features in the landscape and in this case will affect the rural setting of Dalmellington and the wider Doon Valley.

In terms of the other settlements, Bellsbank and Patna are at greater distance with the wind farm visible from the elevated sections of Patna and at the exit to Bellsbank in particular. Waterside is largely protected from views by the intervening landscape.

Buffer zones

The Structure Plan guidance requests a 30km buffer around the Areas of Search unless detailed analysis can show that development proposals of more limited scale are acceptable in terms of visual and cumulative impact. The proposed site is within the 30km buffer. However, given that the proposal is for a relatively limited scale development without significant cumulative impacts, it is considered that the 30km buffer does not in itself represent a barrier to the proposal.

Aviation and defence interests

The relevant aviation bodies have offered no objections to the development. Planning conditions are required to address aviation lighting and the micro siting of one turbine.

Broadcasting issues

The applicant has undertaken studies into telecommunication and microwave links and television reception. There is no impact predicated on either telecommunications or microwave links and it is unlikely that television reception will be affected. However, the applicant has advised that should television reception be affected appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented. Such matters can be addressed through planning condition or by legal agreement should consent be granted.

(f) Proposals affecting Sensitive Landscape Character Areas shall satisfactorily address any impacts on the particular interest that the designation is intended to protect but the designation shall not unreasonably restrict the overall ability of the plan area to contribute to national targets.

(g) In all cases, applications for windfarms should be assessed in relation to criteria including, as appropriate, grid capacity, impacts on the landscape and historic environment, ecology (including birds), biodiversity and nature conservation, the water environment, communities,, aviation, telecommunications, noise and shadow flicker.

Connection to the grid is outwith the scope of this application however the applicant has advised that an overhead line between the site and Coylton sub station would be necessary. As noted above, there will be an impact on both the landscape, in particular at the local level, and the historic environment. The development will be out of scale with the environment and be a major influence on its appearance although this reduces at distance with the turbines becoming more ‘in scale’ with the environment and landscape. The historic environment is also impacted upon by the development albeit not physically. Settings and views to and from Monuments, listed buildings and Designed Landscapes will be affected to varying degrees.

In relation to ecology, biodiversity and nature conservation, it should be noted that SNH and the RSPB has raised no objection to the development. The development has been fully assessed as part of the Environmental Statement which found no significant impacts on valued ecological receptors, protected species and birds. The applicant proposes a Species and Habitat Management Plan which shall incorporate mitigation measures to protect such valued ecological receptors and birds as well as methods and measures to improve habitats where possible.

SEPA has confirmed it has no objection to the applicants proposals for the protection and enhancement of the water environment. As noted above, it is considered that the development will offer adverse impact on local communities, in particular through the localised visual impact from the nearby settlements. The unclear layout of the development from localised views combined with the intervening landscape elements create a disjointed and distracting appearance with different parts of the each turbine visible including blades appearing and disappearing behind the intervening landscape.

There are no objections with regard to aviation matters. Adverse impact on telecommunications is not expected however mitigation measures can be secured through planning conditions should such issues occur. The developer has assessed the potential impact from noise and shadow flicker as being well within accepted limits and this is accepted by the Environmental Health section in its consultation response.

5.4 Policy TRANS5 ensures the Ayrshire Councils shall work in partnership to promote the appropriate movement of freight transport. Of particular relevance to this application, TRANS5 directs the councils to:

(c) promote road freight movement in a manner that minimises disruption to local communities and use of inappropriate public roads.

The erection of the wind turbines themselves, as well as the associated access tracks and infrastructure, will result in significant additional road traffic in the local area. The applicant has advised that turbines will be delivered via Port of Ayr Docks. This minimises the distance that the turbine components require to travel and represents best practice. The Roads Division has confirmed that further study will be required and works may require to be undertaken at Boneston Bridge near Hollybush however they raise no objections to the development in principle. In relation to the aggregate require of the development, the applicant advises that a borrow pit is a possibility on the site but that sourcing may be required from elsewhere. Should stone be sourced from elsewhere this could result in impacts to communities along the route. The Roads Division has raised no objections to such a scenario however should consent be granted a planning condition which sets out this route and likely impacts would be necessary with appropriate mitigation proposed and implemented to protect the amenity of such communities.

5.5 Through ENV1 of the Structure Plan, the quality of Ayrshire’s landscape and its distinctive local characteristics shall be maintained and enhanced. In providing for new development, particular care will be taken to conserve those features that contribute to local distinctiveness including, or particular relevance to this application:

(a) settings of communities and buildings within the landscape; (e) skylines and hill features, including prominent views

The proposed development will have a significant impact on the setting of Dalmellington and Burnton, particularly affecting views out of the settlements. The application site sits on an exposed sloping position, which makes it relatively prominent from certain directions, particularly at the localised level. At distance, the development benefits from the grander scale of the landscape setting including back-clothing.

5.6 Policy ENV2 requires that in Sensitive Landscape Character Areas the protection and enhancement of the landscape shall be given full consideration in the preparation of local plans and the determination of planning applications.

The majority of the proposed site lies within the Sensitive Landscape Character Area. As stated in relation to ECON7, the proposed development will have a significant impact on this area, identified as being of particular value to the landscape of Ayrshire as a whole.

5.7 Through Policy ENV6, development proposals considered to have an adverse effect on specified heritage resources shall not conform to the structure plan:

(a) listed buildings or architectural and historic interest; (b) designated conservation areas; (c) historic gardens and designed landscapes; and (d) archaeological locations and landscapes

The proposal offers a degree of adverse impact on a number of heritage resources in the surrounding area, primarily the Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape. The development will be visible from most of these features and may be significant from parts of the Garden and Designed Landscape. The Environmental Statement advises that such affects are restricted to outwith the core part of the Estate, predominantly in the north part and although the development will impact on the Estate’s setting, this is not considered to be of such significance as to adversely impact on the understanding of the Estate from within it or disrupt the historic layout and linkages between the its constituent parts when viewed from outside.

Although the site contains a part of a Scheduled Ancient Monument, the proposed works will not intrude into that area. It is anticipated that there may be some archaeological resource within the site both in connection with the Monument or other developments. The applicant proposes an archaeological watching brief, through planning condition, to ensure that such matters are fully considered and recorded if found. This approach is considered to be reasonable given the likelihood that most archaeology has already been disturbed by open cast or underground mining.

Adopted East Ayrshire Local Plan

5.8 Policy SD1 states that the Council will adhere to the principles of sustainability in it consideration of all development proposals and will seek to ensure that all new development contributes positively to the environmental quality of the area. In this regard, the Council will ensure that all new development does not have any unacceptable adverse impact on:

(i) The character and appearance of the particular location in which it is proposed.

It is considered that the proposal will result in a significant change in the character and appearance of the local area particularly at a local level of up to 3-5km’s from the site. It is accepted that wind farms, by their very nature, are prominent features in the landscape and will offer a degree of visual intrusion. However in this case it is considered that the visual intrusion is exacerbated by the disjointed appearance of the wind farm caused by the intervening landscape between the site and the nearest settlements.

(ii) The environment and amenity of local communities and residents of the area;

Whilst the proposal offers no adverse impact by way of noise or shadow flicker, the visual impact experienced by the local communities and in particular Burnton and Dalmellington, is significant and is injurious to the local environment and level of amenity enjoyed by the communities.

(iii) Landscape character and quality;

The proposal partially sits within the Sensitive Landscape Character Area. The turbines offer a significant effect on the landscape character of the Area being out of scale and proportion to the surrounding landscape. It is acknowledged that when considered at distance the magnitude of impact is less as the environment surrounding the development appears on a more grand scale making the turbines less prominent.

(iv) Natural or built heritage resources.

The proposal will have a degree of adverse impact on the setting of a number of Scheduled Monuments and the Garden and Designed Landscape of Craigengillan. The scale and effect of this impact is varied, and in some instances is significant but overall is not considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact.

5.9 Policy CS12 states that the Council will positively support and promote the development of sympathetic renewable energy proposals both in stand alone locations and as integral parts of new and existing developments where it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant, unacceptable adverse impact, including adverse cumulative impact with other existing renewable energy developments or other renewable energy developments which are consented or under construction;

(i) on any recognised statutory or non statutory sites of nature conservation interest;

(ii) on the amenity of nearby communities or sensitive establishments, including individual or small groups of houses in the countryside that may be adversely affected by reason of noise emission, visual dominance and other nuisance;

(iii) on any recognised built heritage resources, including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, archaeological sites and landscapes and Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes and their individual settings;

(iv) on the visual amenity of the area and the natural landscape setting for the development, particularly within the Sensitive Landscape Character areas as identified on the local plan rural area map; and

(v) on existing infrastructure

Developers will also be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that all energy production will be generated either at, or in as close proximity as possible to, the source of materials used in the generation process and that there will be no unacceptable adverse environmental impact caused by any proposed connections linking the proposed development with the national grid and the surrounding road network.

Policy CS12 provides a general support for renewable energy proposals provided that it does not have significant adverse impact on a number of different criteria. This reflects the position set out within SPP. As noted elsewhere, it is considered that there are significant adverse impacts on local communities by way of visual impact from the development which is most particularly felt in the northern and western boundaries of Burnton and the western boundary of Dalmellington. Further adverse effects are experienced by Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape, the A713 tourist route and the two rural properties, Laight and Minnivey. Leading on from this, the adverse effects experienced by the communities by way of visual impact equates to a general adverse impact on the amenity of the area as well as the local landscape setting.

5.10 Policy CS14 advises that the Council will assess all applications for wind farm developments, including extensions to existing, consented and / or operational wind farms, against the provisions of Policy ECON 7 of the approved Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan: Growing a Sustainable Ayrshire and any future supplementary planning guidance to be prepared relating to cumulative impact. Policy ECON7 states:

(a) In the Areas of Search, proposals for large and small wind farm developments will be supported subject to specific proposals satisfactorily addressing all other material considerations.

(b) Areas designated for their national or international heritage value, and green belts, will be afforded significant protection from large scale wind farms.

(d) Cumulative impact will be assessed in all relevant cases, taking into account existing wind farms, those which have permission and those that are the subject of valid but undetermined applications. The weight to be afforded to undetermined applications will reflect their position in the application process. Where the limit of acceptable cumulative impact has been reached, the area will be afforded significant protection.

(e) Outside areas of Search all wind farm proposals will be assessed against the following constraints, any positive or adverse effects on them and how the latter can be overcome or minimised:

(i) Historic environment; (ii) Areas designated for their regional and local natural heritage value; (iii) Tourism and recreational interests; (iv) Communities; (v) Buffer zones; (vi) Aviation and defence interests; (vii) Broadcasting installations.

(f) Proposals affecting Sensitive Landscape Character Areas shall satisfactorily address any impacts on the particular interests that the designation is intended to protect but the designation shall not unreasonably restrict the overall ability of the plan area to contribute to national targets;

(g) In all cases, applications for wind farms should be assessed in relation to criteria including, as appropriate, grid capacity, impacts on the landscape and historic environment, ecology (including birds), biodiversity and nature conservation, the water environment, communities, aviation, telecommunications, noise and shadow flicker.

Note (i):

In order to assist in the assessment process, the Rural Area Proposals Map defines an Area of Search for large scale wind farm development. This defines the boundaries of the Area of Search indicated in the structure plan Key Diagram and referred to in parts A and E of Policy ECON7.

Note (ii):

In order to help developers minimise the environmental and visual impact of their wind farm proposals, the Council intends, in conjunction with North and South Ayrshire Councils, to prepare detailed supplementary guidance pertaining to the cumulative impacts of wind farm developments. The supplementary guidance to be prepared will be adopted by the Council, following discussion and engagement as a material consideration in the assessment of all new wind farm proposals and developers will be expected to pay due regard to the provisions of the guidance in the formulation of their proposed developments.

This policy largely replicates the content of policy ECON 7 of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan and a full response to that policy is provided at section 5.3 above.

5.11 Policy CS15 states that the Council will, if mindful to grant planning permission for a commercial wind farm development, require applicants to contribute to a dedicated Renewable Energy Fund which will be used to finance sustainable community environmental projects, particularly those designed to help reduce carbon emissions and counteract global warming. For a period of 10 years from the commencement of construction work on the wind farm, all contributions will be directed exclusively to local projects within 10 kilometres of the boundary of the wind farm. Thereafter, 50% of the contributions received will be directed towards local projects with 50% being reserved for use in the wider East Ayrshire area. Contributions will be payable annually and be set at a standard rate of £2500 per megawatt of installed capacity per annum, index linked to 1 January 2008.’

The applicant has indicated that they are willing to contribute toward the Renewable Energy Fund should planning consent be granted.

5.12 Policy CS16 advises that where a wind turbine is not in operation producing electricity for a continuous period of six months, the operator will be required to provide evidence to the Council that the apparatus is in the process of being repaired or replaced. Otherwise, the Council will deem the turbine to be surplus to requirements and require its removal, with the land restored to its original condition within an appropriate period to be agreed with the Council.

Should planning consent be granted it is recommended that a planning condition be attached to address the requirements of this policy.

5.13 Through Policy T3 the Council will require developers, in formulating their development proposals to meet all of the requisite standards of the Council as Roads Authority. Developments which do not meet these standards will not be considered acceptable and will not receive Council support. Of particular relevance to this application developers should ensure that their proposed developments (iii) incorporate all necessary measures to minimise pedestrian and vehicular conflict.

The Roads Division has raised no objections to the development subject to planning conditions. The Environmental Statement identifies substantial additional road traffic during the construction phase of the development which could be exacerbated by the requirement to haul aggregate to the site from an offsite location. However, the site is outwith the settlements, served by an A class standard road with good quality access provision and thereafter private roads within the open cast site. It is considered therefore that planning conditions to address vehicle routing for aggregate haulage, should that be required, and the matters raised by the Roads Division would be sufficient.

5.14 Through ENV1, the Council will seek to protect, preserve and enhance all built heritage resources requiring conservation including Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, together with their respective settings, Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological and Industrial Archaeological Sites and Landscapes.

As noted above, there are various heritage resources in the surrounding area including Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and listed buildings. The proposal offers no physical disruption to any of these resources. Given the nature of the development, it will have various degrees of adverse impact on the settings and views to and from the heritage resources. The development will be clearly visible from parts of the Craigengillan Estate and will have an impact on its setting. However, the applicants assessment of this impact finds that it is restricted to the less sensitive parts of the Estate, a view shared by Historic Scotland. Although there will be an adverse impact on parts of the Estate it is not considered to be of such an affect overall as to be contrary to this policy.

5.15 Policy ENV3 gives prime consideration to the protection and enhancement of the landscape in the consideration of development proposals within the Sensitive Landscape Character Area. The Council will ensure all development proposals in these areas respect, in terms of design, size, scale, and location, the local landscape characteristics of the particular area.

5.16 Through ENV8, developments affecting Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes shall protect, preserve and enhance such places and shall not impact adversely upon their character, upon important views to, from and within them, or upon the site or setting of component features which contribute to their value.

The development will be clearly visible from parts of the Craigengillan Estate and will have an impact on its setting. However, the applicants assessment of this impact finds that it is restricted to the less sensitive parts of the Estate, a view shared by Historic Scotland. Although there will be an adverse impact on parts of the Estate it is not considered to be of such affect overall as to be significant.

5.17 Through Policy ENV15, the Council will not be supportive of development which would cause unacceptable and irreparable damage to important landscape features within rural areas. Developers will be expected to conserve and enhance those features that contribute to the intrinsic landscape value and quality of the area concerned and which are likely to be adversely affected by the particular development proposed including, of relevance to this application,

(i) existing setting of settlements and buildings within the landscape;

Due to its prominent position and the effect of the intervening landscape the proposed wind farm would significantly affect the setting of Burnton and Dalmellington.

(v) existing Public Rights of Way, footpaths and bridleways;

There are two public rights of way that follow the boundaries of the application site. The development will not adversely affect either by way of physical interruption but will have a significant impact on the setting of the rights of way.

(vi) existing skylines, landform and contours.

The potential impact of the proposed wind turbines on the local skyline, particularly as seen from the communities of Dalmellington and Burnton, would be considerable. The development is split from the towns by the intervening landscape with the development appearing behind the ridge as a serious of predominantly upper turbine parts. This disjointed appearance of two separate groupings of turbines which includes blades appearing from behind the ridge line has a disruptive effect on the skyline and this effect is more distracting to the eye than fully visible turbines within a clear, legible layout.

5.18 Local Plan policy ENV16 states that the Council will not be supportive of development that would create unacceptable visual intrusion or irreparable damage to the landscape character of the rural area. Development should be in keeping with, have minimal visual impact and reflect the nature and landscape character of the rural areas in which it is located, in terms of layout, materials uses, design, size, scale, finish and colour.

It is considered that the proposed development will create significant visual intrusion to the landscape for the duration of the operation of the wind farm. It is accepted that, by their very nature, wind farm developments will always result in a certain degree of visual intrusion to the existing natural landscape. When viewed from distance, the turbines clearly remain visible however their size is negated by the scale of the surrounding environment, the clustered nature of the turbines and the backclothing that is available. However, in more local views the benefits derived from the scale of the landscape is less noticeable with the turbines taking on a more prominent appearance where they become the dominant feature in the landscape and visually. To a large extent this cannot be avoided however the effect can be minimised by good layout and design. In local views and in particular from the settlements, the intervening landscape provides some degree of terrain shielding however this same landscape creates a disjointed and distracting appearance where the turbine layout is not as clearly legible. This does create a significant visual intrusion and adversely affects the landscape character of the area.

5.19 Policy ENV17 places a general presumption against certain types of development, including criterion (iv) that which would have a significant unacceptable adverse visual impact or cause irreparable damage to the landscape character and scenic quality of the area within which it is proposed.

See response to 5.18 above.

5.20 Policy ENV20 states that the Council will ensure, wherever possible, that the environmental quality of the main strategic access and tourist routes through East Ayrshire is not compromised by in appropriate, unacceptable or insensitive development. All developers whose proposals lie adjacent to these routes will be required to demonstrate to the Council that their developments are adequately screened and landscaped so as to minimise any adverse impact they may otherwise have on their environmental setting.

The site lies to the north of the A713 which is an important route within East Ayrshire serving the Doon Valley. The route is an important tourism corridor connecting with the Southern Uplands. Given the nature of wind farm development, screening and landscaping cannot be utilised to ‘hide’ the development. In this instance the development will be visible from parts of the A713 and from more minor roads leads off this route. These views will be significant although will largely be short lived and over a small stretch of the A713. However, despite this short lived nature the clear aspects toward the turbines and the impact that they have on the local landscape setting is considered to be detrimental to the local area and will adversely affect the overall environmental quality of this route.

6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The principal material considerations relevant to the appraisal of the application are the consultation responses, the representations received, National Policy context, the Addendum to the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Technical Report TR03/2006: Renewables, site planning history, Specific Advice Sheet ‘Onshore Wind Turbines’, the applicants supporting statement and The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations1994.

Consultation Responses

6.2 The consultation responses raise a number of matters however only one consultee has raised an objection to the development. The Roads Service and Environmental Health have offered no objections subject to planning conditions and this addresses both access and noise. The Tourism Officer has not objected but has raised a number of matters related to tourism and the potential for the development to adversely affect such resources.

6.3 Both Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, the main Government agencies for built and natural heritage have raised no objection to the development. Historic Scotland does not consider the impact on historic environment features such as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Garden and Designed Landscapes and A listed buildings as being of such impact as to warrant an objection subject to a planning condition. Scottish Natural Heritage also have raised no objection but has suggested a significant number of conditions should consent be granted and that clarification was required from the developer on a number of matters. The applicant has submitted information in this respect which is considered to be reasonable and no further comments have been raised by SNH. It should be noted however that SNH comments relating to landscape and visual impact note a significant localised landscape impact from the development.

6.4 The Scottish Wildlife Trust raised some concerns regarding whooper swans to which the applicant provided a response and no further comment has been received by the SWT. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has raised no objections subject to conditions as have Transport Scotland and the RSPB. Glasgow Prestwick Airport has raised no objections to the development subject to a planning condition as has the Ministry of Defence which requires the turbines to be night lit.

6.5 Both the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Team and South Ayrshire Council, whilst no objecting, consider that the development is contrary to the Structure Plan as does Dalmellington Community Council which has objected to the development on those and many other grounds. The objections of the Community Council relate primarily to visual impact on a number of receptors including the local settlements, historic features, natural heritage and Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape. This is strongly linked to the tourism resource of the area and the desire of the local community to build a future based on tourism through the Biosphere designation and Dark Sky Park and Observatory which they consider will be adversely impacted upon by this proposal.

Representations

6.6 A significant number of objections (totalling 1183) to this development have been received and five letters of support were also received. The objections are largely based on the detailed comments of the Community Council. The main areas of concern for objectors relate to the visual impact of the development, the effect of the development on local communities and historic assets, the adverse effect on tourism that the development creates, contrary to the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan and East Ayrshire Local Plan and the potential to adversely affect the Dark Sky Park and Biosphere. The letters of support offer no specific explanation other than that the supporters consider the location to be a suitable one for this type of development.

6.7 A detailed account of each issue raised is provided under section 3.9 above in response to the Community Council concerns as well as at section 4 however a condensed response to several key overarching issues is provided as follows: Landscape and Visual Impact, natural heritage, Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape/historic assets and the impact on tourism. Many of these issues are interlinked and cover significant swathes of issues.

6.8 Taking first the landscape and visual impact of the development, it is agreed with the assessment of the Environmental Statement and of Scottish Natural Heritage that the impact on landscape has been largely addressed through the revised design when considering the development from distance. The layout of the scheme and turbine heights minimise the landscape impact and ensure that the landscape is not dominated by the turbines. Backclothing of the turbines helps to reduce the visual impact of the turbines. However, at a local level it is considered that the impact is significant. The turbines present a readily visible feature in the environment that are rarely seen as a coherent grouping due to their position and the nature of the surrounding landscape. The imposing background of the landscape that is readily visible at distance is not perceived at the local level ensuring that the turbines often forms the dominant feature in the landscape. The visual impact from the settlements of Burnton and Dalmellington is considered to be significant. The intervening landform between the settlements and the development creates a very disjointed appearance that attracts the eye to the development with various sections of turbines and blades appearing over this skyline.

6.9 The site is partly located within an under restoration open cast site therefore significant impacts and change has already undertaken on the natural heritage of the application site. Scottish Natural Heritage has raised no objection to this development on natural heritage matters. The proposal, through the Environmental Statement and by planning condition should consent be granted, has the opportunity to protect and mitigate impacts on existing identified species as well as improve opportunities for further biodiversity and support of existing and new species. It is considered that the adverse impact on natural heritage assets is acceptable and of low impact generally.

6.10 The impact on Craigengillan and other heritage assets is mixed as the setting and appearance of each feature is viewed and understood in different ways. Initially it should be noted that Historic Scotland, the national body for built heritage, has raised no objection. The impact on the various heritage features is diverse and the Environmental Statement makes it clear that the development will cause some significant impacts at these features. The Craigengillan Estate Garden and Designed Landscape is of significant cultural value and is rated amongst the best in Scotland. There will be an impact on the Estate setting and in views to and from the Estate as a result of the development and some cumulative issues with the Dersalloch wind farm proposal within South Ayrshire. The applicant considers, based on the information submitted with the ES that the impact on the setting and appearance of Craigengillan will be low as the core part of the Estate at the southern section which including the house are shielded by intervening higher ground and therefore impact is negligible. However, large parts of the estate do not benefit from this shielding, particularly in the northern section the central and northern sections. It is likely that some views from the Estate will include the development however it is considered that it should not dominate the Estate or adversely affect its setting to any significant degree.

6.11 The Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the surrounding area will also experience a degree of impact. The Waterside. Miners’ Villages and Mineral Railway is partially located within the site however there will be no direct physical effect and the setting of the monument is not adversely affected, given its nature. The other monuments in the surrounding area will also experience a degree of impact however their design, outlook, remains and intervening landscapes ensure that no significant impact occurs on their setting or in views to and from them. The Dalmellington Conservation Area and listed buildings within will experience a mixed effect with some partial/fleeting views of the development however the nature of the Conservation Area is such that the development will not affect its understanding or setting.

6.12 Turning now to the impact on tourism resources, the objectors make it clear that they consider the future of the local area is based on sustainable tourism development. This relies heavily on the recent designations of the Dark Sky Park and Biosphere Reserve and associated works such as the Observatory within Craigengillan. Furthermore, outdoor pursuits such as walking, cycling, riding and fishing have been increasing and the objectors consider that this relies very heavily on the landscape character and appearance of the area. They argue that the development will have an adverse impact on this character and appearance and therefore the tourism potential of the area will suffer accordingly. The applicant considers that there are a limited number of recreational opportunities within the immediate area and that there will be a negligible effect on tourism. Furthermore, the development represents an investment in the region of £1.5M/MW and could provide an opportunity to local businesses. Many of the tourism resources of the local area benefit from the impressive landscape and heritage elements of the area however the applicant argues that a windfarm does not necessarily detract from the visitor experience. The evidence upon which this argument is based is five or more years old therefore it may be out of date particularly given the significant growth of the wind generation industry since that time. The significant level of objection from the local community also appears to contradict such findings. Given that many of the tourism pursuits of the area are based on outdoor experience where one of the key purposes for a visitor is to enjoy their surroundings, it is likely that at least some visitors would be put off by a wind farm.

6.13 The Observatory would experience clear, uninterrupted views of the wind farm and those enjoying the pathways and other outdoor pursuits would experience varied impacts although the transient nature of such pursuits (such as cycling) mean that views would be intermittent. The views north from Loch Doon show that the windfarm will be visible from this popular tourist area, being framed by the distant landform on either side of the windfarm. This increases the awareness of the wind farm from within Loch Doon. Further to this, objectors have raised a concern over the physical impacts the development would bring to the Observatory. The Observatory has recently opened and has significant potential to exploit the Dark Sky Designation. The requirement to night light the turbines, as requested by the MoD, creates the main concern in that the light has the potential to adversely impact the imaging equipment. The Council has indicated its support for the Dark Skies initiative through the Local Plan therefore as the Observatory forms a key part of utilising the initiative to its full potential, any adverse impact on the Observatory should be discouraged. It is agreed that the tourism potential of the local area has significantly improved in the recent past and that a potential for economic spin off can be gained which would be partially affected by the development.

National policy context

6.14 Renewable energy generation is given strong support through Scottish Government legislation and policy where achieving significant levels of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 in response to climate change is advocated. These are set out within the National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). SPP expects that planning authorities will support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and where environmental impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. Significant weight must be attached to this position although it should be noted that this support is caveated with the criteria to be found within the Development Plan. This includes landscape and visual impact for example with environmental quality and the economic importance of high quality natural surroundings given recognition within NPF2.

Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Technical Report TR03/2006: Renewables

6.15 All three Ayrshire Councils have agreed that this Addendum will be used in the assessment of wind farm applications. The purpose of the Addendum is to support the implementation of wind energy policy as set out in the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan. The addendum provides developers with greater clarity regarding those areas where the principle of windfarm development is likely to be acceptable or unacceptable and to provide further explanation of the criteria against which new development will be assessed.

6.16 In terms of the Addendum the proposed site is not located in an area afforded significant protection from the effects of large scale windfarms. The Addendum requires that an assessment be undertaken against relevant development plan policies to protect the interests of designated sites. This assessment has been undertaken at part 5 of this report.

6.17 Part 18 of the Addendum refers to landscape and visual impacts and it was found that sites may be identified for smaller scale wind farm development outwith the Broad Areas of Search which are in locations of low landscape and visual sensitivity and are acceptable in terms of their cumulative landscape and visual effects. These visual and landscape considerations are explored further at paragraphs 48 and 49 where it is recognised that landscape is seen as a major asset in economic development, tourism, leisure and recreation as well as a source of pride and pleasure for residents. Burnhead is located on an area of ground that is not specifically utilised for recreation however the nature of the development is such that it will be seen as a key aspect in the local area and will alter the local landscape appearance within which various leisure and tourism developments are located.

6.18 Part 24 of the Addendum notes that Ayrshire benefits from having an attractive and high quality environment which provides a sense of place and local distinctiveness and that the historic environment is a key part of this. The Addendum advocates the protection of various heritage resources and their settings including scheduled monuments, gardens and designed landscape and listed buildings. The development will have varying degrees of impact on local heritage assets including their setting. Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape will experience some impacts to its setting and in views to and from the Estate as will various scheduled monuments.

6.19 Part 25 stresses the importance of landscape character and natural heritage to Ayrshire attractive and high quality environment and the potential for the environment to play a key part in the economic performance of the area. A cautious approach to development in advocated in certain areas with Sensitive Landscape Character Areas and the settings to communities being of particular importance for this development. The development sits partially within the sensitive landscape character area and above the towns of Burnton and Dalmellington. At the local level which includes the towns, the windfarm will form a prominent feature by its very nature and will alter the perception of the landscape. The rear of the properties including the gardens on the northern and north western parts of Burnton and the property at Laight in particular experience continuous views from windows and gardens. This view is of a disjointed windfarm with elements of each turbine appearing above the intervening skyline. This is non-coherent and disjointed appearance exacerbates the impact and draws the eye towards the moving elements on and above the skyline of the local landscape. Given the permanent nature of these receptors, this impact would be significant.

6.20 Parts 26 and 27 of the Addendum stresses the contribution that tourism makes to the economy of Ayrshire. At the heart of the growth is environmental quality which should be protected and enhanced and that the planning system should protect important tourist assets from inappropriate development. In the case of Burnhead these regionally important assets are the Galloway national tourist route, the Biosphere and the sensitive landscape character area. Furthermore core paths, rights of way, the Dark Sky Park and other local tourist attractions contribute to the local economy and rely heavily on the landscape value of the area for their success. The windfarm will have an impact on a number of these features both in terms of its impact on the local landscape which frames the experience of the local area as well as its general visual intrusion into key views and in the case of the Observatory, its potential to damage the visitor experience of this important facility.

6.21 Part 28 of the Addendum highlights that amenity and quality of life are key assets contributing to the attractiveness and economic potential of an area. Wind farms have the potential to create significant long term adverse impacts on the amenity of an area or health, well- being and quality of life of people living or working nearby. Visually, within 2km, wind farms are a prominent feature in the landscape. In the case of Burnhead, wind turbines are proposed within just over 1 km from rural residential properties and 1.7 km from the nearest designated settlement resulting in significant adverse visual impacts with potential for resultant adverse impacts on well-being and on the quality of life of the residents of the area surrounding the wind farm.

Site planning history

6.22 The application site is located within the Chalmerston open cast site and principally utilises the access provision from the A713. The Chalmerston open cast site has been undergoing site restoration with the majority of the land utilised for this development either fully restored or virgin land that was not part of the open cast use.

6.23 Two previous planning applications for wind farm development were submitted to the Planning Authority. The first of these was for 25 turbines and associated works which overlapped the eastern portion of the application site and encompassed a large portion of the Chalmerston site. This application was withdrawn from consideration by the applicant in June 2005.

6.24 The second planning application was for 19 wind turbines and associated infrastructure and was submitted by the current applicant. This application, 09/0180/FL, was withdrawn from consideration by the applicant on 30 March 2012. The application had attracted a significant number of objections and the Planning Authority, Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage all raising significant concerns.

Scottish Government Specific Advice Sheet ‘Onshore Wind Turbines’ (Aug 2012)

6.25 The number of on shore wind farms has grown substantially over the last 10 years with Planning Authorities having to consider turbines within lower lying more populated areas, where design elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed. In accordance with Government Guidance East Ayrshire Council identified, through its Local Plan, a spatial framework for large scale wind farms of more than 20 MW and also addressed the potential for smaller wind farm schemes.

6.26 Amongst others, this Government guidance lists criteria to be considered in the determination of planning applications for on shore turbines. In the case of the proposal at Burnhead the significant criteria to be assessed are; landscape impact, separation distances, historic environment impacts and cumulative impacts. It should be noted that impacts on tourism and local communities by way of visual amenity are not specifically addressed within the advice sheet.

6.27 The advice note advises that the ability of the landscape to absorb development often depends largely on features of landscape character such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys and vegetation. It is noted that the design of this development has changed significantly since the previous submission to try to mitigate adverse landscape impacts and the smaller size and area of the development contributes greatly to this. The development is considered to largely be accommodated by the landscape when viewed at distance greater than 5km’s due to the height and scale of the landform. However, at local (sub 5km distances) level the dominant landscape is less obvious with the turbines becoming the main landscape influence and overlooking the valley floor below.

6.28 In terms of separation distances paragraph 190 of SPP refers to a guideline separation distance of 2km between areas of search for groups of wind turbines and the edge of towns, cities and villages, to reduce visual impact. However this 2km distance is a guide and not a rule and decisions on individual development should take into account specific local circumstances and geography. In the case of Burnhead it is not within part of an Area of Search for Large Scale Wind Farms identified in the EALP 2010 however the guide provided by SPP is considered relevant whether it is within such an area or not. Taking account of specific local circumstances and geography the turbines proposed at Burnhead are situated close to two residential properties and the settlement of Burnton resulting in separation distances well short of 2km. The significant adverse impacts of the proximity of turbines to local communities’ results in a significant adverse impact in terms of separation distances and does not comply with Government guidance relating to on shore wind turbines.

6.29 The advice note advises that windfarm developments have the potential for direct and/or indirect impacts on the historic environment by virtue of the location of the turbines and ancillary development. The direct or physical impacts of the Burnhead proposals are small. The site incorporates an area of scheduled monument however no direct physical development of the monument is proposed with mitigation by way of a fence being proposed to avoid any disturbance of this part of the site. Archaeological resources are unlikely to be present beyond the monument given the opencast works. Turning now to indirect effects (effects on setting), the proposal is likely to have a degree of impact on various heritage assets.

6.30 These include Craigengillan Garden and Design Landscape and various scheduled monuments in particular. The impact on Craigengillan is considered to be different at various locations within the estate. The house itself, which is A listed, will be screened and terrain shielded from the development with the significant tree cover throughout much of the estate offering further mitigation. However, northern and north western parts of the estate may experience more significant impacts including on views out of the estate towards the valley side on which the turbines are located as less screening is available in the region of the Bogton Loch and sloping ground above it to the west. Furthermore, this northern portion is most likely to experience cumulative impact as the Dersalloch wind farm proposal, which is currently undetermined, is located above Craigengillan and to the west. This is exacerbated by the expanded site boundary of the Garden and Designed Landscape. Cumulative impact is likely to be experienced, and be significant, when viewing the estate from the south as the Dersalloch scheme sits above the estate and Burnhead sits to the north, within views across the landscape. This therefore means that the Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape, in certain wide views, will be adversely affected by two separate wind farms that together form a large part of the view.

Applicants supporting statement

6.31 In addition to the Environmental Statement and various accompanying statements submitted by the applicant, further information in response to the comments of various consultees, the objectors and the Planning Authority was submitted by the applicant. This information provided clarification and further details on a number of matters such as ornithological surveys and whooper swans. The applicant has also submitted as part of this statement a rebuttal of a number of the key areas of concern for the objectors. For example they advise that noise surveys have been undertaken using relevant Government guidance and best practice and that the design of the wind farm has changed significantly since the 2009 submission to take account of visual and land landscape impacts.

6.32 The applicant considers that there is a limited number of recreational opportunities within the area and that there will be a negligible impact on tourism. They clarify that whilst some significant landscape and visual impacts are inevitable as a result of the nature of commercial wind farm developments, they consider that the proposal meets with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The applicant maintains that there are socio-economic benefits of the proposal which includes jobs during construction, employment opportunities down the supply chain by companies providing services to the development and through spending in the local area.

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations1994

6.33 The proposal could result in the disturbance of protected species; namely otter. Appropriate licences may require to be obtained in this regard. Scottish Government interim guidance to planning authorities states that no planning decision may be made until the planning authority can assure itself that a licence may be forthcoming. An application for a licence will fail unless all of 3 tests on acceptability for a licence are satisfied. In summary these tests are:

Test 1: The licence application must demonstrably relate to the purpose of “preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

It is considered that the licence (and the disturbance of the protected species that it would authorise) would be necessary in order to allow work to proceed that is of overriding public interest by way of a beneficial consequence of primary importance for the environment as the proposal will contribute to the production of electricity from a renewable source thereby helping to reduce carbon emissions. Furthermore, the development, through the proposed mitigation scheme will bring about beneficial consequences for the environment.

It is considered that that there is clear overriding public interest in permitting the development to proceed and that Test 1 can be clearly met.

Test 2: “that there is no satisfactory alternative”

With regard to Test 2, it is considered that there is no satisfactory alternative to the granting of a licence and to the consequent disturbance to protected species. The development has demonstrated that the wind resource at this location is suitable and would contribute to a national priority by way of renewable energy production.

Test 3: A licence cannot be issued unless Scottish Government is satisfied that the action proposed “will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range” (Scottish Government will, however, seek the expert advice of Scottish Natural Heritage on this matter).

The interim guidance issued to planning authorities indicates that SNH is the main body to advise on whether the granting of a licence would be “detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range” and so be capable of meeting Test 3. In its consultation response SNH has indicated that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the protected species.

In this regard it is considered that for the reasons and justifications set out above it is a reasonable expectation that a licence would be granted and that in arriving at this conclusion the Council, as Planning Authority, has fulfilled the general requirement established under Regulation 3(4) to have regard to the provisions of the Habitats Directive, and in particular to the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of the Directive and Regulations 39 and 43 of the 1994 Regulations.

7. FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are no potential financial implications for the Council in determining this application. Legal implications will arise though the requirement for a Section 75 Obligation (formerly Section 75 Agreement) under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and a Section 96 Agreement under the Roads (Scotland) Act, should the Council be minded to grant consent for the proposed development.

8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Section) Act 1997 require that planning applications be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 Scottish Government legislation and policy gives strong support for developments that generate electricity from a renewable source. The proposal would make a modest contribution towards the 100% equivalent target for electricity generation from renewable sources. However, that support is not unconditional and it relies upon the proposal satisfying a range of criteria which are largely replicated and expanded upon within the Development Plan.

8.3 The key issues which this proposal presents are its landscape and visual impact, its effect on the historic environment, its effect on tourism and recreational interests and its impact on local communities.

8.4 By the very nature of such developments, commercial windfarms form significant elements within a landscape due to their vertical emphasis and moving parts. In the case of Burnhead, the development is partly located within the Loch Doon Valley designated Sensitive Landscape Character Area and is likely to significantly change the landscape character of the area. These changes are considered to be relatively localised and not experienced at all locations however in those locations where turbines are visible they will alter the appearance of the landscape by forming the dominant feature and appearing out of proportion with the landscape. At greater distances and particularly from southerly directions, the imposing landscape around and behind the turbines allows the development to fit with the landscape and not significantly alter the landscape perception or views towards the Loch Doon Valley area. The higher ground to the north of the development largely allows for no views of the development. Within their consultation response Scottish Natural Heritage largely agree with this assessment.

8.5 At a more localised level, the development will offer significant visual impacts on parts of the settlements of Burton, Bellsbank and Dalmellington, the rural residential properties of Laight and Minnivey and sections of various transport and tourist routes and destinations within approximately 5 -6km’s. This localised impact is of particular concern for objectors who note that the turbines will not only be visible from a number of key local areas but that their size is out of scale with the surrounding environment. The intervening landscape at Craigmark Hill provides a buffer between the development and the local settlements. However, the development appears as a haphazard collection of moving parts of turbines on the skyline, created by this landscape feature. This is a distracting feature visually and alters the perception of the enclosed landscape around Burnton. It should be noted that Scottish Natural Heritage describe the significant landscape impacts as being localised in nature therefore whilst this proposal has significantly reduced in size from the previous application to the extent that its landscape and visual impact at distance has significantly improved, it continues to fail at a local level.

8.6 The proposal will have varying degrees of impact on the historic environment. There are a number of listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments and a Garden and Designed Landscape within 5km’s of the development. A minority of these features will experience a direct and/or an indirect effect from the windfarm. Although the development may be visible from some of these features, it does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on their setting. The exception to this is Craigengillan Garden and Designed Landscape to the south of the development. It is anticipated that a degree of adverse impact will occur on the setting of this area, particularly in its northern and north western portions and will also suffer a degree of cumulative impact with the Dersalloch proposal to the west. Historic Scotland does not consider these impacts to be significant and do not object to the development.

8.7 The letters of objection and Community Council consultation response raises significant concern over the adverse impact on tourism that the proposal will cause. This is largely two fold with the adverse visual and landscape impacts considered to discourage visitors and the direct effects that the proposal could have on the observatory should it be night lit, as requested by the MoD. The local area sits at the periphery of the Dark Sky Park boundary and is within the transition area of the Biosphere and is therefore well placed to exploit these features. The recent opening of the observatory and extension of the Dark Sky Park offer significant tourism benefits for the local community. Furthermore, a number of core paths and other routes allow access and exploitation of the Galloway national tourist route which could attract visitors to the area. The applicant considers that the development will have a negligible impact on tourism given the limited number of recreational opportunities.

8.8 It is considered that the proposal could have an adverse impact on the tourism potential of the area. The recent designations noted above have the potential to grow and attract tourists to a world class resource which has no comparison in Scotland and perhaps indeed Europe. Whilst this is a relatively new feature, any adverse impact on these designations should be resisted. The visual impact of the turbines from the observatory is significant given its elevated position. However, the observatory is primarily for use at night to take advantage of the dark sky designation therefore visual impact is considered to be a lesser issue. However, any lighting of the turbines has the potential to adversely affect the designation and the objectors advise that infra red lighting does not address this issue. The applicant has not provided any rebuttal of this claim therefore a cautious approach to this matter should be pursued. The development is not considered to adversely affect the Biosphere or its sustainable aims as the development seeks to contribute towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and in this respect can be described as being sustainable at a national level. The visual impact of the development on other tourism related facilities such as the paths and key transport routes will be significant however this significance is reduced as many of these views will be fleeting owing to the nature of the activity.

8.9 Turning now to the impact on the local community, a number of benefits could result from the proposal. The applicant has indicated a willingness to contribute to the Renewable Energy Fund which would be used in the local area. However, Scottish Government policy is clear that such financial benefits do not carry any weight. The applicant envisages that some jobs may be created and that spin off benefits to the local economy from employment of local contractors and use of local facilities may occur but acknowledges that this is likely to be short term.

8.10 Set against these benefits, there is the potential for adverse impact on tourism which is set out in the preceding paragraphs. Whilst tourism does not currently contribute to East Ayrshire in the same manner as South or North Ayrshire, the Council does have strategies to increase visitor numbers and tourist revenues. The designation of the Biosphere and Dark Sky Park will contribute to the desirability of the area for tourists which will also create other local opportunities therefore the development has the potential to discourage tourists to the area given its significant local presence and its impact on the landscape character and amenity of the area. Furthermore, the local communities stands to receive the most significant visual impacts from the development. The community is largely a permanent receptor that will experience continual exposure to the windfarm. The properties on the north and north west boundaries of Burnton and the western boundary of Dalmellington will experience the disjointed appearance referred to in paragraph 8.5 above from their properties and rear and front gardens respectively. This impact is considered to be significant.

8.11 Based on the above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies ECON 6, ECON 7 (E), (F) & (G), ENV 1 AND ENV 2 of the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan. Furthermore the proposal is to be contrary to policies SD 1(i), (ii) & (iii), CS 12 (ii) & (iv), CS 14 (E), (F) & (G), ENV 3, ENV 15 (i), (v) & (vi), ENV 16, ENV 17 and ENV 20 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan.

9. RECOMMENDATION

9.1 It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons on the attached sheet.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTE

Should the Committee agree that the application be approved contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development, in terms of the principle of the proposed development, then the application would not require to be referred to Council as it would not represent a significant departure from Council policy.

Alan Neish Head of Planning and Economic Development

FV/DMcD

11th January 2012

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Application Forms/Plans and documents including Environmental statement, Planning statement, Design and access statement and pre application consultation report. 2. Statutory Letters/Certificates. 3. Applicants supporting statement 4. Consultation Responses 5. Adopted East Ayrshire Local Plan. 6. Approved Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan. 7. Letters of Representation. 8. Letters of support 9. Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Technical Report TR03/2006: Renewables 10. Scottish Government Specific Advice Sheet ‘Onshore Wind Turbines’ (Aug 2012) 11. Scottish Planning Policy 12. National Planning Framework 2 13. Application 09/0180/FL 14. Application 04/0406/FL

Anyone wishing to inspect the above papers please contact David Wilson, Senior Planning Officer on 01563 576779.

Implementation Officer: David McDowall TP24 East Ayrshire Council

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997

Application No: 11/0868/PP

Location Burnhead Wind Farm Chalmerston Dalmellington

Nature of Proposal: Erection of 8 wind turbines and associated infrastructure

Name and Address of Applicant: Burnhead Wind Farm Ltd 500 Pavilion Drive Northampton Business Park Northampton NN4 7JY

Name and Address of Agent Shahid Ali Jones Lang LaSalle 150 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5Nd

Officer’s Ref: David Wilson 01563 576779

Subject to:

The above Planning Permission application should be refused for the following reasons:

1. The development is contrary to Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Policy ECON 6 as it cannot be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse impact, nor that the design of the development is sensitive to landscape character.

2. The development is contrary to Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Policy ECON7 (E) and Policy CS14 (E) of the East Ayrshire Local Plan as the proposal has significant unacceptable adverse visual and landscape impacts on nearby communities and on tourism and recreational interests relating in particular to the potentially adverse effect on the Galloway Forest Dark Sky Park and observatory by way of turbine lighting.

3. The development is contrary to Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Policies ECON7 (F) and ENV2 and Policy CS14(F) and ENV3 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan as the proposal does not satisfactorily address the adverse impact on the Loch Doon Valley Sensitive Landscape Character Area

4. The development is contrary to Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Policy ECON7 (G), and with Policies SD1(i), (ii) and (iii) and policy CS14 (E) and (G) of the East Ayrshire Local Plan as the proposal would result in significant and adverse impacts on the visual and landscape amenity, on local communities by way of visual dominance and on tourism and recreational interests relating in particular to the potentially adverse effect on the Galloway Forest Dark Sky Park and observatory by way of turbine lighting.

5. The development is contrary to Ayrshire Structure Plan Policy ENV1 (A) and (E) and Policy ENV15(i), (v) and (vi) of the East Ayrshire Local Plan as the proposal results in a significant adverse effect on communities, public rights of way and skylines within the landscape.

6. The proposal does not comply Policy CS12(ii) and (iv) of the East Ayrshire Local Plan as the development will result in significant adverse visual dominance on the landscape and on the local settlements and properties at Laight and Minnivey thereby adversely affecting the residential amenity of the area.

7. The development is contrary to the East Ayrshire Local Plan Policies CS12(iv) and ENV16 (i) as the proposal would result in an adverse visual impact on the local area in terms of the layout and design of the turbines and on the natural landscape setting of the Loch Doon Valley Sensitive Landscape Character Area.

8. The development is contrary to the East Ayrshire Local Plan Policy ENV17(iv) in terms of a significant unacceptable adverse visual impact on the nearby settlements and the rural properties at Laight and Minnivey.

9. The development is contrary to the East Ayrshire Local Plan Policy ENV20 as the proposal, by way of its adverse localised landscape and visual impacts has an unacceptable impact on the main strategic access and tourist route through the Doon Valley, the A719.

Reason for the Decision

Whilst it is recognised that the principle of renewable energy generation is given significant support within the national policy context, this support is conditional. In this instance it is considered that the adverse impacts of the development on local landscape character and appearance, visual impact on nearby settlements and rural property and the potential for the development to adversely impact upon the tourism resource of the area make the proposal contrary to Development Plan policy and the related parts of national planning policy in the SPP.