Report No 752/06

ANGUS COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 13 JUNE 2006

PLANNING APPLICATION – ARK HILL,

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT

Abstract: This report deals with planning application No. 03/00831/FUL for a wind farm comprising 8 wind turbines, associated turbine transformers, access tracks, control building, sub-station, one permanent wind monitoring mast, borrow pit and minor road widening of the U356 for RES Ltd at Ark Hill, Glamis. This application is recommended for conditional approval subject to a Section 75 Agreement.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Full planning permission is sought for a wind farm comprising 8 wind turbines, associated turbine transformers, access tracks, control building, sub-station, one permanent wind monitoring mast, borrow pit and minor road widening of the U356 for RES Ltd at Ark Hill, Glamis.

1.2 The application site (excluding the area required to widen the public road) measures approximately 1 square kilometre and is located on Ark Hill (height 339 metres AOD) which lies approximately 2.5km to the west of the A928 and the settlement at Milton of Ogilvie on the U356 public road. The site is currently in agricultural use and is utilised as rough grazing. A farm track runs from the U356 to Ryehill and Chamberwells and the lower slopes of Ark Hill.

1.3 The application proposes the erection of 8 wind turbines each measuring some 50 metres to hub height and with a rotor diameter of 62 metres giving a total height to blade tip of 81 metres. A 50 metre high free standing wind monitoring mast would be retained on-site. The application includes a proposal to utilise former quarries on site as a borrow pit to provide a source for stone for the on-site tracks. This would have a surface area of some 65m x 65 m with an extraction area of 45m x 45m with varying depth of up to 5 metres. This will require blasting and crushing of material on-site. It is proposed that the access tracks will have a running width of 4.2 – 5.0 metres with some local widening on bends, at passing bays and around turbine bases. The access tracks will be constructed of crushed and graded stone from the borrow pit but in areas of peat and topsoil, the construction technique will utilise a layer of geo- textile material. In these circumstances the use of floating roads eliminates the need for excavation and minimises effects on ecology and disruption to water paths. In areas where heather is to be crossed, the heather topsoil will be removed and the subsoil stored separately. Thereafter, following construction the appropriate topsoil and harvested vegetation will be used to reinstate the track shoulders and turbine foundation areas whilst the material extracted for the turbine foundations would be used to re-grade the borrow pit.

1.4 The closest dwelling to a turbine is Chamberwells at approximately 724 metres to the south/east. There are a further two occupied dwellings within 1km of a turbine, namely Upper Handwick (approximately 822 metres) to the southeast and (approximately 868 metres) to the northwest. There are four unoccupied 2 Report No 752/06

properties within 1km of the proposed wind farm namely, Ivy Cottage (approximately 600 metres) to the west, Ryehill (approximately 942 metres) to the south/east and Wester Denoon Cottages (approximately 960 metres) to the north. It is relevant to note that Ivy Cottage is uninhabited and derelict, Ryehill is vacant and derelict whilst Wester Denoon Cottages are uninhabited and at a similar distance and elevation to other properties to the north-west of the application site. There are a further six occupied properties within 1.76km of a turbine with Easter Denoon the closest at approximately 1096 metres to the northwest. The settlement of Milton of Ogilvie is located approximately 2.5km to the east of the application site. Charleston lies approximately 3.5km to the northeast and Glamis approximately 4km to the northeast.

1.5 Access to the site is to be taken from the A928. To allow construction vehicles to access the site, some minor upgrading of the U356 will be necessary. In addition, a steading at Ryehill will be demolished to allow the farm access to be widened for construction vehicles.

1.6 The main land take required as a consequence of the proposal is resultant from the access tracks. The total length of access roads is approximately four kilometres with a width of 4.2 – 5.0 metres which translates to an estimated land take of approximately 20,000 square metres. The substation compound will take up an area of approximately 5 x 4 metres and the control building approximately 16 metres x 5 metres. The construction compound would require an area of approximately 40 metres x 40 metres. This area would be fully reinstated after construction. The land take from the wind turbines is comparatively small. Including restrictions for the movement of stock beneath the towers, each turbine and transformer uses approximately 15 square metres of land. It is estimated that the actual land sterilised by the entire development is only one to two per cent of the site area.

1.7 It is indicated that construction would take approximately 6 – 9 months and that the wind farm would have an operational life of 25 years.

1.8 The application has been advertised as bad neighbour development and development potentially contrary to development plan. The Environmental Assessment has also been advertised as required by legislation. Additional environmental information has also been provided and again this has been advertised.

2 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 Planning permission (ref: 01/95/1388/FULL) was granted for the erection of a 40 metre high anemometer for a temporary period of two years in September 1995. That mast has been removed.

2.2 Planning application ref: 00/00382/FUL was submitted by the current applicant and proposed a wind farm comprising 12 x 1 megawatt wind turbines, access tracks, substation and compound building on land at Ark Hill and part of Carlunie Hill, Glamis. The proposed turbines were indicated to be a maximum height of approximately 78 metres. The closest residence to a turbine was 561 metres (Upper Handwick) with a further 8 residences within 1km of a turbine.

2.3 That application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to determination in 2001. 3 Report No 752/06

2.4 Planning permission (ref: 02/00571/FUL) for a wind monitoring mast was granted on the 15 July 2002 for a temporary period of one year.

2.5 A further planning application (ref: 03/00734/FUL) for the retention of the mast for a further one year was granted on 8 September 2003. The mast has now been removed.

3 APPLICANT’S CASE

3.1 An Environmental Statement (ES) and an Environmental Statement Addendum have been submitted to accompany the application.

3.2 The ES provides an assessment of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed wind farm and its associated activities. Included in the Statement is information relating to Site Selection, Project Description, Landscape and Visual Impact, Ecology, Bats, Ornithology, Wintering Geese, Archaeology, Hydrology, Transportation and Access, Acoustics, Electromagnetic Interference and Socio- Economics. During consideration of the application additional information was requested regarding noise predictions and grid connection and this was submitted as additional environmental information and is contained in a Supplement to the ES.

3.3 The ES and its Supplement, including the Non Technical Summaries for both documents are available to view in the Member’s Lounge.

3.4 The applicant has also submitted a Supporting Planning Statement which has been circulated with the letters of representation. This concludes that: -

‘it is inconceivable that construction of any windfarm will not give rise to effects some of which may objectively or subjectively be adverse. The proposed windfarm at Ark Hill gives rise to very few such effects, and the Environmental Statement concludes that what is proposed would be acceptable and appropriate in scale and type. It is clear that the proposed development would, taking especially into account national renewable energy policy, be acceptable. Planning permission should be granted.’

3.5 The applicant has indicated that they intend to provide a community fund if planning permission is granted, however, this is not a material planning consideration and has not been taken into account in the preparation of this report.

4 CONSULTATIONS

4.1 The Director of Roads has offered no objection to the application.

4.2 JMP Consultants Ltd has indicated no objection regarding potential impact on the trunk road network.

4.3 Tayside Police have indicated that the development should not affect their communication network. It is indicated that the overall effects on the surrounding roads will be very minor. It is further indicated that the Police foresee little chance of accident, other than parts of the turbine breaking off which is highly unlikely. It is noted that the separation distance to the nearest house is 720 metres. The Police envisage that security measures incorporated would adhere to building guidelines for similar substations. It is suggested that all aspects of the construction process should be monitored by Tayside Police in respect of the substation to promote and implement ‘Site more Secure’ principles during the building phase. 4 Report No 752/06

4.4 Scottish Water has not objected to this proposal.

4.5 SEPA has indicated that the Environmental Statement appears to consider many of the potential significant impacts to the water environment associated with the scheme. It notes that the ES does not make reference to the Water Environment (Controlled Activities)() Regulations 2005 (CAR) and that as there is potential for a significant impact to the water environment (before mitigation), the implications of CAR will need to be taken into consideration should the development be progressed. SEPA refers the applicant to a number of its Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG’s) that are not mentioned in the ES, namely PPG’s 4, 5 and 21. The possibility of groundwater contamination from spillage, particularly during construction is discussed and it is suggested that the detailed design of the access roads should be given further consideration in order to limit potential impacts on groundwater. SEPA notes the presence of springs which not only feed local watercourses but are also utilised for drinking water and stock watering by local farmers. However, it considers that mitigation measures mean that the impact on spring flows should be limited and thus also the potential disruption to local dinking water supplies. SEPA indicates no objection to the application subject to conditions requiring a programme to monitor the quantity and quality of flow from local springs before, during and for a period after construction works cease, and a management plan for the site such that pollution risks associated with the construction and operation phases of development would be identified and appropriate mitigation provided.

4.6 The Communications and Information Services Division of the Scottish Executive has indicated that it does not consider that the development should affect radio coverage for emergency services.

4.7 National Air Traffic Services Ltd indicated that the proposal does not conflict with its safeguarding criteria and offers no objection.

4.8 Dundee City Council indicates that it considers the proposal to be broadly compliant with the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan, and as joint Structure Plan authority with Angus Council, the City Council wishes to support the proposal in strategic planning terms. It is further indicated that the City Council is satisfied that the proposed wind farm will have no visual impact on Dundee and, likewise, Dundee Airport has no concerns about air traffic safety as a direct result of the proposals.

4.9 The Defence Estates has been consulted but has not responded in writing in relation to this application. However, I have spoken to Defence Estates and it has indicated verbally that it has no objection to the application. It is relevant to note that Defence Estates did respond in relation to the previous application in 2000 and confirmed no objection to the proposal.

4.10 The Health and Safety Executive has offered no objection to the application but has indicated that it would be responsible for enforcement of health and safety legislation during the construction phase of the project and during the actual operation of the facility should it go ahead.

4.11 The BBC has indicated that both they and the Independent Television Commission (ITC) have joint responsibility for domestic reception of UHF television, and the country is subdivided into areas for which one or other organisation is responsible. The ITC currently contracts work to National Transcommunications Ltd (NTL) and the 5 Report No 752/06

Ark Hill proposal is located within an area assigned to the ITC. The Ark Hill proposal should have no detrimental affect upon the national or local BBC radio reception.

4.12 The Independent Television Commission has been consulted and have forwarded details of the consultation response previously provided by NTL who responded on their behalf. In addition ITC notes that the applicant has undertaken to remedy any TV reception problems which might be caused by the wind farm and encourages the Council to enter a binding agreement with the developer to ensure this. NTL indicated that the area most at risk of interference is to the north-west of Ark Hill around . Coverage from Angus is known to be poor around this area due to the topography and as a consequence some viewers are using Durris. Any Angus viewer in this location will have their reception further impaired by the wind turbines. Durris may offer an alternative service for those Angus viewers affected but this cannot be guaranteed. NTL stated that they had not undertaken a detailed investigation or visited the site so comments were made on the basis of a brief desktop study. It was stated that it was possible other problems could occur. NTL also indicated that there are a number of locations where turbines have caused disruption to televisions. There is no guarantee that problems can always be resolved and solutions are seldom straight forward. In view of the potential problems, NTL suggested that the Council enter an agreement with the developer to meet the cost of investigating and rectifying any problems that may arise.

4.13 The Countryside and Natural Heritage Unit of the Scottish Executive Environment Group has indicated that work done in support of the ecological section of the Environmental Statement is completed to acceptable standards, and is generally well presented and intelligible. The site is not designated in any way but that there is a SSSI to the south of the site at Hill, which is designated for habitat reasons. It is noted that the development will not directly affect the SSSI. The ornithological studies are carried out using standard methods and are thorough and adequate for purpose and the site is not considered to be of special ornithological interest. It is further indicated that impact on hydrology of the site is a minor concern and that the proposed mitigation measures are acceptable. It is concluded that the ecological effects of the wind farm are not likely to be significant and that SEEG sees no reason why the proposal should be rejected on ecological grounds subject to conditions.

4.14 Scottish Natural Heritage has indicated that it does not object to the application but indicates that it wishes to make a number of recommendations to alleviate some potential environmental impacts. It indicates that the Environmental Statement is considered to adequately cover the natural heritage issues of the proposed development. It is suggested that whilst the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is based on the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and other guidance including SNH guidelines, it would have been useful for there to have been more consideration of access track impacts. This is especially important given the slopes that are likely to have to be traversed, and given that the revised layout is likely to be better in this regard than the original application. In relation to visual impact SNH indicates that the revised submission is an improvement on the previous proposals as far as landscape and visual impacts are concerned. However, it is suggested that the position of a turbine should be repositioned as it appears remote from the others when viewed from Loch. In relation to ecological and ornithological interests it is indicated that dry dwarf shrub heath is listed as an Annex 1 habitat of the Habitats Directive. Upland heathland is also a UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitat of national importance. The ornithological 6 Report No 752/06

assessments show the almost complete range of species to be expected in such habitat. It is indicated that peregrine falcon regularly prospect the site for breeding in the spring and on this basis no blasting/removal of quarry faces should occur until breeding has been completed. SNH was advised of the draft findings of the Council’s Consultant’s Audit of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment but indicated that following a further review of the Environmental Statement by its landscape advisor it did not wish to make further comment on the application. It indicates that a landscape specialist made site visits in the preparation of a response and these formed the basis for its response. It is indicated that the technical matters identified by the Council’s Consultant are not uncommon.

4.15 Historic Scotland has confirmed that there are no scheduled ancient monuments on the site itself and their comments relate to the analysis of the wind farms effects on the setting of the scheduled monuments in the area. It notes that the layout, in comparison to previous layouts, is now confined to Ark Hill and that this will mean that negative effects on the setting of the scheduled monuments, Carlunie Hill, cairn and Carlunie Hill, hut platforms will be reduced. It is noted that there is a discrepancy between the conclusions of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and the Archaeological Assessment in terms of the impact of the development upon the setting of the scheduled monument Kinpurney Hill, fort. Notwithstanding this, and the absence of wireframe drawings for the effects on the visual settings of the scheduled cairn and the hut platforms Historic Scotland confirms that it has been able to make an assessment of the effects of the wind farm on the setting of the scheduled monuments in the area. In this respect it is indicated that the layout of the development has changed to lessen the impact on the settings of the closest monuments and, given all other considerations, Historic Scotland do not consider the effects on the settings of other scheduled monuments in the vicinity will be of such a serious magnitude to warrant formal objection on these grounds. Reference is made to the council’s archaeologist for opinion on the adequacy of the assessment on unscheduled archaeological sites and mitigation. In relation to listed buildings and designed landscapes it is indicated that Historic Scotland are content with the findings of the environmental assessment.

4.16 Aberdeenshire Archaeological Services has indicated that the turbines are well clear of any archaeological site and offers no comment on their positioning. It is requested that careful consideration is given to the routing of the access track between turbines 6 and 8 to ensure it is clear of the footings of a small farmstead. The demolition of the farm building to facilitate the entrance road is noted and it is requested that a structural survey of the building and photographic record of the farmstead are required by condition. A photographic record of the pond and related features along with detailed drawings of any sluice gates that might be affected by the infilling of the pond are also required by condition.

4.17 The Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection has provided a response dealing with turbine noise, construction noise and private water supplies. In relation to turbine noise he has indicated that, on the basis of the work undertaken by the Council’s appointed acoustic consultant, he has no objection to the application subject to a number of conditions. Similarly, he has indicated that he has considered the issue of construction noise (including activities associated with the borrow pit) and has no objection to the application subject to conditions. In relation to impact on private water supplies and has indicated that conditions proposed by SEPA related to groundwater protection will have the additional effect of protecting private water supplies source in this manner. He indicates that contamination of the private water 7 Report No 752/06

supplies is extremely unlikely but has suggested a condition requiring the developer to provide an alternative water supply in the event of a pollution incident or interruption of supply as a consequence of the development.

4.18 Dundee and Angus Tourist Board has indicated that the comments made in its response to the previous application remain valid. At that time Angus and Dundee Tourist Board indicated that it was not competent for it to consider an overall view leading to an opinion either in favour of or against the current application. However it indicated that businesses in the area were concerned that the wind farm would create a substantial visual intrusion into the landscape of Angus. It acknowledged that the Angus Glens in the area to the north of Strathmore would constitute the main areas of public amenity for activities such as walking in the Angus area. However, local businesses were concerned that the Sidlaws are an important area for such activities and that the attractiveness of the Sidlaw Hills would be reduced as a result of the presence of the turbines.

4.19 Community Council has indicated that it objects to the application on the basis that the proposal is considered contrary to the Development Strategy and Environmental Resources Policies 2 and 10 of the Structure Plan. It is also suggested that the application is contrary to policies ENV8 and INF13 and 14 of the Angus Local Plan as it would represent an unacceptable intrusion on the intrinsic landscape qualities of the area; does not fit well in the landscape; will unacceptably affect the amenities of the residents and visitors by reason of noise, visual dominance and electromagnetic disturbance. It is also suggested that the development would be detrimental to the natural environment and adversely affect biodiversity.

4.20 and Community Council has objected stating that the proposal does not comply with development plan policy or national guidance; would impact on adjacent property and local area; noise; amenity; visual appearance and compatibility; and creation of a precedent for more of the same.

4.21 A number of other bodies including Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, BT, Perth and Kinross Council, and telecommunications operators were consulted and submitted no objection.

4.22 Forfar, Glamis, , , Kirriemuir Landward East and West and Community Councils have all been consulted and have offered no objection to the application.

5 LETTERS OF REPRESENTATION

5.1 Two hundred and sixty-seven letters of representation (including those from Newtyle and Eassie, and Strathmartine Community Council’s) have been circulated to Members. Of these 228 express objection to the application (some 174 utilising standard pro-formas) whilst 39 offer support (some 33 utilising a standard pro-forma). The main issues raised in relation to the applications are summarised below and comment is provided where necessary for clarification. The substantive issues raised are addressed under Planning Considerations.

5.2 The main points raised in objection to the application relate to:-

8 Report No 752/06

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

• Proposal is contrary to the Development Strategy and Environmental Resources Policies 2 and 10 and Employment Policy 7 of the Structure Plan

• Proposal is contrary to Policies S1 and 2, ENV1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 50, 51 and 52, RT1, 4 and 16, INF6, 12 and 13 of the Angus Local Plan

Comment – The compatibility of the proposal with relevant development plan policy will be considered under Planning Considerations.

NATURAL HERITAGE

• Contrary to NPPG14

• Fragmentation of habitat including scarce heather

• Damage to unimproved grassland

• Reduction in the support of biodiversity in Angus

• Impact on Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)

• Adverse impact on wildlife habitat

• Wind farms kill birds

• Ryehill barn is to be demolished although it is likely to contain bat roosts

• Bat survey is dated and incorrectly quoted in Environmental Statement

• Applicant should be required to retain bat roosts, provide mitigation and obtain a license from SEERAD

Comment – SNH and the Scottish Executives Environment Group have both reviewed the Environmental Statements submitted in respect of both the 2000 application and the current application and have indicated that they have no objection to the proposal on the basis of impact on natural heritage interests. The application site lay within an AGLV identified in the Angus County Development Plan of 1962 However that non-statutory designation was not maintained in Angus Local Plan 2000. An updated bat survey has been undertaken by the applicant and is discussed below.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY GUIDELINE 15 – RURAL DEVELOPMENT

• Contrary to NPPG15

• No economic and social benefit for wider community

• Damage to income of residents close to site and tourist economy

• Does not use brownfield land 9 Report No 752/06

• Would not protect or enhance the rural environment

• Does not integrate with and cannot be made to relate to settlement pattern

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT AND ARCHAEOLOGY

• Contrary to NPPG5

• Contrary to NPPG18

• Damage to historic sites and their setting

• Two sites of archaeological or historic significance would be destroyed (quarry and Ryehill)

• The development would severely damage the integrity of several scheduled ancient monuments and a number of non-scheduled historic remains

• There are no exceptional circumstances that justify allowing the aforementioned damage

• Adverse impact on setting of which is listed in the Inventory of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes

• Development site has important historic associations and has numerous Celtic associations

Comment - Historic Scotland, SNH and Aberdeenshire Council’s Archaeologist have offered no objection to the application on the basis of impact on built heritage or archaeological interests however I will discuss this matter further under Planning Considerations.

VISUAL IMPACT AND ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

• Adverse visual impact, exacerbated by movement

• Development is in an Area of Great Landscape Value

• Visualisations in Environmental Statement do not show ancillary works such as anemometer mast, access tracks, substation, control building, borrow pit etc.

• Visualisations underestimate visual impact of development

• Photographs taken using a wide angle lens which de-emphasise distant objects and draw attention to foreground objects

• Photomontages have prominent foreground objects such as fencepost and roads that reduce the apparent impact of the wind turbines

• Inappropriate selection of viewpoints 10 Report No 752/06

• Unfavourable comparison between ES and University of Newcastle study on the assessment of wind farms

• Cumulative visual impact

• Proposal is contrary to Tayside Landscape Character Assessment (TLCA)

• Although TLCA identifies application site as a potential area of low constraint for wind farm development that was on the basis of much smaller turbines

• Control building and substation are large and no one would be allowed to build a house of this size at this location

Comment – SNH has indicated that it does not consider the visual impact of the development to be unacceptable. Notwithstanding this, Angus Council has commissioned a landscape Consultant to review the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment contained in the Environmental Statement and the objections regarding landscape and visual impact. In this respect it is indicated that the objectors’ submissions ‘are very detailed and thoroughly researched, with a number of significant and potentially valid issues being raised. Nevertheless the valid issues have to be carefully extracted from a large number of marginal or inaccurate points. In particular there is little attempt to focus on key concerns, with all the potentially negative aspects being equally emphasised. Interpretation of planning policy, statements from reports etc. are always against the proposals and minor impacts are given the same emphasis as potentially significant issues.’ This matter is discussed in more detail under Planning Considerations. Different development plan policies relate to the consideration of applications for houses as compared to applications for wind power development. The visual impact of the building and compound will be considered in the assessment of the proposal.

IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

• Adverse impact on residential amenity

• Adverse impact of noise

• Inadequacy of Acoustic Assessment in Environmental Statement

• Inappropriate methodology used for noise assessment

• Wind farms can be heard from two miles away

• Wind farm would be heard in Charleston

• No increase in noise is acceptable

• Previous application was withdrawn due to noise issues yet these turbines are larger

• Adverse impact of shadow flicker

11 Report No 752/06

Comment – Given the technical and highly specialist nature of noise assessment associated with wind turbine development Angus Council has engaged an acoustic Consultant to review the Acoustic Assessment submitted in support of the Environmental Statement. This matter is discussed under Planning Considerations.

IMPACT ON TOURISM

• Adverse impact on tourist industry

• Views of Scotland refer to a VisitScotland survey and suggest that 15% of tourists would definitely not holiday near a wind farm and this would reduce visitor trips by 20,000, bed nights by 50,000 and £2.19 million (it is suggested that this could be as much as £5.88 million) would be lost to the Angus and City of Dundee economy

• Reduction in recreational value of area

Comment – Issues in relation to the impact of the development on tourism are discussed under Planning Considerations.

IMPACT OF BORROW PIT

• Borrow pit should be subject of a separate application

• Must ascertain if there was a borrow pit on the site previously

• Noise and dust from quarry workings will have an adverse impact on wildlife

• Hours of operation of borrow pit should be controlled

• Will there be blasting and crushing and what will be the hours of operation?

• Traffic generation and road safety

• Will quarry be reinstated?

Comment – It is procedurally proper for the borrow pit to be included as part of this planning application. Historic maps indicate the presence of quarrying activity at this location. The Environmental Statement addresses the potential impact of the borrow pit and consultees have taken it into account in providing responses. Blasting and crushing would be required and conditions are proposed to restrict the hours of operation of the quarry. The applicant suggests that the use of a borrow pit would reduce the required number of vehicle movements on the public road network and that material excavated to form the turbine foundations would be used to re-grade the excavated area.

• Adverse impact on water supply – both SEPA and the Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection have reviewed the Environmental Statement and have indicated that they do not consider that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on hydrology or private water supplies.

12 Report No 752/06

• Development would limit opportunities for diversification provided by Agriculture Holdings (Scotland) Bill

• Interference with television reception – Both the BBC and the ITC have been consulted and neither has offered any objection to the application but have suggested that a legal agreement should be entered to secure any necessary remedial works in the event of television reception being adversely affected by the development..

• Adverse impact on breading livestock

• Creation of division in community

• No significant benefits to the Angus area

• Application does not demonstrate a significant economic contribution to rural sustainability

• Adverse impact on house prices – this is not a material planning consideration.

• Should be located off-shore – this is not relevant to the determination of this planning application.

• Ineffective means of energy production

• More effective means of production are available

• Wind turbines will not produce sufficient electricity to displace substantial fossil-fuel generation

• 8000 2MW turbines would be required to meet Governments 10% target if there are no emissions overheads

• Energy from wind farm might not be used in Angus

• wind power is intermittent therefore total backup is required from conventional power stations

• 16000 – 20000 turbines larger than those currently deployed in the UK would be required to meet targets

• Should be built in areas that require power

• Scotland is a net exporter of electricity

• Increased cost of power to the consumer

• Scottish Executive targets unreasonable

• RES is part of Sir Robert McAlpine Group which also builds nuclear power stations

13 Report No 752/06

• Little support for application but lots of opposition

Comment – The effectiveness or efficiency of wind turbines or the appropriateness of Government targets/ policy is not a matter for Council to consider in the determination of this application. For instance, the planning authority would not determine a planning application for industrial premises on the basis of the efficiency of the process being applied for. Furthermore, the destination of the product is not, in itself, a basis for deciding the application.

• Failure to remove concrete bases could result in leachate and pollution by concrete breakdown

• Access tracks should be removed at the end of the life of the wind farm

• A bond should be utilised to secure restoration of the site

Comment – The applicant has indicated that a special sulphate resistant concrete would be utilised in order to minimise the risk of leaching. It is relevant to note that SEPA has not objected to this proposal. A bond would be required to secure restoration of the site.

• No significant change from previous application – the application has been amended to remove four turbines and to increase separation distances between turbines and residences.

• No Environmental Statement in Glamis Post Office – the applicant has confirmed that a copy of the Environmental Statement and the Supplement to the Environmental Statement were lodged at Glamis Post Office. I have checked with the Post Office and it has confirmed that it holds a copy of the Environmental Statement. In addition copies of the documents have been available for inspection at Forfar, Kirriemuir and Glamis Libraries and at the Planning & Transport Department.

• Precedent for similar development

GRID CONNECTION

• Wind farm should not be considered in isolation from grid connection

• Suitability of grid connection

• Grid connection should be under-grounded

Comment – The grid connection does not form part of this application. However, the applicant has submitted a Supplement to the Environmental Statement and this provides an assessment of likely grid connection routes. This has been subject of the statutory publicity and consultation requirements and no significant issues have been raised by consultees.

5.3 The main points raised in support of the application relate to: -

• Renewable energy has a key part to play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions 14 Report No 752/06

• Scotland has renewable energy resources of international significance, and wind energy is an abundant resource that can be harnessed

• Angus must play a part in meeting renewable energy electricity targets

• The proposal is well sited, and sensitive to Angus’ natural heritage and landscape

• The proposal respects local amenity, being largely hidden from nearby villages

• Applicants have made significant effort to take account of local objections

• Windmills enhance the landscape

Comment – The substantive issue in this case is not whether wind power is good or whether some individuals consider that the appearance of wind turbines enhances the landscape generally but is whether the proposed development subject of this application is appropriate on the application site.

6 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Regulation 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 requires that a planning authority shall not grant planning permission pursuant to an application to which this regulation applies unless it has taken the environmental information into consideration, and shall state in its decision that it has done so.

6.2 Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997 requires that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting special regard shall be paid to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting.

6.3 In this case the development plan comprises: -

• Dundee and Angus Structure Plan (Approved 2002); • Angus Local Plan (Adopted 2000)

The Development Plan is current and up-to-date and in this respect merits considerable weight in the determination of the proposal. The key development plan policies relevant to consideration of this application are provided in Appendix A and have been taken into account in the preparation of this report.

6.4 The Finalised Angus Local Plan Review was approved by Council on 15 December 2004. The Finalised Angus Local Plan is not part of the statutory Development Plan but given the stage which it has reached is a material consideration to be taken into account in the determination of this planning application. In this report policies of the Finalised Local Plan Review (or Committee approved Pre-Inquiry Modifications) have been referred to when the said policy is materially different to the Adopted Angus Local Plan to the extent that, as a 15 Report No 752/06

consequence the recommendation contained within this report has been substantially influenced.

6.5 In addition to the Development Plan a number of matters will also be particularly relevant to the consideration of the application and these include: -

• National Planning Policy Guideline 6 – Renewable Energy Developments

• Planning Advice Note 45 – Renewable Energy Technologies

• the Environmental Statement and environmental information submitted in respect of this application by the applicant, consultees and third parties

• Tayside Landscape Character Assessment

• Hayes McKenzie, Proposed Wind Farm, Ark Hill, Glamis, Noise Assessment Report HM:1337/2, June 2004

• Ironside Farrar, Ark Hill Windfarm Audit of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, May 2006

6.6 Accordingly the key policy and material considerations in relation to the determination of the application are: -

1. adequacy of environmental statement;

2. the environmental or economic benefits associated with the development;

3. impact on residential amenity;

4. impact on aircraft activity;

5. fit in the landscape

6. impact on built and natural heritage interests;

7. impact on access/ road safety/ maintenance and operational impacts;

8. socio-economic impact;

9. cumulative impacts.

10. impact on water quality

Adequacy of Environmental Statement

6.7 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 detail the information that should be contained within an Environmental Statement.

6.8 The Council provided a scoping opinion in respect of this proposal in order to identify the key areas that should be addressed through the environmental impact assessment process. 16 Report No 752/06

6.9 I am satisfied that the submitted Environmental Statement complies with the requirements of the EIA Regulations in terms of the information included therein. Similarly, following the submission of supplementary environmental information, I satisfied that the scope of the submitted Environmental Statement is adequate.

6.10 In relation to the contents of the Environmental Statement it is relevant to note that extensive consultation has been undertaken on the document and whilst third party objectors have raised concern regarding its adequacy and accuracy, no statutory consultee has raised any significant concern regarding its contents. Supplementary environmental information has been submitted providing revised acoustic information and an assessment of the potential environmental impact of possible grid connection routes. This additional information has been advertised as required by Regulation.

6.11 Particular criticism has been raised in respect of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The landscape Consultant appointed by the Council has concluded that: -

• The assessment is comprehensive and thorough, acknowledging or following most of the currently accepted guidance on landscape and visual impact;

• The conclusions in respect of landscape impacts are reasonable although a finer grained study could have been undertaken;

• Some panoramic photographs appear to have been taken with a wide angle camera which has the effect of increasing the prominence of the foreground and making background objects recede;

• The computer generated wirelines and photomontages based on enlarged sections of the panoramas appear to be technically accurate;

• The photomontages do not show other elements of the infrastructure such as access tracks, mast, substation and borrow pit which would be visible from some of the closer viewpoints

• The assessment is not fully representative, and most observers, leaving aside their opinions on the acceptability of wind farms, would consider the visual impacts to be of greater significance than implied;

• The definitions of levels of impact magnitude mean that a wind farm development is unlikely to cause a ‘high’ magnitude of change and the threshold for significant impacts is set at a level of ‘moderate major’ and above. The Consultant notes that this appears to be the accepted norm for wind farm developments and that it has been accepted by SNH.

• The conclusions section suggests that significant visual impact may occur within 3.2km of the site, however, the actual assessment indicates that significant visual impacts could occur at distances up to 10km from the site.

6.12 The visualisations and the assessment of the significance of the landscape and visual impacts provided by the Environmental Statement are an indication of the potential impacts of the development as judged by the applicant’s Consultant and should only be regarded as a guide for the decision maker. I am inclined to agree 17 Report No 752/06

with the Council’s Consultant that some of the visualisations under-emphasise the scale of the turbines in the landscape.

6.13 I have discussed these matters with SNH and it has indicated that it does not consider that this changes its opinion on the acceptability of the Environmental Statement or on the acceptability of the proposal. SNH is the Scottish Executive’s principal adviser on matters relating to the wider landscape, and its advice on the adequacy of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment therefore carries considerable weight. Accordingly, I consider that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment section of the Environmental Statement is broadly acceptable. However, in considering the application I have relied upon my assessment of the significance of the impacts based upon site visits and the Council appointed Consultant’s findings and have used the submitted visualisations only as a guide to potential impacts recognising that they may under-emphasise the likely impact of the turbines. Members should note the aforementioned limitations in determining the application. A significant number of representations regarding the visual impact of the development have been received from persons living out with the 3.2km radius. In the preparation of this report I have taken into account that there will be significant visual impacts beyond 3.2km.

Environmental and Economic Benefits

6.14 Environmental Resources Policy 10 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan indicates that proposals for renewable energy development will be favourably considered where they deliver quantifiable environmental and economic benefits and any significant or cumulative adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, landscape and local communities can be satisfactorily addressed.

6.15 Policy INF12 of the Angus Local Plan indicates that consideration will be given to the quality and nature of the renewable energy resource and its contribution to the national requirement for renewable energy.

6.16 NPPG 6 states that, amongst other things, Scotland has one of the best wind regimes in Europe which represents a very significant, albeit under-utilised, renewable energy resource. This is likely to be the technology most widely used in the expansion of renewable energy in Scotland. It also indicates that small scale schemes will provide a limited but valuable contribution to renewables output and to energy requirements both locally and nationally. Planning authorities should not reject a proposal simply because the level of output is small. It further states that the wider environmental and economic benefits of such developments should be a significant consideration. PAN 45 states amongst other things that, generating electricity using wind power has the potential to reduce the amount of electricity from fossil fuel power stations, thus reducing emissions of harmful gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). For example, in 1999 UK wind farms produced over ½ billion units of clean electricity potentially offsetting over 430,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.

6.17 In this case the proposed development would contribute towards generation of renewable energy and the applicant indicates that annual production would be sufficient to meet the electricity demand of 5367 average homes which is significant in an Angus context. The Environmental Statement suggests that the CO2 annually displaced by the proposed wind farm would be equivalent to 23,505 tonnes. The applicant has monitored wind speed and direction at the site over a number of years and the Environmental Statement indicates that the wind resource at Ark Hill is 18 Report No 752/06

appropriate for this form of development. The submitted Environmental Statement identifies general economic benefits associated with renewable energy development, including employment generation within the renewables sector. The Statement indicates that the development will contribute towards the development of the renewable energy industry and that there will be local economic benefit from construction employment.

6.18 The impact of the development on the natural and historic environment, landscape and local communities will be considered below.

Impact on Residential Amenity

6.19 Environmental Resources Policy 10 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan confirms that the potential for significant adverse impacts of development on local communities is relevant to the determination of planning applications for renewable energy developments.

6.20 Policy INF12 of the Angus Local Plan indicates that impact on residential amenity will be material to the consideration on renewable energy proposals. Policy INF13 of the Angus Local Plan indicates that wind power developments should not, by reason of noise emission, visual disturbance, shadow flicker, reflected light, or electro-magnetic influences, have a significant detrimental effect on residential amenity. Policy H21 indicates that proposals which have a significant adverse affect on the character and amenity value of existing housing will be resisted. Policy EMP15 deals with mineral extraction and indicates that the amenity of residential areas should not be significantly harmed.

6.21 NPPG 6 recognises that the potential impact of wind farm development on the amenity of the nearby residents and communities is material to the consideration of planning applications. PAN 45 confirms that issues such as visual impact, safety, noise, television interference, shadow flicker can all affect residential amenity and should be taken into account in determining planning applications. It further indicates that the report ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ [by the DTI’s Energy Technical Support Unit (ETSU), 1996] describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or unduly adding to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or planning authorities. The report presents a series of recommendations that can be regarded as relevant guidance on good practice.

6.22 PAN 56 states, amongst other things, that there are two sources of noise from wind turbines: mechanical noise from the turbines and the aerodynamic noise from the blades. Mechanical noise can be reduced through engineering design. Aerodynamic noise depends upon rotor speed which varies with wind speed. Noise from the wind normally increases at a faster rate than the turbine noise. This means that aerodynamic noise of wind turbines is generally greatest at low speeds. Good acoustical design and siting of turbines is essential to ensure that there is no significant increase in ambient noise levels as they affect the environment and any nearby noise-sensitive property.

6.23 The applicant’s Environmental Statement includes an acoustic assessment and a third party objector has engaged a Consultant to submit comment on the acoustic assessment. The third party objector’s Consultant indicates that he considers the 19 Report No 752/06

applicant’s acoustic assessment to be flawed and suggests that noise from the development is likely to have a significant impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties. It indicates that the acoustic assessment does not include three residential properties that are close to the application site, these being Ivy Cottage (approximately 600 metres from the closest turbine) and Wester Denoon Cottages (approximately 960 metres from the closest turbine). It is relevant to note that Ivy Cottage is vacant and derelict and I understand that it could not be rehabilitated without the agreement of Strathmore Estates. Given its proximity to the development and as no assessment has been undertaken of noise impact at this location, I consider that it would be appropriate to require that it is not rehabilitated and reoccupied whilst the wind farm is operational and this could be addressed by a legal agreement (this may require the property to be resumed from the tenancy of Wester Denoon). Whilst the impact of the development on Wester Denoon Cottages (also vacant) has not specifically been assessed, they are at a similar distance and elevation to other properties to the northwest of the application site.

6.24 Given the technical and highly specialist nature of noise assessment associated with wind turbine development the Department, in consultation with the Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection, has engaged an acoustic Consultant to review the Acoustic Assessment submitted in support of the Environmental Statement. The Consultant was also asked to review the report submitted by the third party objector’s Consultant. The Council’s Consultant has concluded that: -

• ‘Although we have identified areas of disparity between our own assumed sound power levels for the wind turbine used as the basis for the assessment and those used by RES/HLA, and in the precise prediction methodology used, the predicted levels are in broad agreement.

• We consider that this development is acceptable in noise terms according to the recommendations in ETSU-R-97, the recommendations of the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines, referred to as ‘recommended good practice’ in PAN45, Renewable Energy Technologies.’

Comment is provided on proposed planning conditions regarding noise in the event that planning permission is granted.

6.25 The objectors noise consultant has indicated concern regarding the use of the ETSU methodology indicating a preference for the use of standards required by BS4142. However, I note that a similar argument was advanced in respect of a planning appeal for a wind farm at Bradieston Farm, Garvock Hill, Laurencekirk in 2005 (decision March 2006). In that case the Inquiry Reporter concluded that ‘it appears to me that the advice emanating from the Scottish Executive in terms of PAN45 makes it clear that the recommendations contained in ETSU-R-97 provide a framework and indicative noise levels for the measurement of wind farm noise. The PAN also states that these recommendations can be regarded as relevant guidance on best practice on the matter. Drawing all these matters together, I consider that the use of the ETSU methodology is appropriate in this case.’

6.26 The Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection has indicated that, on the basis of the assessment undertaken by the Council’s appointed Consultant, he finds the impact of the proposed wind turbines acceptable subject to conditions. The proposed borrow pit is relatively small and some distance from neighbouring properties. Similarly, the construction activities will be comparatively remote and like 20 Report No 752/06

the borrow pit, temporary in nature. Accordingly, given the findings of the Environmental Statement, the Council’s acoustic Consultant and the Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection, I am satisfied that there are no reasons relating to noise that would justify refusal of the application.

6.27 Concern has been raised regarding the visual impact of the development on the amenity of nearby residences. As indicated at paragraph 1.4 above the closest dwelling to a turbine is Chamberwells at approximately 724 metres to the south/east. There are a further two occupied dwellings within 1km of a turbine, namely Upper Handwick (approximately 822 metres) to the southeast and Wester Denoon (approximately 868 metres) to the northwest. There are a further six occupied properties within 1.76km of a turbine with Easter Denoon the closest at approximately 1096 metres to the northwest, Upper Middleton (approximately 1149 metres) to the east, Nether Middleton (approximately 1571 metres) to the east, Nether Middleton farm cottage (approximately 1730 metres) to the east, Wester Rochelhill (approximately 1755 metres) to the north and Berryhillock (approximately 1757 metres) to the northeast. In addition there are three vacant but apparently habitable properties located within 1.5km metres of the closest turbine, namely Wester Denoon farm cottages (approximately 960 metres) to the north/north-west, Nether Handwick (approximately 1281 metres) to the south/east and Wedderleys (approximately 1489 metres) to the northeast. Ivy Cottage and Ryehill are approximately 600 and 942 metres from turbines respectively but are vacant and derelict. The closest settlements are located to the east at Milton of Ogilvie and Charleston and are approximately 2.5km and 3.5km from the turbines respectively. The rational for determining significant impacts in both the landscape and visual assessments within the Environmental Statement is detailed in Appendix B.

6.28 The properties to the north/northwest of the development in the Denoon Glen, namely Easter and Wester Denoon and the vacant Denoon Cottages have main windows and areas of garden facing south towards the proposed development. The Environmental Statement suggests that the visual impact on these properties would result in a ‘moderate/major’ significance of effect. At Easter Denoon the applicant indicates that 6 turbines would be visible although only the hub and blades of 2 of these turbines would be visible. At Wester Denoon again it is indicated that 6 turbines would be visible although the towers of 2 would be partly obscured by landform and only the hub and blades of 2 turbines would be visible. Trees in the vicinity of the property would provide some localised screening and would partially shield views of some turbines. I consider that these properties would experience the greatest change of outlook, particularly when taking account of the movement that would be introduced into the landscape and note that objections have been received from the occupants of both properties. However, the angle of view from each of the properties (including Wester Denoon Cottages) that would include a view of the turbines is in the approximate range of 40º to 48º at distances ranging from approximately 869 metres (Wester Denoon) to 1096 metres (Easter Denoon). Given this relatively limited arc through which the turbines would be visible, and given the relative distance from each property to the turbines, I do not consider that the development would be so dominant as to result in a level of visual disturbance of such magnitude as to have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity.

6.29 The properties at Chamberwells, Upper Handwick and Nether Handwick (currently vacant) would have relatively open views of a number of turbines including towers and blades. The Environmental Statement suggests that the visual impact on these properties would result in a ‘moderate/major’ significance of effect. Whilst these 21 Report No 752/06

views are over a wider angle than that experienced by properties to the north, these properties generally have main windows and garden areas facing in a south-easterly or south-westerly direction and as such would not be looking directly onto the wind farm. The closest properties at Chamberwells and Upper Handwick would be partly screened from the wind farm by outbuildings and I note that no objections have been received from the occupants of these properties. Accordingly, given the orientation of these dwellings to the wind farm, I do not consider that the development would be so dominant as to result in a level of visual disturbance of such magnitude as to have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity.

6.30 The remaining properties at Nether Middleton (including Nether Middleton farm cottage), Berryhillock, Wedderleys (vacant), and Upper Middleton would have more restricted views of the turbines, generally with sections of blade of a few turbines visible. The Environmental Statement suggests that the visual impact on these properties would result in a ‘moderate/major’ significance of effect. Given the orientation of the wind farm to these dwellings, the distance of the nearest turbine to each building (all over 1km) and the relatively limited views of the wind farm over a comparatively small angle of view, I do not consider that the development would be so dominant as to result in a level of visual disturbance of such magnitude as to have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity.

6.31 The closest settlements are located to the east at Milton of Ogilvie and Charleston and are approximately 2.5km and 3.5km from the turbines respectively. From each settlement views of the turbines would be relatively restricted with small sections of tower and blades of a few turbines being visible. The Environmental Statement indicates that the visual impact from Milton of Ogilvie would be ‘moderate’ whilst from Charleston it would be ‘moderate/major’ to north of village. The Council’s Consultant has indicated that the impact at Milton of Ogilvie should be ‘moderate/major’ and has accepted the impact as indicated to the north of Charleston. Again, given the orientation of the wind farm to these settlements, the distance of the nearest turbine to each (all over 2.5km) and the relatively limited views of the wind farm over a comparatively small angle of view, I do not consider that the impact of the development on the residential amenity of these settlements would merit refusal of the application.

6.32 There are a number of settlements at greater distances such as Balkeerie, Glamis, , Kirkton of Auchterhouse, Newtyle and Tealing where the submitted Zone of Visual Influence maps suggest that views of the turbines would be relatively limited if not obscured by landform. There are a number of settlements within the wider Strathmore area such as Eassie Muir, Craigton of Airlie, Westmuir and Kirriemuir and Forfar which would have open views of the proposed wind farm and where there is potential for significant change in view. However, given the relative distance of the turbines from these settlements and the limited horizontal extent of the wind farm in the otherwise open views, I do not consider that the visual impact of the development on these settlements, or properties in the vicinity of these settlements would be so significant in terms of impact on residential amenity as to justify refusal of the application.

6.33 PAN 45 indicates that shadow flicker should not be a problem where sufficient separation distances are provided between turbines and nearby dwellings. It advocates a separation distance of 10 rotor diameters as a general rule. This general rule appears to have been accepted at previous Public Local Inquiries. The Environmental Statement indicates that due to low rotational speeds; sufficient turbine to residence separation; and limited duration of adverse solar alignment, it is 22 Report No 752/06

concluded that shadow casting would not cause a significant nuisance to nearby neighbours. In relation to reflected light the Environmental Statement concludes that due to the semi-matt surface finish of turbines; the generally convex surfaces of turbines; the differing orientation of rotor directions; and requirement for specific weather conditions and solar positions, that any nuisance from reflected light is of negligible significance. In this case the rotor blades have a diameter of 56 metres, thus requiring a separation distance of 560 metres between a turbine and the nearest dwelling. The closest dwelling to a turbine is Chamberwells which is located approximately 724 metres from the nearest turbine. On this basis I am satisfied that the amenity of nearby dwellings should not be adversely affected by virtue of shadow flicker and that reflected light should not be a significant issue.

6.34 The Independent Television Commission, which has responsibility for domestic television reception in the area, has indicated that the proposal could interfere with television reception. This is consistent with the findings of the Environmental Statement. The ITC has not objected to the application but has suggested that the Council should seek a legal agreement to ensure that the developer rectifies any problems that arise. Telecommunications operators have also been consulted and no objections have been received. On this basis I consider that, subject to a legal agreement to require any problems to be rectified, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity by virtue of electro-magnetic interference.

6.35 In summary, I note that the Council’s acoustic Consultant and the Director of Environmental Health are satisfied that the proposal is capable of complying with appropriate noise limits. Similarly, I note that shadow flicker and reflected light should not be an issue at the distances involved. A legal agreement is considered appropriate by broadcast organisations in order to rectify any interference with television that may occur as a consequence of the development. In relation to visual impact I consider that the properties to the north of the development will be most affected by the development and I note that the occupants of those properties have objected to the application. There is no doubt that the turbines will be readily visible and prominent when viewed from Easter and Wester Denoon and I recognise the concern that this causes. However, as discussed above, given the relatively limited arc through which the turbines would be visible, and given the relative distance from each property to the turbines, I do not consider that the development would be so dominant as to result in a level of visual disturbance of such magnitude as to have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity. On the basis of the environmental information available to me, including the Environmental Statement, consultation responses, third party representations and site visits, I am satisfied that the impact of the development on the amenity of nearby residential properties does not justify refusal of this application subject to appropriate conditions and a legal agreement. Notwithstanding my conclusions on this point I have discussed the concerns of the occupants at Easter and Wester Denoon with the applicant in order to investigate the possibility of some screening of the turbines through off-site planting. The applicant has agreed to do this, should this be requested by the occupants. As any such planting is not considered to be essential in relation to protecting the residential amenity of the properties it would not be appropriate to attach a condition requiring such provision.

23 Report No 752/06

Impact on Aircraft Activity

6.36 Policy INF13 of the Angus Local Plan indicates that wind farm development should not interfere with aircraft activity.

6.37 Both NPPG 6 and PAN 45 recognise that the potential impact of wind turbine development on aircraft activity is material to the consideration of planning applications.

6.38 In this case the National Air Traffic Services Ltd has indicated that the proposal does not conflict with its safeguarding criteria; Dundee City Council has confirmed that Dundee Airport has no concerns about air traffic safety; and Defence Estates has provided verbal confirmation that it has no objection and provided written confirmation to that effect in respect of the previous application. On this basis, I am satisfied that the application will not interfere with aircraft activity subject to a condition requiring details of the development to be sent to Defence Estates for mapping.

Landscape and Visual Impact

6.39 Environmental Resources Policy 2 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan confirms that the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment (TLCA) 1999 will constitute a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It indicates that developments must respect main features and characteristics of the natural heritage and should contribute towards a number of aims including landscape restoration or improvement and biodiversity conservation and enhancement.

6.40 Policy ENV8 of the Angus Local Plan indicates that development proposals should follow the guidance provided by the TLCA on how various types of development or land use changes might best be accommodated within the different landscape areas identified, and on their capacity to absorb these changes, to conserve characteristic landscape features and to strengthen and enhance landscape quality. Criteria against which development proposals in the countryside will be considered are provided. Policy ENV9 requires appropriate landscaping in order to assimilate new development into its local landscape context. Policy EMP15 deals with minerals development and seeks to ensure no adverse effect on areas of important landscapes.

6.41 NPPG 6 states, amongst other things that the characteristics associated with wind farms raise a number of issues that require to be considered, and where appropriate addressed. These relate to:

• Visual impact – the size and scale of the development and its relationship to the characteristics of the locality and landform in which it is to be built will be a relevant consideration.

• Landscape – the character of the landscape and its ability to accept this type of development, including the associated infrastructure, will be an important consideration.

6.42 PAN 45 states, amongst other things that there are no landscapes into which a wind farm will not introduce a new and distinctive feature. The PAN goes on to state that given the Scottish Ministers’ commitment to addressing the important issue of climate change and the contribution expected from renewable energy developments, 24 Report No 752/06

particularly wind farms, it is important for society at large to accept them as a feature of many areas of Scotland for the foreseeable future. It also states that the capacity of the landscape to accommodate wind farm development depends on two considerations: the degree of impact the development will have on the existing character of the landscape; and the extent to which this impact can be modified and reduced by design. It is further stated that the ability of the landscape to absorb development depends on careful siting, the skill of the designer, and the inherent characteristics of the landscape such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys and vegetation.

6.43 The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment (TLCA), published by SNH, identifies that the application site falls within a landscape type described as Igneous Hills. The TLCA indicates that within this landscape type the potential to steer wind farm developments away from exposed and steep ridgelines and summits and from locations where their visual influence would extend both north and south should be explored. It further indicates that consideration should be given to the use of shallow bowls and valleys away from ridges and to maximising the amount of backclothing provided by natural landform. It states that consideration should be given to steering development to areas already affected by masts, roads or forestry. Within the ‘Forces for Change Section’ of the TLCA the effects of wind farm development are discussed. In addition, Appendix C gives ‘indicative guidance’ specific to the Sidlaws and suggests that the application site lies within an area of lowest constraint for wind farm development. The TLCA was undertaken during 1997 and it is notable that it refers to turbines of 30 – 35 metres high and similar rotor diameters. This application is for turbines with a blade tip of 81 metres and therefore is significantly different in terms of scale from that considered in the TLCA. This, together with the indicative nature of the guidance within Appendix C of the TLCA suggest that its specific content in relation to wind farms should be treated with a level of caution.

6.44 The Environmental Statement includes a landscape and visual impact assessment designed to assess the effect that the proposed development will have upon the landscape and on the people who view it. The purpose of the landscape impact assessment is to assess how the proposal will effect landscape character in relation to a number of factors which include landform, degree of openness or enclosure and land cover. The visual impact assessment is closely related to this and determines visual effects in terms of changes in views and the overall visual influence of the development. A plan showing a zone of visual influence (ZVI) using computer software designed to illustrate the theoretical inter-visibility between the proposed development and its surroundings was generated. This was used to assist in the selection of representative viewpoints to be used in the assessment process. The rational for determining significant impacts in both the landscape and visual assessments within the Environmental Statement is detailed in Appendix B.

6.45 In terms of landscape, the Environmental Statement’s assessment of the site itself concludes that for the Ark Hill site both the construction impacts and the operational impacts will be of high magnitude leading to a moderate/ major adverse impact which is considered significant. However for the wider surrounding Sidlaw Hills character area it is concluded that the impacts will be moderate adverse and therefore, within the assessment criteria, not significant. Landscape impacts are assessed to be low to negligible following decommissioning. The Council’s landscape Consultant has indicated that these are reasonable conclusions. He has indicated that the assessment could have included finer grained assessment of local landscape character types. However, he also indicates that given the scale of the development 25 Report No 752/06

and its wide visibility, finer differentiation over a wide area would not greatly enhance the assessment and notes that SNH is content with the level of assessment undertaken.

6.46 The visibility of the site is illustrated using Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) drawings indicating the theoretical inter-visibility between the proposed development and its surroundings. This suggests that within approximately 3km of the site the turbines will generally be visible although there is variation in the number and whether all or part of the turbine is visible. Within 5km there is a substantial area to the south and west of the site where the turbines will not be visible, however, generally to the north and east some part of most turbines will be visible. There are areas within this radius to the west, east and northeast (including Glamis village, Kirkinch and Balkeerie) where the landform will hide all turbines. Between 5km and 25km the wind turbines are shown as being largely invisible from the south of the Sidlaws (including Auchterhouse village) but a significant number of turbines (or parts of turbines) are visible from Strathmore.

6.47 The ZVI’s were used to agree 22 viewpoints with SNH which were considered to provide a representative range of views in terms of type, character, receptor type and distance for more detailed analysis of visual impact. The impacts on each of the 22 viewpoints is considered in detail and illustrated in detail by panoramic photographs, wireline drawings and in some cases, photomontages. The assessed impacts during construction are predominantly ‘moderate’ or ‘low/ moderate’ adverse, with 5 of 22 being considered significant at ‘moderate/ major’ adverse. This becomes 4 out of 22 for the operational period with the removal of the construction equipment. The locations where significant visual impacts are predicted are identified in Table 1. The ES indicates that there are no significant impacts following removal of all infrastructure at decommissioning.

Table 1: Viewpoints with Significant Visual Impacts

Viewpoints During Construction During Operation Post Restoration 4 Balluderon Hill Moderate/Major Moderate/Major Negligible/Low 6 North Charleston Moderate/Major Moderate/Major Low 14 Milton of Ogilvie Moderate/Major Moderate Low 21 Craigton of Airlie Moderate/Major Moderate/Major Low 22 Kinpurney Hill Moderate/Major Moderate/Major Low

6.48 Nine residential properties within 1.8km of the site are assessed and it is indicated that all residential receptors have a ‘high’ level of sensitivity and that an overall ‘medium’ level of change would apply to close properties, resulting in a ‘moderate/major’ significance of effect. The impact of visual intrusion in relation to the visual amenity of these properties is discussed in detail above.

6.49 The Council’s landscape Consultant’s findings are outlined at paragraph 6.11 of this report. In addition to these findings it should be noted that he considers that the impact on Milton of Ogilvie would be ‘moderate/major’ during operation and therefore significant. Whilst the Council’s Consultant has identified weaknesses in the visual and landscape assessment, I note that he also considers it to be comprehensive and technically competent if not fully representative of the likely significance of impact. SNH has also indicated that it is satisfied that the assessment is acceptable. Accordingly, I consider that it is appropriate to focus on those locations where significant visual impacts are predicted in order to assess whether the visual impacts of the development are acceptable. 26 Report No 752/06

6.50 The viewpoint at Balluderon Hill is broadly representative of views from the high ground to the south, and I recognise that as this forms part of the Balkello Community Woodland that it is a sensitive location. However, wide views are available from that location and the development would occupy a relatively small angle of any view. All turbines and some of the ancillary development, including access roads would be visible at a distance of approximately 2.8km. The turbines would be seen against the backdrop of the wider landscape and whilst the visual impact would significant, I do not consider that it would be unacceptable.

6.51 The viewpoint north of Charleston provides a view from the vicinity of village and in this respect is a sensitive location. The hubs and rotors of two turbines and the blades of another would be visible from this location subject to localised screening. This view is from within a relatively contained landscape setting to the northeast of the site and views of this nature would not be widely seen. I have discussed the impact of the development from this general location in terms of residential amenity above and do not consider that the visual impact would be unacceptable.

6.52 The viewpoint at Milton of Ogilvie lies approximately 2.5km to the east of the site and represents a general view from the vicinity of the settlement and from the A928. The hub of one turbine and the rotors of another three would be visible above the ridge at this location. Again I consider that the visual impact would be significant. However, this view is generally limited to the area stretching along the A928 from south of Charleston to the north of Lumley Den; a distance of approximately 3km to 4km. Given this small distance and the relatively limited visibility of the turbines, I do not consider that the visual impact would be unacceptable.

6.53 The viewpoint at Craigton of Airlie lies approximately 8km to the northeast of the site and is representative of views from Strathmore. The turbines would be visible on the skyline over a comparatively small section of the wider Sidlaws range. There would reasonably well grouped. Ancillary development such as the access tracks would not be readily visible at these distances. The overall visual impact would be significant, however, given the limited horizontal extent of the development, I do not consider the visual impact to be unacceptable.

6.54 The viewpoint at Kinpurney Hill lies approximately 3km to the west of the site and is representative of views from elevated land to the west. The tower is a local landmark and the site of a scheduled ancient monument and as such is a sensitive location. However, wide views are available from that location and the development would occupy a relatively small angle of any view. All turbines and some of the ancillary development, including access roads and borrow pit would be visible. The turbines would appear well grouped from this view. The blades of six turbines and the towers and blades of the remaining two would be visible above the skyline. Whilst the visual impact would be significant, the scale of the landscape is large and I do not consider that the visual impact would be unacceptable.

6.55 As mentioned above, SNH is the Scottish Executive’s principal adviser on matters relating to the wider landscape, and its advice therefore carries considerable weight. In its policy statements SNH has outlined the need for change to be accepted in some of Scotland’s landscapes, if future energy generation on the scale required to tackle climate change is to be met. SNH has confirmed that there are no environmental designations affecting the site and I consider it very significant that it has not objected to this application. 27 Report No 752/06

6.56 In this case the application site is not located within a designated landscape area and, based on the findings of the Environmental Statement, the comments of SNH and the Council’s landscape Consultant and my own assessment of the proposal, I am satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the landscape character of the wider area. Similarly, whilst there would be significant visual impacts from a number of locations, and notwithstanding the objections submitted in respect of the visual impact of the development, on the basis of the findings of the Environmental Statement, the comments of SNH and the Council’s landscape Consultant and my own assessment of the proposal, I am satisfied that the visual impact of the development would not be unacceptable. Conditions are proposed to allow for detailed consideration of the micro-siting of turbines and micro- routing of access tracks in order to mitigate visual and landscape impacts and to address the issue of the ‘orphan’ turbine as viewed from Forfar Loch. A condition is also proposed requiring localised landscaping to minimise the impacts of ancillary development.

Impact on Built and Natural Heritage

6.57 Environmental Resources Policy 1 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan seeks to protect sites designated for their natural heritage interest and to ensure that proposals that may affect them are properly assessed. Environmental Resources Policy 2 indicates that the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment and Local Biodiversity Action Plans will constitute material considerations in determining development proposals. Environmental Resources Policy 5A provides for Local Plans to establish a policy framework to safeguard and enhance important features of the areas historic environment. It indicates that Local Plans should include policies to protect the site and setting of listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments, archaeological sites and sensitive areas and conservation areas and historic gardens and designed landscapes. Environmental Resources Policy 10 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan indicates that the potential for significant adverse impact on the natural and historic environment will be material to the consideration of development proposals.

6.58 The Angus Local Plan provides a suite of policies that seek to safeguard the built and natural heritage. These include policies ENV 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 31, 37, 50, 51 and 52. Policy INF13 requires proposals for wind power development to avoid interference with known flight paths of migrating birds; avoid unacceptable intrusion in the landscape; and to have no significant detrimental effect on any site of nature conservation or built heritage interest. Policy EMP15 deals with mineral extraction and seeks to ensure that there are no adverse impacts effects on areas important for wildlife, especially habitats or species safeguarded as SACs, SPAs, or RAMSAR sites including development outwith these areas. It seeks to ensure that the conservation objectives and overall integrity of NNRs, SSIs and NSAs are not compromised. It also seeks to safeguard sites and the setting of built heritage importance.

6.59 NPPG 6 indicates, amongst other things that the importance of complying with international and national conservation obligations must be recognised e.g. the potential impact on bird populations at proposed sites near roosting and feeding areas and on migration pathways requires careful assessment. PAN 45 indicates that experience indicates that many bird species and their habitats are unaffected by wind turbine developments and the impact of an appropriately designed and located wind farm on the local bird life should, in many cases, be minimal. To date, the most 28 Report No 752/06

common concern has been the risk of ‘bird strike’ i.e. birds flying through the area swept by the blades and being hit, causing injury or death. This will depend on a number of considerations such as, the particular species and numbers, the nature of the bird flight and any relevant seasonal patterns. The risk of disturbance to bird species during construction and operation of the wind farm is also an important consideration. For some species this is of greater potential significance than collision mortality. PANs 14 and 18, which deal with the natural and built heritage, are also of relevance but their general terms are reflected in development plan policy and are represented in NPPG 6 and PAN 45.

6.60 Historic Scotland has confirmed that the development will have an adverse impact on the setting of three scheduled ancient monuments at Kinpurney Hill and Carlunie Hill. There are also a number of scheduled ancient monuments to the north and west of the site and I consider that the development would also have an adverse impact on the setting of those monuments. The widening of the existing access road to the site at Ryehill would require the removal of a farm building that is of some archaeological interest and the borrow pit would affect the existing quarry workings which are recorded as being of some archaeological interest. A further 11 sites of archaeological interest are located within the application site boundary. Historic Scotland has indicated that it does not consider that the effects of the development on the settings of scheduled monuments in the vicinity of the site would be of such serious magnitude to warrant a formal objection. Aberdeenshire Council’s Archaeological Service (who provide advice to Angus Council) has not objected to the application on the basis of impact on unscheduled archaeological sites but has requested a number of conditions be attached to any permission. Planning officials have visited each of the sites in question and taken account of all relevant environmental information and I do not consider that the impact of the development on these interests would justify refusal of this application.

6.61 There are a number of listed buildings, conservation areas and historic gardens and designed landscapes that could potentially be affected by the proposed development. Most notably these include Glamis Castle and its grounds, Glamis Conservation Area and the closest which is a listed dovecot at Wester Denoon, although I have taken account of other designated sites in the wider area. Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage have considered the impact of the development on these interests, in so far as they relate to their respective remits, and neither has offered any objection to the application. Again planning officials have visited the sites in question and have taken account of all relevant environmental information and am content that the development would not have an adverse impact on the setting of any site of historic interest to a magnitude that would merit refusal of the application. I note reference by an objector to a painting that indicates a historic association between Ark Hill and visitors to Glamis Castle, however, I do not consider that this association is of a level that would justify refusal of the application.

6.62 In relation to the ecological impact of the development it is relevant to note that both the Scottish Executives Environment Group (SEEG) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) have reviewed the submitted Environmental Statement and neither has raised any objection to the application on the basis of ecological impact. SEEG has indicated that the work done in support of the ecological section of the Environmental Statement is completed to acceptable standards and is generally well presented and intelligible. It notes that the site is not designated in any way but that there is a SSSI to the south of the site at Auchterhouse Hill, which is designated for habitat reasons but indicates that the development will not directly affect the SSSI. An objector has 29 Report No 752/06

submitted a Habitat Survey prepared on his behalf and its contents are noted. My staff have walked the application site with staff from SNH and it is recognised that some of the habitats are of ecological interest and that care should be taken to minimise impact. However, on the basis of environmental information and consultation responses available to me, as well as the inspection of the site by my staff, I do not consider that there are any habitat reasons that would justify refusal of the application.

6.63 SEEG has indicated that the ornithological studies undertaken as part of the Environmental Statement have been carried out using standard methodologies and are thorough and adequate for the purpose. SNH indicate that the assessments identified the almost complete range of species to be expected in such habitat although SEEG noted that the site is, in general, not of special ornithological interest. SEEG advises that the desk based appraisal of goose flight lines suggests that the risk to birds crossing the site will be low. SEEG further indicates that it does not appear that any species will be substantially affected although both SEEG and SNH suggest conditions to minimise impact. This includes a condition requiring monitoring of bird communities on site for a period of five years following construction. It is relevant to note that both the RSPB and Scottish Wildlife Trust have been consulted but neither has offered any objection to the application. In respect of the previous application for 12 turbines at this general location, it should be noted that RSPB responded indicating formally that it had no objection to that application.

6.64 The Environmental Statement did not identify any mammals of significance on the site and this has not been questioned by SEEG or SNH. The objectors Habitat Survey identified brown hare. Concern has been raised by third parties regarding the potential impact of the development, particularly the demolition of Ryehill steading, on bats. It is relevant to note that the demolition of the steading does not, in its self, require planning permission. Third party objectors have also indicated that the findings of the bat survey as referenced in the Environmental Statement are not accurately reproduced and that the survey is dated. Notwithstanding this it is relevant to note that both SNH and the SEEG have reviewed both this Environmental Statement and the Environmental Statement submitted in support of the 2000 planning application. Neither has raised any objection to the application on the basis of adverse impact on bats. However, I have requested the applicant to update the bat survey and this has been submitted. This concludes that no evidence was found of summer or winter roosts, although it is likely that male P. pipistrellus still use the buildings in very small numbers and that the situation does not appear to have changed since the survey in 2000. The survey assesses that the impact of the works on bat populations locally will be low, subject to mitigation. The amended survey has been sent to SNH and it has confirmed that it does not consider that the demolition of Ryehill would have a significant impact on bats.

6.65 SEEG advises that, based on information available, that the ecological effects of the wind farm are not likely to be significant, and that it can see no reason why this proposal should be rejected on ecological grounds. As indicated above SNH has not objected to the application on ecological grounds. Accordingly, on the basis of available environmental information, consultation responses and site visits (including a walk-over with SNH) I am satisfied that the ecological impact of the development does not justify refusal of this application.

30 Report No 752/06

Impact on Access/ Road Safety/ Maintenance and Operational Impacts

6.66 Policy INF13 of the Angus Local Plan indicates that access, maintenance and operational impacts will be a consideration in the determination of planning applications.

6.67 Improvements to the U356 Milton of Ogilvie road will be undertaken in order to facilitate construction traffic. It is noted that construction is over a limited period of 6- months and that vehicle numbers will be reduced by virtue of the use of stone from the on-site borrow pit although imported stone would be needed for the upgrading of the 1km section between the U356 and the proposed borrow pit. It is indicated that average vehicle numbers associated with the construction phase (excluding cars and light vans) would be 14 per day – each of which is a return trip. The applicant has indicated that if permission is not granted for the borrow pit an estimated 5980m³ of road stone would need to be imported and this would increase the average vehicle numbers to 20 per day (again each of which is a return trip). The Director of Roads, Tayside Police and JMP Consulting (on behalf of the Scottish Executive Trunk Roads Division) have indicated no objection to the application on the basis of road traffic safety.

6.68 Third party objectors have raised concern regarding the potential for driver distraction during the operation of the wind farm. However, no consultee has raised concern regarding this matter and it is not uncommon for wind turbines to be visible from public roads and I am not aware of any significant issues arising from this. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposal will not give rise to any significant issues in terms of road traffic safety.

6.69 There are no vindicated rights of way or other recognised pedestrian or vehicular routes running through the application site and on this basis I do not consider that the development will have any significant impact on access. I understand that there is no intention to restrict access to the site, other than during the construction phase, and public access to wind farms now appears common.

6.70 It is indicated that the wind farm would be monitored remotely and is designed to operate unattended. It is further indicated that routine maintenance would be carried out approximately twice a year and would not involve any large machinery or vehicles.

6.71 The danger of ice-throw from turbines and the potential for catastrophic blade failure are matters that can raise concern in relation to the operation of a wind farm. However, given the location of the wind farm, the separation distances from habitable buildings, public roads and footpaths together with the fact that turbines can be fitted with sensors to detect any unusual vibrations and allow them to shut down if problems arise, I do not consider that the operation of the wind farm would pose a significant risk to public safety. The potential operational impact of the development in relation to residential amenity is considered above.

6.72 On the basis of available information I do not consider that the development would have a significant impact on access and I am satisfied that the operational and maintenance impacts of the development would not justify refusal of the application.

31 Report No 752/06

Socio-economic Impact

6.73 Employment Policy 7 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan indicates that Proposals for economic or employment related development in the rural areas will be supported where they do not adversely affect local environmental quality and identifies matters that will be taken into account in considering such proposals.

6.74 Policy ENV 11 of the Angus Local Plan identifies criteria against which proposals affecting agricultural land and farm units will be considered. These seek to resist irreversible use of prime quality agricultural land; protect the viability of farm units; support farm diversification; seek to minimise the environmental impact of agricultural buildings; support reuse of vernacular buildings. Policy EMP15 deals with mineral extraction and seeks to ensure that there is not a significant adverse effect on recreational facilities, opportunities for countryside access, tourism or leisure and to ensure that prime quality agricultural land is not used in an irreversible way. Policy RT5 seeks to protect open space of recreational, sporting and amenity value. Policies of both the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan and Angus Local Plan provide support for appropriate tourism development.

6.75 NPPG 6 indicates, amongst other things that tourism and recreation, support local economies and to varying degrees such activities depend on the quality of the environment, in particular the landscape. This does not mean that renewable energy developments are incompatible with tourism and recreation interests. Sensitive siting can successfully minimise adverse impacts, particularly visual impacts, but it is unrealistic to expect such developments to have no effect at all. Opinions are divided as to whether some renewable energy developments, such as wind farms or hydro schemes, may themselves be of interest to tourists and the extent to which their existence can be compatible with recreational pursuits such as hill walking. PAN 45 recognises that tourism is a well established and valuable contributor to the rural economy and to the prosperity of many towns and villages in rural Scotland. It is mainly associated with Scotland’s natural and scenic and cultural heritage. It is therefore important that the role of tourism in the rural economy and the assets on which it is based should be reconciled with the need to promote renewable energy generation.

6.76 Objectors have suggested that the development would compromise the viability of farm units and would affect grants that might be available to local farmers. However, no detailed information on this matter has been submitted. The actual land-take required to facilitate the development is comparatively small and I am not aware of similar developments compromising the viability of farm units. The proposed legal agreement would require an existing farm cottage to remain vacant during operation of the wind farm, however, I understand that this property has been vacant for a number of years and is presently in a derelict condition. There are other residential properties in the area that could be utilised should additional accommodation be required on the farm unit.

6.77 I note the concerns raised regarding the potential impact of the development on the tourist industry and similarly the comments submitted by the then Dundee and Angus Tourist Board. Whilst there have been a number of surveys undertaken to assess the impact of wind farm development on the tourist industry there does not appear to be definitive information on the impact of existing developments and this is acknowledged in the Dundee and Angus Tourist Board response. The guidance provided by Visit Scotland as indicated in the Dundee and Angus Tourist Board response indicates that it believes NPPG 6 provides a sound basis on which to 32 Report No 752/06

assess proposals for wind farm developments. There should be a presumption against development within or close to the periphery of areas carrying landscape or environmental designations. It is indicated that this should also apply to areas within sightlines of recognised tourist viewpoints and long distance footpaths and should avoid saturation development in the countryside.

6.78 In this case the proposal is not located within a designated area; does not impinge on a long distance footpath; and would not contribute to saturation development in the countryside. The Sidlaws are used for recreational walking and the turbines will be visible within the range. However, I do not consider that the development would significantly reduce the recreational, sporting or amenity value of the wider area. The Environmental Statement identifies that views of some turbines would be achievable from within the grounds of Glamis Castle. However, as discussed above SNH and Historic Scotland are satisfied that the development will not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the Castle or the Historic Garden and Designed Landscape within which it is set. Views of the wind farm from the Castle and its grounds will be relatively limited due to landscaping within the grounds and topography and will be at a distance of approximately 4km. The wind farm will be visible from the Strathmore valley, however there are several wind farms throughout Scotland that are more highly visible from prominent tourist routes such as the A96 both at Dun Law and Glens of Foundland and I am not aware of any evidence that these have affected the tourist industry in those areas. I note that there does not appear to have been a substantial body of objection from tourist related businesses in the area and that the largest tourist attraction in the area, namely Glamis Castle, is owned and operated by Strathmore Estates who own the land subject of this planning application. Accordingly, I do not consider that the potential impact of the development on the tourist industry would justify refusal of this application.

Cumulative Impact

6.79 Environmental Resources Policy 10 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan indicates that in considering proposals for renewable energy development account will be taken of potential cumulative impacts.

6.80 Both NPPG 6 and PAN 45 indicate that potential cumulative impact can be material to the consideration of planning applications for renewable energy development.

6.81 In this case the Council’s landscape Consultant has indicated that the submitted Environmental Statement does not address the issue of cumulative impact either in respect of the existing masts on the Sidlaws or in relation to other potential wind farm developments. However, the current application was submitted in July 2003 and at that time there were no other planning applications for wind farm development within 30km of the application site.

6.82 Since submission of this application, further applications have been submitted for wind farm development at the following locations: -

• Drumderg, Bridge of Cally by Blairgowrie (approximately 21km northwest of Ark Hill) – 16 turbines of 107 metres height to blade tip. That application has been refused by Perth and Kinross Council and is currently subject of appeal to the Scottish Ministers.

33 Report No 752/06

• Montreathmont Moor, (approximately 25km to the east of Ark Hill) – 19 turbines of 120 metres height to blade tip. That application is currently under consideration but is subject of objection from SNH and RSPB.

• Michelin, Dundee (approximately 13km to the south of Ark Hill) – 2 turbines of 120.5 metres height to blade tip. That application has been approved and the turbines are under construction.

• Dusty Drum, (approximately 20km to the southeast of Ark Hill) – 3 turbines of 110 metres height to blade tip. That application is currently under consideration with additional information requested by SNH.

6.83 The ES in respect of the Drumderg Wind Farm identified that both wind farms would be apparent on either side of the A94 Perth to Forfar Road. From examination of the ZVI’s submitted in respect of each application it is likely that the developments would also be inter-visible from a number of locations albeit generally over a considerable distance where the respective turbines would appear as minor elements in the landscape. Perth and Kinross Council concluded that the cumulative effect of the developments would not be unacceptable and I consider this a reasonable conclusion.

6.84 The ES submitted in respect of Montreathmont Moor Wind Farm indicates that the wind farms would be potentially visible in opposing directions in the vicinity of Forfar. It further indicates that potential inter-visibility would also occur in views from the highland summits and foothills to the north and south with both wind farms appearing in the lowlands to the east and south. The two wind farms would also be inter-visible from high ground within the Sidlaws. That ES concludes that the cumulative visibility in respect of the two wind farms would be negligible and the level of cumulative visual effects would be likely to range from slight/moderate to slight and therefore not significant. Again I consider this to be a reasonable conclusion.

6.85 Michelin is a comparatively small scale development comprising only 2 turbines albeit of considerable height. The wind turbines at Michelin would generally not be inter- visible with those proposed at Ark Hill apart from over long distances. Accordingly, given the relatively limited inter-visibility, the relatively small scale nature of both proposals and the distances over which this would occur, I do not consider that the cumulative impact of these developments would justify refusal of this application.

6.86 Dusty Drum is a comparatively small scale development comprising only 3 turbines albeit of considerable height. The wind turbines at Dusty Drum would generally not be inter-visible with those proposed at Ark Hill apart from over long distances. Accordingly, given the relatively limited inter-visibility, the relatively small scale nature of both proposals and the distances over which this would occur, I do not consider that the cumulative impact of these developments would justify refusal of this application.

6.87 There are a number of proposals for single or smaller scale wind turbines in the general area, including a proposal for a single 90 metre high turbine at Scotston Hill, Auchterhouse. I have taken account of these proposals but given their limited scale either in terms of number or height, I do not consider that the cumulative impact would be of such significance as to merit refusal of this application. 34 Report No 752/06

6.88 In addition to the above it is relevant to note that there are exiting masts on the Sidlaws, particularly on Craigowl and to the south of Gallow Hill, and there are other vertical features present in the landscape such as pylons. The masts are visible from both the north and south of the Sidlaws and similarly there are pylons to both the north and south of the range which introduce vertical elements into the landscape. These structures and the proposed wind turbines will be inter-visible from certain locations and will give rise to cumulative visual impacts. However, the existing developments are limited in their horizontal extent and, when viewed from the north where there is greatest potential for cumulative impacts, will be reasonably close to the proposed wind farm thus limiting the increase in horizontal extent. The combined effect of the existing mast and the turbines would represent a comparatively small horizontal element in a wider landscape and as such I do not consider the cumulative visual impact to be unacceptable.

6.89 For the avoidance of doubt I confirm that I have considered the potential cumulative impacts of all of the aforementioned proposals/developments with the application proposal and do not consider (notwithstanding the acceptability or otherwise of the individual proposals) the overall cumulative impact to be significant given their relative lack of inter-visibility and the comparatively long distance views over which they would be inter-visible. It is relevant to note that SNH has not objected to this proposal on the basis of cumulative impacts associated with the combined effects of the above applications.

Impact on Water Quality

6.90 Policy INF6 of the Angus Local Plan indicates that development proposals which would directly and adversely affect a water catchment area to the detriment of the potable quality of the water will not be permitted. Policy INF3 deals with private drainage systems and identifies criteria against which proposals for development involving such systems will be assessed.

6.91 In this case the Environmental Statement has identified that a number of properties in the area rely on private water supplies. The development also has potential to impact upon groundwater. It identifies mitigation measures to limit the potential for adverse impact on groundwater, and water supply and quality as a consequence of the development. This includes the use of a special sulphate resistant to minimise the risk of leaching.

6.92 SEPA has indicated that it does not object to the application and that it does not consider there to be a significant risk to groundwaters currently abstracted for potable and agricultural use given the design of the scheme. Similarly, the Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection has indicated that he does not consider there to be a significant risk to private water supplies on the basis of information available to him. On this basis I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on private water supplies or water quality in the area, however conditions regarding this matter are proposed.

Grid Connection

6.93 The planning application and its Environmental Statement initially included limited information or assessment on the proposed connection of the development to the national grid. The applicant has indicated that the grid connection will be subject of a separate consent process. Notwithstanding this, and in order to fully understand the impact of the entire development, I requested further assessment of the likely 35 Report No 752/06

environmental impact of such a grid connection in the processing of the application. The applicant has now submitted a Supplement to the Environmental Statement and the likely grid connection is considered therein.

6.94 It is indicated that the grid connection would be made at Leoch to the south of Kirkton of Auchterhouse. Two possible grid connection routes are considered in the document and the routes are considered in the context of landscape and visual impact, noise, ecology and hydrology, archaeology and historic heritage, transportation and access, electromagnetic interference, and socio-economic considerations.

6.95 The Supplement to the ES has been advertised and consultations undertaken. Auchterhouse Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest is close to both routes and care would require to be taken in its vicinity in order to avoid adverse impacts on the designated area. SNH has indicated that it would be preferable for the connection to be underground in order to avoid adverse visual impact. However, no consultee has raised any significant concerns regarding the potential impact of either grid connection route. As indicated above the grid connection itself would be subject of a separate consent process.

Other Matters

6.96 Environmental Resources Policy 9 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan indicates that proposals for the extraction of hardrock and sand and gravel deposits will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that development is required to maintain a 10 year landbank for aggregates in the Structure Plan area or the market requirements cannot be met from existing mineral workings or the use of recycled or secondary material.

6.97 Policy EMP12 of the Angus Local Plan indicates that the Council will seek to establish a ten year land bank of minerals permissions to maintain the supply of aggregates and hard rock. Policy EMP15 indicates that all proposals for mineral extraction, which meet policy EMP12 will be required to satisfy a number of environmental criteria.

6.98 In this case the application includes a proposal for a borrow pit with a surface area measuring 65 metres x 65 metres and a depth of 5 metres. The proposed borrow pit will partly utilise former mineral workings and is proposed solely to meet the specific needs of this development rather than to contribute to a wider mineral land bank. Sourcing material on site will reduce the requirement to import materials thus reducing traffic movements and will provide a material that relates well to the surrounding area in terms of colour thus assisting in reducing the prominence of the access tracks. The borrow pit will be restored using material from the site.

Finalised Angus Local Plan Review

6.99 Angus Council has published the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review and although not yet part of the legal Development Plan, the Finalised Plan has reached the stage where it is a material consideration to be taken into account in the determination of planning applications.

6.100 The Finalised Angus Local Plan Review contains general polices that are of relevance to the determination of this application. However, they are not considered 36 Report No 752/06

to be materially different from those contained in the adopted Angus Local Plan such that they would alter the recommendation of this report.

6.101 Policies ER33 (Renewable Energy Developments) and ER34 (Wind Energy Development) deal specifically with proposals for renewable energy and wind power developments and seek to conform with the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan and government policy guidance and to update the existing policy framework contained in the adopted Angus Local Plan. Both policies were subject to objections from third parties. These objections were considered and pre-inquiry modifications were approved by Angus Council. These modifications were published in December 2005 and objections which were maintained have subsequently been considered at the Public Local Inquiry.

6.102 The Public Local Inquiry into unresolved objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review has recently finished and the Reporters findings are awaited. Where objections have been submitted in respect of policies in the Finalised Plan I consider that the weight that can be attached to them is reduced. However, I do not consider that the policies currently being considered by the Inquiry Reporter would materially alter the outcome of this application as the basic tenor of the policies are not materially different. It is noted that Policy ER34 requires evidence of local search to ensure the proposed site minimises potential environmental impact and that there is no suitable less sensitive site. The submitted Environmental Statement discusses alternative sites and layouts for this site and I am satisfied with the assessment on the basis of the environmental impact of the development as discussed above. In any case, I consider that the policies of the adopted Angus Local Plan carry greater weight at this time as they form part of the statutory development plan.

Summary

6.103 Wind turbines are by their very nature substantial structures that have unavoidable impacts on the environment. The key considerations in determining the application are not whether there will be impacts but rather the significance of these impacts; compatibility with development plan policy; and relevant material considerations.

6.104 Government policy seeks to encourage renewable energy developments and recognises the contribution that can be made by wind power. The effectiveness or efficiency of wind turbines or the appropriateness of Government targets/ policy is not a matter for this Committee to consider in the determination of this application.

6.105 The Environmental Statement, the Council’s acoustic Consultant, and the Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection are satisfied that the development (both during construction and operation) is capable of complying with relevant guidance and in this respect should not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours by virtue of noise. Conditions are proposed to mitigate potential noise nuisance and these include noise limits and a requirement for the operator to monitor noise emissions as required by the planning authority.

6.106 There can be no doubt that the proposed development would result in considerable change to outlook for a number of properties. However, this is true of many developments, for example new development on the urban fringe which can be adjacent to existing properties and that can significantly and permanently change their outlook. In this case, given the limited extent of any view from a residential property that would be occupied by turbines and the respective viewing distances, I do not consider that this development would significantly affect residential amenity to 37 Report No 752/06

a level that would justify refusal of the application. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, and as indicated at paragraph 6.13 above, I have only used the visualisations provided in the Environmental Statement as a guide in assessing visual impact. Members should note that the visualisations are likely to under-emphasise the impact of the turbines on the viewer.

6.107 In relation to television interference relevant consultees have indicated that any interference should be capable of resolution and a legal agreement requiring the developer to remedy any problems is proposed. Telecommunication operators have raised no concerns regarding the proposal.

6.108 National Air Traffic Services, Dundee Airport and Defence Estates have been consulted but have raised no concerns regarding the potential impact of the development on aircraft activity. A condition is proposed requiring details of the finalised development to be submitted to Defence Estates for mapping purposes.

6.109 The proposed wind farm would result in significant change to the landscape of the application site itself but not on the wider landscape character of surrounding area. The development would be visible within the wider landscape and significant visual impacts are likely from sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site and for distances up to approximately 10km. However, SNH, the Governments principle advisor on landscape matters does not consider the visual impact of the development on the wider landscape to be unacceptable. SNH has confirmed that there are no environmental designations affecting the site and I consider it very significant that it has not objected to this application. Conditions are proposed requiring precise details of the siting and finish of the turbines, access tracks and other ancillary development in order to minimise visual impact.

6.110 Detailed ecological studies have been undertaken and have been reviewed by SNH and the Scottish Executives Environment Group. These do not identify the site as being of any particular ecological significance although it is noted that limited numbers of bats might use the steading at Ryehill as a summer roost. Both SNH and SEEG have indicated that they are satisfied with the studies undertaken and have raised no objection to the application on the basis of impact on the natural environment. Conditions are proposed to mitigate impact on the ecology of the site.

6.111 There are archaeological sites and scheduled ancient monuments within the proximity of the site and a larger number of designated sites including listed buildings, conservation areas and historic gardens and designed landscapes within the wider area. SNH, Historic Scotland and the Council’s archaeological advisor have considered the potential impact of the development on these sites in so far as they relate to their respective remits and have concluded that the impact on them would not justify refusal of this application. This concurs with my own assessment that there are no reasons relating to impact on the built heritage that would merit refusal of the application. Conditions are proposed to mitigate impact on sites of local archaeological interest.

6.112 The Director of Roads, JMP Consulting and Tayside Police have raised no objection to the application in relation to road traffic safety. The applicant will be required to undertake improvements to the minor public road leading to the site prior to the commencement of development. Tayside Police and the Health and Safety Executive have raised no objection to the application on the basis of its safety during operation. 38 Report No 752/06

6.113 Concern has been raised regarding the potential impact of the development on the agricultural units in the area. However, the construction of the wind farm is indicated to take 6-months and the land take required during operation is relatively limited. The application site is presently used for rough grazing and would continue to be used for that purpose following construction. I am not aware of other wind farms affecting the viability of agricultural units elsewhere.

6.114 Similarly concern has also been raised regarding the potential impact of the development on the tourist industry in the area. The then Dundee and Angus Tourist Board expressed some concern regarding the application however, there has not been any substantial level of objection from tourist related businesses in the area. Strathmore Estates has indicated support for the proposal and I consider that they would be unlikely to support a proposal that would compromise the attractiveness of Glamis Castle. Clearly any impact on the tourist industry would be a matter of concern however, the development appears to comply with the locational guidance provided by Visit Scotland.

6.115 There are currently a number of planning applications, an undetermined planning appeal and two sizeable turbines under construction within a 30km radius of the application site and there is potential for cumulative impacts, particularly visual impacts. However, I have considered the application in the context of these other proposals/developments, including existing masts on the Sidlaws and do not consider that cumulative visual impact would justify refusal of this application. SNH has raised no objection to the application on the basis of cumulative impacts.

6.116 SEPA has indicated that, subject to conditions, the proposal should not have an adverse impact on groundwaters. The Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection has indicated that the development is unlikely to impact upon private water supplies but has suggested a condition requiring the developer to provide an alternative water supply in the event of any pollution or interruption of supply.

6.117 I have taken account of all relevant representations made both in support and in opposition to these proposals. I also note the level of opposition to the development and appreciate that wind farms are particularly contentious. However, Government and development plan policies are supportive of proposals for renewable energy development, including wind farms where there are no unacceptable environmental impacts. The submitted Environmental Statement (including its supplement) and responses from statutory consultees suggest that the environmental and amenity impacts of the proposals are not unacceptable. Having taken account of all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the proposals are compatible with development plan policy and that there are no material considerations that justify refusal of this application. Accordingly, I recommend approval of the applications for the following reasons and subject to the Section 75 Agreement and conditions listed below.

6.118 As the application relates to Environmental Impact Assessment development it will be necessary for Committee to provide an indication of the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based.

Reasons for Approval

• Account has been taken of all environmental information, including the Environmental Statement and its Supplement, consultation responses and comments from third parties and the environmental impact is considered 39 Report No 752/06

acceptable subject to mitigation provided by the proposed planning conditions and legal agreement;

• The proposal is capable of complying with relevant noise limits and therefore will not have an unacceptable environmental impact subject to planning conditions;

• The proposal will not have an unacceptable environmental impact by virtue of visual disturbance;

• Any television interference as a consequence of the development will be rectified by the applicant through a legal agreement ;

• Consultees have offered no objections in relation to impact on air traffic;

• The landscape and visual impact of the development (including cumulative impact) is considered acceptable subject to micro-siting of turbines and access tracks and no objection has been received from SNH;

• The ecological impact of the development is considered acceptable subject to planning conditions and no objection has been submitted from SNH or the Scottish Executive Environment Group;

• The impact of the development on the built heritage is considered acceptable subject to conditions and no objections have been received from SNH, Historic Scotland or the Council’s archaeological advisor;

• The access, maintenance and operational impacts of the development are considered acceptable;

• The impact of the development on other land uses is considered acceptable;

• The impact of the development on groundwater and private water supplies is not considered significant subject to planning conditions and SEPA and the Director of Environmental and Consumer Protection have confirmed no objections to the application;

• The proposal is compatible with Development Plan policy;

• The proposal will contribute towards the provision of renewable energy;

• The proposal will ensure delivery of acceptable restoration.

7 HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The recommendation in this report for grant of planning permission, subject to conditions, has potential implications for neighbours in terms of alleged interference with privacy, home or family life (Article 8) and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (First Protocol, Article 1). For the reasons referred to elsewhere in this report justifying this recommendation in planning terms, it is considered that any actual or apprehended infringement of such Convention Rights, is justified. The conditions constitute a justified and proportional control of the use of the property in accordance with the general interest and have regard to the necessary balance of the applicant’s freedom to enjoy his property against the public interest and the 40 Report No 752/06

freedom of others to enjoy neighbouring property/home life/privacy without undue interference.

8 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 It is recommended that the applications be approved subject to a Section 75 Agreement and the planning conditions detailed below.

Application No. 03/00831/FUL

Subject to a Section 75 Agreement

Subject to conclusion and recording of a valid Section 75 Agreement amongst all relevant parties containing the following general terms along with such other or additional terms as may be considered necessary or expedient by the Director of Law and Administration in consultation with the Director of Planning and Transport.

1. Provision of a bond for the restoration of the site.

2. Agreement that the developer will investigate and rectify interference in reception as a consequence of the wind farm.

3. Prevent occupation of Ivy Cottage, Wester Denoon during the operation of the wind farm.

Conditions:

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 58(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That this permission shall expire 26 years from the date that electricity is first sold to the grid network, such date to be notified in writing to the planning authority within one month of this time. At the end of this period, unless otherwise approved in advance by the planning authority, all wind turbines, all foundations and equipment reaching within 1 metre of the surface, and all buildings, tracks and other equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site with the ground fully reinstated in accordance with all relevant conditions below.

Reason: In recognition of the expected life-span of the development and in the interests of safety and amenity once all these works and plant are redundant.

3. That except as otherwise provided for and amended by the terms of this permission, the development shall constructed and operated in accordance with the provisions of the planning application, Ark Hill Wind Farm Environmental Impact Statement 2003 and Supplement to Environmental Statement October 2005 unless otherwise specified in this permission.

Reason: For clarification and the avoidance of any possible misunderstanding.

41 Report No 752/06

4. That the number of wind turbines shall not exceed 8 and each turbine shall be limited to maximum height to blade tip of 81 metres and shall be of 3-bladed design.

Reason: In order to clarify the terms of this planning permission.

5. That no development shall take place until scale drawings, giving the exact micro- routing of the tracks and the exact micro-siting of turbines have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These drawings shall be accompanied by visualisations from Wester Denoon, Balluderon Hill and Kinpurney Hill. The turbines and tracks shall be formed in accordance with the details approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in a manner that protects the general public, wider public amenity, and the environment.

6. That within two years from the date that electricity is first sold to the grid network, a detailed scheme for the ultimate reinstatement of the site shall be submitted for the further consideration and approval of the planning authority. This shall include a full method statement covering the physical aspects of decommissioning and reinstatement (e.g. re-seeding) as well as their timing. For the avoidance of doubt turbine bases shall be fully buried to allow existing land management to continue all over the site after decommissioning. Within the period 12 to 18 months before the of the expiry of the planning permission, the restoration scheme shall be reviewed by the wind farm operator and the Planning Authority and any alterations deemed appropriate by the Planning Authority shall be made. The approved scheme shall thereafter be fully implemented prior to the expiry of the planning permission.

Reason: In order to ensure the suitable restoration of the site.

7. That within three months of the complete wind farm becoming operational, all soil and materials stockpiles shall be removed and all borrow pit and construction areas shall be reinstated and access tracks narrowed using original plant and organic material carefully lifted and set aside for its reuse at reinstatement stage in accordance with a method statement submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Alternatively an equivalent seed mix shall be used subject to the prior written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.

8. That should any turbine cease supplying electricity to a local grid for a continuous period of 6 months, it will be deemed to be no longer required. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning authority, any such turbine and its ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site within the following 6 months, with the ground fully reinstated in accordance with the decommissioning and reinstatement scheme required by condition 6.

Reason: In order to ensure that the turbines operate as intended, and that any which become non-operational for an extended period are removed from the site.

42 Report No 752/06

9. That no work shall commence on site until approval has been obtained in writing from the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH and SEPA as necessary, for a construction method statement or statements including details of all on site construction, materials, drainage, mitigation, restoration/reinstatement work and timetables. Specifically the method statement or statements shall address the following: -

• Public road works (widening/junction improvements/entrance works); • Site tracks, including track edge reinstatement; • Watercourse crossings; • Marshy grassland and flushes crossings; • Borrow pit; • Construction compound; • Crane pads; • Cable trenches; • Foundation works, including working widths; • Substation and control building; • Anemometry masts; • Oil storage compounds and buildings; • Stripping/storage and reinstatement of soils and vegetation; • Cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway; • Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas, including approval of seed mixtures.

The methods and other details set out in the approved statement or statements as approved by the Planning Authority shall be implemented.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in a manner that protects the general public, wider community, and the environment.

10. That at Chamberwells, Nether Handwick and Western Denoon the wind turbine noise level, measured and rated in accordance with clauses a, b, & c below shall not exceed the noise limits delineated by the appropriate criterion curve for each property in the RES Supplement to Environmental Statement October 2005. At Upper Handwick and Ryehill the criterion curves for Chamberwells shall be used. At Easter Denoon the criterion curves for Wester Denoon shall be used. Noise levels at any other property, existing at the date of this permission shall not exceed an LA90 of 35 dB(A) for wind speeds up to 10 m/s at 10 metres height.

For the avoidance of doubt any measurement of noise at the site for the purposes of demonstrating compliance, or otherwise with the terms of this planning permission shall be undertaken in accordance with a method statement approved by the Planning Authority, addressing amongst other things the following: -

a) That all noise measurements shall be made using a sound level meter of at least type 1 quality as defined in International Electro-technical Commission Standard 651 (1979) Incorporating a windshield with a 0.5 inch or 13 mm diameter microphone in free field conditions between 1.2 – 1.5 metres above ground level and at least 10 metres from any wall, hedge or reflective surface, using a fast time weighted response.

43 Report No 752/06

b) A minimum of 20 monitoring periods each of 10 minutes duration shall be made using the LA90 Index. Each noise measurement shall be correlated with wind speed at a height of 10 metres above ground level. Using a minimum of 10 data sets within +2 m/s wind speed and 10 data sets within –2 m/s wind speed a best fit curve shall be derived for any given wind speed.

c) Where noise containing a discrete frequency component is present a correction shall be made to the measured noise level as necessary according to the recommended method described in the Assessment and Rating of noise from wind farms, ETSU-R-97 Supplementary Guidance, Section 2.1.

Reason: In the interests of noise control and residential amenity.

11. That should noise levels in condition 10 be exceeded, the operator of the development shall take immediate steps to ensure that noise emissions from the development, or from any part of it, are reduced to the levels established by condition 10.

Reason: In the interests of noise control and residential amenity.

12. That at the reasonable written request of the planning authority the wind farm operator shall, within 1 month of receipt of such a request, take all necessary measurements, at its own expense, to demonstrate compliance or otherwise with condition 10. Where any dispute arises regarding the “reasonableness” of any such request the Institute of Acoustics shall be requested to appoint an arbitrator whose decision shall be accepted by both parties as being final.

Reason: In the interests of noise control and residential amenity.

13. That before any turbine or turbine component is delivered to the site, full details of each turbine type shall be submitted for the prior approval of the planning authority. These details shall include the make, model, design, power rating and sound power levels. The development shall be designed to allow the individual control and cut out of each turbine at specified wind speeds and directions in order to facilitate compliance with noise level criteria.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and noise control.

14. The turbines shall be a two speed design unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of noise control.

15. The wind farm operator shall maintain a continuous log of wind speed, wind direction and turbine status. All data shall be retained for 12 months after it is recorded. This shall include average wind speed in m/s for each 10 minute period. All this data shall be released to the Planning Authority on request, being held and provided in electronic spreadsheet format. In the case of any wind data gathered at heights other than 10 metres above ground level it shall be supplemented by adjusted values that allow for wind shear normalised to a height of 10 metres and details of the wind shear calculation shall be provided.

Reason: In the interests of noise control and residential amenity. 44 Report No 752/06

16. That within 3 months from the date that electricity is first sold to the grid network the wind farm operator shall undertake an assessment in accordance with condition 10 above to verify noise emissions from the operational development.

Reason: In the interest of noise control and residential amenity and to demonstrate noise emissions from the development.

17. That all construction activities, including access to the site by lorries, except for the delivery of turbine parts and the erection of the turbines themselves, shall be restricted to the hours of 7am to 7pm, seven days per week unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residential premises.

18. That the wind turbines shall all rotate in the same direction – that is, clockwise or anti-clockwise.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

19. That the wind turbines shall be finished in a non-reflective semi-matt pale grey colour, and that the colour shall not be altered thereafter unless previously approved in writing by the planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

20. That prior to the commencement of development the precise location, size and colour of the turbine transformers, substation and control building shall be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

21. That prior to the erection of any fencing the precise details of the fencing shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The fencing shall be erected in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

22. That the site and turbines shall not be illuminated by lighting without the prior written approval of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

23. That no symbols, signs, logos or other lettering by way of advertisement shall be displayed on any part of the wind turbines nor any other building or structures without the prior written approval of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

24. That all cables between the wind turbines and the site electricity sub-station shall be laid underground and the ground thereafter reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

45 Report No 752/06

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.

25. That prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall provide the Ministry of Defence (Defence Estates – Safeguarding) with the following information, a copy of which shall also be submitted to the Planning Authority: -

• Proposed date of commencement of construction • Estimated date of completion of construction • Height above ground level of the tallest structure • Maximum extension height of any construction equipment • Position of the turbines in latitude and longitude plus eastings and northings • Confirmation that the site will not be lit during operation

Reason: In order to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is informed of activities that may potentially affect its interests, to safeguard public security.

26. That prior to the demolition of Ryehill steading or the infilling of the millpond at Chamberwells a full photographic record of the farmstead and structural survey of the building to be demolished at Ryehill, and a photographic record of the pond and related features, along with detailed drawings of any sluice gates shall be submitted to the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the sites buildings and structures of cultural heritage interest are recorded prior to demolition or infill.

27. That prior to the commencement of development a photographic record of the borrow pit area shall be made and submitted to the Planning Authority and soil stripping of the area shall be subject of an archaeological watching brief agreed with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that areas of potential cultural heritage interest are recorded and safeguard.

28. That the precise route of the access track between turbines 6 and 8 shall be designed to avoid the footings of the small farmstead NO34SE0043 and shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the sites potential cultural heritage interests.

29. That prior to the commencement of development details of the timing and phasing of all construction activities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details of timing and phasing.

Reason: In order to safeguard the sites ornithological interests.

30. That should any construction works (other than the improvements to the public road and the Chamberwells access road up to Chamberwells) span the period March to August, an ornithologically qualified ecologist shall carry out a watching brief ahead of any construction works in accordance with a programme of works approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Should nesting activity be identified appropriate mitigation measures shall be submitted for the written approval of the 46 Report No 752/06

Planning Authority in consultation with SNH, before any construction works are undertaken.

Reason: In order to safeguard the sites ornithological interests.

31. That prior to the commencement of development a scheme for post-construction ornithological survey of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH. The approved scheme shall be implemented.

Reason: In order to support the evaluation of the impact of wind farms on bird populations.

32. That prior to the commencement of development a scheme of landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the widening of the Chamberwells access road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the commencement of development or at earlier stages and any plants or trees which with a period of 5 years from the commencement of development die; are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection and to ensure appropriate landscaping.

33. That prior to the demolition of Ryehill steading or any part thereof, a scheme to mitigate impact on bats in accordance with the Ark Hill Wind Farm: Bat Survey of Barn at Ryehill, Glen Ogilvy by Dr Susan Swift dated February 2006 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved mitigation measures shall be implemented.

Reason: In order to mitigate the impacts of development on a protected species.

34. That no materials shall be removed from or spread on the site without location and method of spreading having been approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect the sites ecological interests and to protect the local landscape.

35. That prior to the commencement of any development the U356 public road and Chamberwells access road shall be improved in accordance with the details provided in Figures 11.3 to 11.11 of the Ark Hill Wind Farm Environmental Impact Statement 2003 or as otherwise approved by the Planning Authority, to the standards required by Angus Council.

Reason: In order to ensure that the access roads to the development are to an acceptable standard in the interests of road traffic and pedestrian safety.

36. That the route for turbine deliveries and the frequency and timing of these shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to these deliveries being undertaken.

47 Report No 752/06

Reason: In order to minimise impact on existing traffic flows and for protection of residential amenity.

37. That construction traffic shall take direct access to the site from the U356 and Chamberwells access road only and that shall not utilise the U355(1).

Reason: For clarification purposes and in the interests of road traffic and pedestrian safety.

38. That prior to the commencement of development a scheme to prevent mud and dust being deposited on the public road shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented upon commencement of, and for the duration of construction activities.

Reason: In order to ensure safety on public roads.

39. That restrictions on public access to the site during construction should be kept to a minimum and that prior to the commencement of development, details of the phasing of areas of land excluded from public access shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to maintain public access to the site.

40. That following construction public access shall be maintained across the site to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to maintain public access to the site.

41. That prior to the commencement of development the details of the rain water collection system, septic tank and soakaway to be utilised for the control building toilet shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA. The approved details shall be implemented.

Reason: In order to ensure provision of appropriate drainage to safeguard groundwaters and private water supplies.

42. That prior to the commencement of any works, other than improvements to the public road, a scheme to monitor the impact of construction activities on groundwaters currently abstracted for potable and agricultural uses shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA.

Reason: In order to ensure provision of appropriate drainage to safeguard groundwaters and private water supplies.

43. That prior to the commencement of development a management plan for the site such that pollution risks associated with the construction and operation phases of development would be identified and appropriate mitigation provided, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA. This should include emergency plans to deal with any spillage of materials on site and precise details of the drainage arrangements of the access roads. The approved scheme shall be implemented on site at all times.

48 Report No 752/06

Reason: In order to safeguard the hydrology of the site.

44. That in the event of a pollution incident or interruption to supply, caused by the wind farm development, affecting or likely to affect any private water supply, the wind farm operator shall provide an immediate temporary supply to those affected until permanent mitigation can be effected to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Any replacement supply shall be of a quality to meet the private water supplies (Scotland) Regulations 1992 or any other appropriate Regulation in force at the time. In any case a permanent replacement supply or mitigation measures shall be provided no later than one month after the supply is first affected.

Reason: In the interests of health, safety and the amenity of neighbouring households whose water supplies may potentially be at risk.

45. That the borrow pit shall be fully reinstated within 12 months of the commencement of extraction. The date of commencement of extraction from the borrow pit shall be notified in writing to the Planning Authority, prior to the extraction process commencing.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.

46. That the borrow pit shall be limited to an area not exceeding 65 metres x 65 metres and shall not exceed 5 metres in depth unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.

47. That the hours of operation of plant and equipment associated with the extraction, processing and transportation of minerals from the borrow pit shall be restricted to Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 hours and Saturday 08:00 to 13:00 hours with no working on Sundays.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby households.

48. That noise generated by plant and equipment associated with the extraction, processing and transport of minerals from the borrow pit shall not result in the noise level at Chamberwells exceeding 51dBA LAeq (1 hour).

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby households.

49. That no blasting shall take place until a method statement for the storage and use of explosives has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The storage and use of explosives shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason: In the interests of safety and amenity of nearby households.

50. That except in the case of emergency, blasting of rock shall be restricted to Monday to Friday 09:00 to 12:00 hours and 14:00 to 16:00 hours and Saturday 09:00 to 13:00 hours and not at all on Sundays.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby households. 49 Report No 752/06

51. That ground vibration as a result of blasting operations shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of 6mm/s in 95% of all blasts in any 12 month period and no individual blast shall exceed a peak particle velocity of 12mm/s at Chamberwells.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby households.

52. That prior to blasting commencing a scheme for the monitoring of vibration shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority. The approved monitoring scheme shall be implemented and all monitoring results shall be made available to the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of nearby households.

53. That no material from the borrow pit shall be removed from the application site and no material imported from out with the application site shall be used to infill or re-grade the borrow pit unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.

54. That the temporary construction compound shall not exceed 40 metres x 40 metres unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.

55. That prior to the commencement of development the location, layout, content, construction method of the temporary construction compound shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The compound shall be formed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.

56. That the temporary construction compound and all potracabins, containers, machinery and equipment associated with construction, temporary areas of hardstanding, geogrids and other lay-down materials, shall be removed from the site within 3 months from the date that electricity is first sold to the grid network, and the ground reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, all in accordance with a method statement which shall be submitted to and require the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.

50 Report No 752/06

NOTE

The following papers, as defined by Section 50D of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, (other than any containing confidential or exempt information) were relied on to any material extent in preparing the above Report: -

• Hayes McKenzie, Proposed Wind Farm, Ark Hill, Glamis, Noise Assessment Report HM:1337/2, June 2004

• Ironside Farrar, Ark Hill Windfarm Audit of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, May 2006

AA/AH/IAL 31 May 2006

Alex Anderson Director of Planning and Transport 51 Report No 752/06

APPENDIX A

DUNDEE AND ANGUS STRUCTURE PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICY 1 : NATURAL HERITAGE DESIGNATIONS

Development proposals within or affecting a proposed or designated area of natural heritage importance will be determined according to their effects on the particular interests that the designation is intended to protect. Where development proposals are likely to have a significant effect on a designated area of natural heritage importance, they must be accompanied by an appropriate ecological or similar assessment that sufficiently establishes the impacts on the conservation interests of the designation.

International Designations: Development proposals within or otherwise impacting on a Natura 2000 area or Ramsar site will be permitted where they do not adversely affect the conservation interests for which the area has been designated, and are consistent with policies elsewhere in the Plan.

Where an adverse impact is identified and cannot be suitably mitigated, development proposals will only be considered acceptable where it can be sufficiently demonstrated that there are no alternative solutions, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest which outweigh the particular conservation interests of the area (including those of a social or economic nature).

National Designations: Development proposals that do not compromise the designation objectives and the overall integrity of the area will be permitted where they are consistent with policies elsewhere in the Plan. Where proposals fail to satisfy these requirements, they will only be considered acceptable where it can be sufficiently demonstrated that their impacts are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.

Regional and Local Designations: Developments that do not compromise the overall integrity and natural heritage value of a site will be permitted where they are consistent with policies elsewhere in the Plan. Where proposals fail to meet these requirements, they will only be considered acceptable where it can be sufficiently demonstrated that their local economic and social benefits outweigh the natural heritage value of the site.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICY 2 : THE WIDER NATURAL HERITAGE

The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment 1999 (Scottish Natural Heritage), and Local Biodiversity Action Plans produced for Tayside and the Cairngorms area will constitute material considerations in determining development proposals and in providing for new development within Local Plans. Landscape capacity studies will be pursued as necessary to assist the allocation of land and the determination of applications of strategic importance.

All developments must respect main features and characteristics of the natural heritage and should contribute to landscape restoration or improvement, biodiversity conservation and enhancement, environmental quality, and where appropriate, promotion of public enjoyment and understanding. Developers will be encouraged to incorporate positive environmental features that either enhance existing or create new habitat networks, such as native trees and woodlands; lochs, ponds, wetlands and watercourses; traditional field boundaries; unimproved grasslands; and coastal habitats.

52 Report No 752/06

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICY 5A : HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Local Plans will establish a policy framework to safeguard and enhance important features of the area’s historic environment as a means of conserving the diverse and distinctive qualities of Dundee and Angus.

The historic environment of Dundee and Angus is a valuable, non-renewable resource which must be protected, conserved and enhanced. Local Plans shall identify these assets and include policies which:-

• Protect the site and setting of listed buildings and ancient scheduled monuments; • Protect other archaeological sites and sensitive areas. Where this is not feasible, proper recording and analysis shall take place; • Protect and enhance conservation areas and historic gardens and designed landscapes.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICY 9 : SAFEGUARDING AND EXTRACTION OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Proposals for the extraction of hardrock and sand and gravel deposits will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that development is required to maintain a 10 year landbank for aggregates in the Structure Plan area or that market requirements cannot be met from existing mineral workings or the use of recycled or secondary material.

Where appropriate, proposals for new or extended quarries will require to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement and Transport Assessment.

Mineral deposits of economic importance will be safeguarded against other types of permanent development that would either sterilise them or inhibit their subsequent extraction. Such resources and policies for the control of mineral extraction will be identified in Local Plans.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICY 10 : RENEWABLE ENERGY

Proposals for renewable energy development will be favourably considered where they deliver quantifiable environmental and economic benefits and any significant or cumulative adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, landscape and local communities can be satisfactorily addressed.

Development proposals will be considered in the context of the wider environmental policies of the Structure Plan. Detailed criteria based policy, locational guidance and, where appropriate, areas of search for individual sources of renewable energy will be established by Local Plans. An Environmental Statement will be required for all large scale proposals or where development is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

EMPLOYMENT POLICY 7 : RURAL EMPLOYMENT

Proposals for economic or employment related development in the rural areas will be supported where they do not adversely affect local environmental quality. In determining development proposals account should be taken of: -

53 Report No 752/06

• contribution to diversification of the local economic base, • integration with the existing pattern of development, • availability of infrastructure including access to transport connections, • availability of local workforce to minimise travel to work journeys; and • the environmental policies of this plan.

ADOPTED ANGUS LOCAL PLAN

POLICY SI : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Angus Council will seek to ensure that all development in Angus is carried out in a sustainable manner including, where necessary, requiring developers to take appropriate measures of mitigation to minimise potential adverse impact. In assessing development proposals and projects, priority will be given to the following broad requirements:

• demonstration of an efficient use of energy and resources and reducing the consumption of non-renewable resources; • minimising the production of waste and levels of pollution; • conserving and improving environmental services essential to supporting life; • conserving, restoring and improving environmental quality; • promoting and improving biodiversity; • contributing to equity.

Policy S2 : Strategic Environmental Appraisal

Angus Council will continue to develop, document and apply the process and principles of Strategic, Environmental Appraisal in the course of adopting the Strategy, Policies and Proposals of the Angus Local Plan.

Policy ENV 1: Environmental Quality

All proposed development must have full regard to opportunities for maintaining and/or improving environmental quality.

Policy ENV 2: Environmental Assessments

Within the terms of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 and the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997, Angus Council will require a full Environmental Assessment to be submitted by the developer for any project likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of its nature, size and location.

Policy ENV 6: Development in the Countryside

Development proposals in countryside areas will be considered on their own merits against the policies established by this Local Plan.

54 Report No 752/06

Policy ENV 7: National Scenic Areas

Development affecting National Scenic Areas will only be permitted exceptionally where it can be adequately demonstrated that either:

(a) the proposed development will not compromise the underlying objectives and overall integrity of the designated area; or

(b) there is a an overriding and proven public interest where social or economic considerations outweigh the scenic quality interest and integrity of the area and the need for the development cannot be met in other less visually damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.

Policy ENV 8: Conservation of Landscape Character

Development proposals should follow the guidance provided by the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment on how various types of development or land use changes might best be accommodated within the different landscape areas identified, and on their capacity to absorb these changes, to conserve characteristic landscape features and to strengthen and enhance landscape quality. All development proposals in the countryside will be considered against the following criteria:

(a) sites selected should be capable of absorbing the proposed development to ensure that it fits into the landscape;

(b) where needed landscape mitigation measures such as screening should be in character with, or enhance, the existing landscape setting;

(c) development should be compatible with its surroundings in land use terms and not result in a significant loss of amenity to the local community;

(d) areas of landscape, environmental or scientific value should be avoided;

(e) in relation to new buildings/structures, development should respect the existing pattern of building in terms of scale, siting, form, design, colour and density of development;

(f) priority should be given to locating new development in villages or building groups in preference to isolated development.

Policy ENV9: Landscaping of Development Sites

Development will only be permitted where satisfactory provision can be made for landscaping in order to assimilate the development into its local landscape context and assist in protecting the amenity of adjacent occupiers. Where appropriate, natural features should be retained within the proposed layout and enhanced by additional planting.

Policy ENV 11: Agricultural Land and Farm Units

Development proposals affecting agricultural land and farm units will be considered against the following criteria:- 55 Report No 752/06

(a) irreversible use of prime quality agricultural land will generally be resisted except where there is no viable alternative site or where the only alternative site is one of nature or local conservation interest or development is required to meet the strategy, policy and proposals of this Local Plan;

(b) the viability of farm units will be protected;

(c) farm diversification proposals will be supported where they are compatible with the policies of this Local Plan;

(d) new or extended agricultural buildings should be sited and designed to minimise environmental impact;

(e) reuse of redundant, vernacular style farm buildings will be supported where the proposal is compatible with other policies of this Local Plan.

Policy ENV 13: Natura 2000 and RAMSAR Sites

Development likely to have a significant effect on a site designated or proposed under the Habitats or Birds Directives (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas), or RAMSAR site and not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of that site, must undergo an appropriate assessment as required by Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994. The development will only be permitted exceptionally and where the appropriate assessment indicates that:-

(a) it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site;

(b) there are no alternative solutions; and

(c) there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including, for sites hosting non-priority habitat types or species, social or economic considerations. For sites hosting priority habitat types or species, the only overriding considerations are human health, public safety, primary environmental benefit or other reason subject to an opinion from the European Commission (requested by the Secretary of State under Regulation 49).

Policy ENV14: National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Developments affecting National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest will only be permitted exceptionally where it can be adequately demonstrated that either:-

(a) the proposed development will not compromise the conservation objectives and or particular interest for which the site was notified; or

(b) there is an overriding and proven public interest where social or economic considerations outweigh the need to safeguard the ecological interest of the site and the need for the development cannot be met in other less ecologically damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.

56 Report No 752/06

Policy ENV15: Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance

Development affecting existing and proposed sites of local nature conservation importance will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it is not likely to have a significant detrimental effect on the area of conservation importance.

Policy ENV19: Semi-Natural Habitats

The Council will not normally grant consent for development which would have a significant adverse effect on features of local nature conservation interest, including those referred to in Policy ENV 15. Development proposals which affect such features will require to include evidence that an assessment of nature conservation has been taken into account. Where development is permitted, the retention of wildlife habitats will be secured through appropriate planning conditions or the use of Section 75 Agreements as necessary.

Policy ENV20: Habitats Protection

Angus Council will ensure that habitats listed in Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive are given full consideration in the assessment of development proposals which may affect them. The Council will not normally grant consent for any development which would have a significant adverse effect upon those habitats listed in Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive particularly where their occurrence is considered important in a regional or national context.

Policy ENV 21: Protected Species

Angus Council will ensure that the following species and their habitats are given full consideration in the assessment of development proposals which may affect them: species listed in Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 as amended; Annexes II and IV of the European Community Habitats Directive; or Annex 1 of the European Community Wild Birds Directive. The Council will not normally grant consent for any development which would have a significant adverse effect upon sites supporting such species particularly where their occurrence is considered important in a regional or national context.

Policy ENV 31: Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

Angus Council will assess all development proposals which affect the built heritage in the context of the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

Policy ENV 37: New Development in Conservation Areas

Development proposals within Conservation Areas or affecting the setting of such areas will be supported where they:-

(a) respect the character and appearance of the area in terms of:-

57 Report No 752/06

• scale, proportions and massing; • layout, grouping and setting; • detailing and materials.

(b) contribute positively to the setting of the area;

(c) maintain important open spaces or important views within, into or out of the area;

(d) retain particular features which contribute to the character and appearance of the area;

• walls and other means of enclosure; • ground surfaces; • natural features such as trees and hedgerows.

(e) accord with the Character Statement of the area.

Policy ENV 50: Ancient Monuments

Priority will be given to preserving in situ scheduled ancient monuments. Developments affecting scheduled ancient monuments and other nationally significant archaeological sites and historic landscapes and their setting will only be permitted where it can be adequately demonstrated that either:-

(a) the proposed development will not result in significant damage to the scheduled monument or site of national archaeological interest or the integrity of its setting; or

(b) there is an overriding and proven public interest where social, economic or safety considerations outweighs the archaeological interest of the site and the need for the development cannot be met in other less archaeologically damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.

Policy ENV 51: Archaeological Sites

Angus Council will seek to preserve in situ unscheduled sites of archaeological significance and their settings, and will require rigorous examination of the impact of development proposals likely to affect such sites. Where development proposals are located within or immediately adjacent to areas of archaeological interest identified in the medieval burgh cores or any other sites of known or suspected archaeological interest Angus Council will require the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological evaluation to determine the importance of the site, its sensitivity to development and the most appropriate means for preserving or recording any archaeological information. The evaluation will be taken into account in determining whether planning permission should be granted with or without conditions or refused. Where development is generally acceptable and preservation of archaeological features in situ is not feasible Angus Council will require through appropriate conditions attached to planning consents or through a Section 75 Agreement, that provision is made at the developer’s expense for the excavation and recording of threatened features prior to development commencing.

58 Report No 752/06

Policy ENV 52: Gardens and Designed Landscapes

Development proposals affecting Gardens and Designed Landscapes identified in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland and any others which may be identified by Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage during the Plan period, including policy woodlands, to encourage their positive management in recognition of their rural amenity and historic designation will only be permitted where it can be adequately demonstrated that either:-

(a) the proposed development will not significantly damage the essential characteristics of the garden and designed landscape or its setting; or

(b) there is a proven public interest in allowing development to take place which cannot be met in other less damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.

Policy EMP12: Mineral Extraction Land Bank

Angus Council will seek to establish a ten year land bank of minerals permissions to maintain the supply of aggregates and hard rock.

Policy EMP15: Minerals Development

All proposals for mineral extraction, which meet policy EMP13 : Mineral Extraction Landbank, will also be required to satisfy the following criteria:-

(a) there is no adverse effect on areas important for wildlife, archaeology or landscape, especially habitats or species safeguarded as SACs, SPAs, or RAMSAR sites including development outwith these areas;

(b) the conservation objectives and overall integrity of NNRs, SSSIs and NSAs are not compromised;

(c) the amenity of residential areas is not significantly harmed;

(d) there is no significant damage to any scheduled ancient monument or site of national archaeological interest or the integrity of their setting;

(e) full regard is had to the effect on sites of significant archaeological interest, listed buildings and their setting, conservation areas and historic gardens or designed landscapes;

(f) prime quality agricultural land is not used in an irreversible way;

(g) there is not a significant adverse effect on recreational facilities, opportunities for countryside access, tourism or leisure facilities.

59 Report No 752/06

Policy H21: Residential Character and Amenity

Development proposals which have a significant adverse affect on the character and amenity value of existing housing will be resisted. Applications will only be acceptable where they are compatible with established housing use.

Policy RT1: Sports and Recreation Facilities

Angus Council will seek to ensure an adequate provision and distribution of sports and recreation facilities throughout Angus and will support and encourage the provision of additional facilities where development proposals:-

(a) meet the sporting and recreation needs of residents, tourists and visitors while safeguarding the quality of the environment;

(b) are of a nature, scale and location which would not have a significantly detrimental impact on residential amenity, or lead to an unacceptable level of traffic generation;

(c) would accord with other policies of this Local Plan.

Policy RT5: Open Space Protection

Development unrelated to recreational use or activity will generally not be permitted on land used for recreation or open space amenity purposes. Development on such ground including recreational open space areas identified on the Proposals Map will normally only be allowed where:-

(a) there is an excess of recreational and open space provision in the local area and redevelopment of part of the site would not affect its sporting, recreational or amenity value;

(b) there would be no loss of amenity to the local area;

(c) the use is compatible with the existing use or activity.

Policy INF3 : Private Drainage Systems

Development proposals involving the provision of private waste water treatment plant, biodiscs, septic tanks or similar will only be acceptable where:-

(a) the proposed development is in accord with the policies in this Local Plan; and

(b) the site is outwith the public sewerage system; and

(c) there is no detrimental affect to a potable water supply, or supply for animals or an environmentally sensitive water course or loch; and

(d) the requirements of SEPA and/or The Building (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1987 are met in relation to installation, e.g. proximity to buildings.

60 Report No 752/06

Policy INF4 : Surface Water Disposal

The use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) is preferred in dealing with surface water drainage. Angus Council will consult and liaise with SEPA, NoSWA and developers in the assessment of development proposals in order to ensure that appropriate methods of surface water run off collection, treatment and disposal are promoted to minimise the pollution of water courses and ground water.

Policy INF6 : Water Quality Protection

Development proposals which would directly and adversely affect a water catchment area to the detriment of the potable quality of the water will not be permitted.

Policy INF12 : Renewable Energy Development

Angus Council will have regard to NPPG6, PAN45 and the approved Tayside Structure Plan and will give positive consideration to proposals for renewable energy developments against the following criteria: -

(a) impact of the proposal on the natural and built environment, including residential amenity;

(b) impact of the proposal on the landscape and visual qualities of the area;

(c) quality and nature of the renewable energy resource and its contribution to the national requirement for renewable energy;

(d) access, maintenance and operational impacts.

Policy INF13 : Wind Power

In addition to the requirements established by Policy INF12, the development of individual wind turbines or windfarms will require to meet the following criteria: -

(a) the proposal would not, by reason of noise emission, visual disturbance, shadow flicker, reflected light, or electro-magnetic influences, have a significant detrimental effect on residential amenity, existing uses, or road safety;

(b) the proposal would not interfere with aircraft activity or with known flight paths of migrating birds;

(c) the proposal would not result in an unacceptable intrusion into the landscape character of the area;

(d) the proposal would not have a significant detrimental effect on any site of nature conservation or built heritage interest;

(e) the proposal would not contribute to an unacceptable cumulative impact.

61 Report No 752/06

Depending on the scale and/or location of the proposals, Angus Council may require applicants to submit an Environmental Assessment. Developers will be required to enter into a section 75 agreement to ensure the removal of the structures and site restoration in the event of the renewable energy development being decommissioned.

FINALISED ANGUS LOCAL PLAN

Policy ER33 : Renewable Energy Developments

Proposals for all forms of renewable energy developments will be assessed against the following requirements:

(a) the siting and appearance of apparatus have been chosen to minimise the impact on amenity, while respecting operational efficiency; (b) the landscape and visual impact of the proposal can be satisfactorily accommodated having regard to its setting within the immediate and wider landscape; (c) the development will have no unacceptable detrimental effect on any sites designated for natural heritage, scientific, historic or archaeological reasons; (d) no unacceptable environmental effects of transmission lines, within and beyond the site; and (e) access for construction and maintenance traffic can be achieved without compromising road safety or causing unacceptable permanent change to the environment and landscape. (f) that there will be no unacceptable impacts on the quality of groundwater or surface water resources during construction, operation and decommissioning of the energy plant.

Policy ER34 : Wind Energy Development

Wind energy developments will be supported in principle where there are no unacceptable detrimental effects. Opportunities for large scale wind energy development are likely to be more constrained in Areas 1 and 3 than in Area 2.

Proposals for wind energy developments will require to demonstrate:

(a) evidence of a local search to ensure the proposed site minimises potential environmental impact and that there is no suitable less sensitive location; (b) compatibility with the requirements of Policy ER33; (c) that no wind turbines will interfere with birds, especially those that have statutory protection and are susceptible to disturbance, displacement or collision; (d) there is no unacceptable detrimental effect on residential amenity, existing land uses or road safety by reason of shadow flicker, noise or reflected light; (e) that no wind turbines will interfere with authorised aircraft activity; (f) that no electromagnetic disturbance is likely to be caused by the proposal to any existing transmitting or receiving system, or (where such disturbances may be caused) that measures will be taken to minimise or remedy any such interference; (e) that the proposal must be capable of co-existing with other existing or permitted wind energy developments in terms of cumulative impact particularly on visual amenity and landscape, including impacts from development in neighbouring local authority areas; (f) a realistic means of achieving the removal of any apparatus when redundant and the restoration of the site are proposed.

62 Report No 752/06

APPENDIX B

Significance of Landscape and Visual Impacts

Within the Environmental Statement, the basis for identifying significant impacts is the same for both the landscape assessment and the visual assessment.

The assessment of significance of impacts is determined through a combination of sensitivity of affected resources (landscape assessment) or view (visual assessment) as evaluated in the baseline study, and the magnitude of change impact.

The threshold definitions for magnitude in the Environmental Statement are the same in both the landscape assessment and the visual assessment. These are detailed in Table 4.1 of the Environmental Statement as follows: -

Level of Magnitude Definition of Magnitude High Total loss or major alteration of key elements/features of the baseline (pre-development) conditions such that post development character/composition/attributes will be fundamentally changed. Medium Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that post development character/composition/attributes of baseline will be partially changed. Low Minor shift away from baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration will be discernible but underlying character/composition/attributes of the baseline condition will be similar to pre-development circumstances/patterns. Negligible Very light change from baseline conditions. Change barely distinguishable approximating to the ‘no change’ situation.

Source: Ark Hill Environmental Statement, Page 80

Similarly, the threshold definitions for the significance of landscape and visual impacts are the same. These are included within Tables 4.2 and 4.3 of the Environmental Statement, which are combined as follows: -

Magnitude High Moderate Moderate/Major Major Medium Low/Moderate Moderate Moderate/Major Low Low Low/Moderate Moderate Negligible Negligible Negligible/Low Low Low Medium High Sensitivity

Source: Ark Hill Environmental Statement, Pages 80 and 84

Shaded boxes indicate those level of effects which are not considered in the Environmental Statement to be significant.