Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Report to the Scottish Ministers SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 AND SECTION 57 OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 Report by Robert Seaton, a reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers Case reference: WIN-270-10 Site Address: Golticlay, 15 kilometres south west of Wick, Caithness, KW3 6DA Application by E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Developments Limited Application for consent (S36 Electricity Act 1989) and deemed planning permission (S57 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) The development proposed: construction and operation of the Golticlay Wind Farm Dates of inquiry / hearing sessions: 8 to 11 October 2018 Date of this report and recommendation: 20 February 2020 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division 4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a CONTENTS Page Summary Report 3 Preamble 12 Abbreviations used in the report 14 Chapters 1. Background 15 2. Policy context 23 3. Landscape and visual impact 37 4. Ornithology 76 5. Ecology 91 6. Peat and carbon balance 95 7. Other matters 101 8. Environmental impact assessment 114 9. Proposed conditions 116 10. Overall conclusions and recommendations 120 Appendices Appendix 1: Schedule of documents 123 Appendix 2: Statement of common ground, inquiry precognitions, hearing statements, written submissions, closing submissions and appearances 124 Appendix 3: Proposed conditions 127 WIN-270-10 Report 1 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Summary of Report of Inquiry into application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and deemed application for planning permission under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) The construction and operation of Golticlay Wind Farm, 15 kilometres south west of Wick, Caithness, KW3 6DA Case reference WIN-270-10 Case type Section 36 application Reporter Robert Seaton Applicant E.On Climate & Renewables UK Developments Limited Planning authority The Highland Council Other parties RSPB Scotland Joanne Bowd and Janet Cowin Peter Batten Caroline Window Date of application 27 October 2016 Date case received by DPEA 30 October 2017 Method of consideration and date Inquiry sessions on 8 and 9 October 2018 Hearing sessions on 9 and 10 October 2018 Community hearing in the evening of 11 October 2018 Accompanied site inspection on 12 October 2018 Unaccompanied site inspections on 6 and 7 October 2018, in the evening of 12 October 2018, and on 14 May 2019 Date of report 20 February 2020 Reporter’s recommendation Grant section 36 consent and deemed planning permission The Site: The application site is located about 3.1 km north west of Lybster, as shown on figure 1.1 of the Environmental Statement. It is accessed from the C1053 road from Lybster to Achavanich. There is existing permission for three turbines, 75 metres to tip, at the site. Description of the Development: The proposed development comprises 19 turbines with a maximum height to tip of 130 m and associated infrastructure including 13.75 km of track including 5.6 km of new track, 6.5 km of upgraded track and 1.6 km of floating track. There is an associated habitat management plan. Enabling works to the C1053 road are proposed, though consent is not sought in the present application. Compensatory planting is also proposed. WIN-270-10 Report 2 Consultations and Representations: The application and environmental statement and subsequent further environmental information submitted in 2017 was subject to consultation with statutory consultees and advertised for public comment. Additional information submitted in 2018 at my request for the purpose of the inquiry was circulated to the parties to the inquiry. Highland Council objected to the proposed development on the basis of its adverse visual impact on the Caithness landscape, particularly as viewed from viewpoint 6 in Lybster and viewpoint 4 in Upper Lybster. RSPB Scotland objected in respect of effects upon bird species of conservation concern, including qualifying interests of the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands Special Protection Area and the East Caithness Cliffs Special Protection Area. A range of other consultees had no objection to the proposed development or no objection subject to conditions being imposed. In response to the public consultation, the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) received 246 objections and three letters of support. These raised a wide range of issues and concerns. The council directly received 260 representations. Most of the representations made to the ECU were in the form of a pro-forma. The Applicant’s Case: National energy and planning policy provides strong support for renewable energy development in principle, subject to consideration of its particular effects against a number of criteria. Recently published policy in the Scottish Energy Strategy and Onshore Wind Policy Statement and the more ambitious targets for renewable energy generation in the Scottish Energy Strategy and for reduction of carbon emissions set out in the Climate Change (Emission Reductions Targets) (Scotland) Bill increase the weight to be given to the proposed development’s benefits in terms of renewable energy generation. National planning policy requires development plans to include a spatial framework to direct wind-energy proposals to the most suitable sites. The policy places the application site within a group 3 area – an area where windfarms are likely to be acceptable. In order to meet the targets set for renewable energy development, significant effects on landscape and visual amenity are inevitable. The Highland-wide Local Development Plan policy 67 is the most relevant development plan policy to the application’s determination. It too provides support for renewable-energy development subject to its consideration against a number of criteria. There is statutory supplementary guidance associated with policy 67. This is the council’s Onshore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance and the Caithness Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal. The supplementary guidance provides a spatial framework that confirms the application site is in a group 3 area. The applicant carried out an environmental assessment of the proposed development. This identified that it would have significant landscape effects, though these would be confined to within about 3 km of the application site. It identified significant visual effects, particularly to the south and east of the proposed development. WIN-270-10 Report 3 With mitigation measures in place, neither the construction of the proposed development nor its operation would have adverse effects upon bird species. The restoration of forestry land to peatland would have a beneficial effect both upon the development’s carbon balance and upon ecology. Forestry would be replanted elsewhere. Although construction of the proposed development’s infrastructure would have some adverse impact upon peat, even leaving aside the peatland restoration and forestry planting proposed, the generation of renewable energy would pay back the embodied carbon in under two years. Although the proposed development would have significant environmental effects upon landscape and visual amenity, these are relatively limited given the proposed development’s scale and have been suitably mitigated in the design. The benefits in terms of renewable energy generation would outweigh these. The council’s planning officers also found the effects to be acceptable. The proposed development performs well against the criteria in Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 169, it is sustainable development and benefits from the policy presumption in favour of such development, and also performs well against the criteria in the Highland-wide Local Development policy 67 and specifically the design criteria set out in the supplementary guidance. The proposed development should be granted consent. There is existing consent at the application site for a three-turbine windfarm but this may be revoked by agreement. Highland Council’s Case: National energy policy and planning policy is acknowledged to support renewable energy development in principle as does the development plan. The application site is acknowledged to be in an area identified in the spatial framework as a group 3 area, where windfarms are, according to policy, likely to be acceptable. However, any development requires to be considered against the specific policy criteria both in national policy and in the development plan. National targets for renewable energy and reduction in carbon emissions are not intended to reduce the protection given to the environment or the landscape in particular. Development must still be in the right place. While sustainability is a material consideration, windfarms are not automatically to be considered sustainable. Furthermore the policy presumption in favour of sustainable development does not operate outside a planning context. As a consequence of several methodological flaws, the applicant’s landscape and visual assessment underestimates the degree of the proposed development’s landscape and visual effects. The proposal sits astride a sensitive landscape transition between the sweeping moorland landscape in which it is located and the coastal landscape. It would have significant landscape effects within about five kilometres. There would be an adverse effect upon the landscape setting of Lybster and Upper Lybster, the A99