Argyll and Bute Council Development Services
Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle
Reference No : 10/00160/PP Planning Hierarchy : Local application Applicant : Allt Dearg Windfarmers LLP Proposal : Erection of 12 wind turbines, meteorological mast, control building ancillary infrastructure and ground works. Site Address : Land south-west of Stronchullin Farm, Cruach a Phubill, Ardrishaig
DECISION ROUTE
Local Government Scotland Act 1973
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
• Erection of 12 No. 0.9MW wind turbines with tubular towers and three blades and associated transformer enclosure (44 metre rotor diameter, 55 metres to hub height and 77 metres to blade tip height);
• Formation of site access from A83(T) and on-site tracks (8.4 km. in total);
• Installation of on-site 33 kv underground cabling;
• Construction of control building (72 sq metres and 5.5 metres high) and associated transformer compound enclosed by a security fence;
• Erection of wind monitoring mast (60m)
• Formation of temporary construction storage compound.(50m x 100m);
(ii) Other specified operations
• Formation of on-site borrow pit to provide 26,000m 3 of construction stone (to be subject of a separate mineral extraction application);
• Underground connection to an existing 132kv transmission line to the east of the site.
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that:
i) the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report,
ii) a discretionary hearing be held in advance of determination of the application in view of the number of representations received.
(C) CONSULTATIONS:
Scottish Government (18.03.10) – no adverse comments in respect of adequacy of Environmental Statement. Transport Scotland (17.03.10 and 18.03.10) – no objection subject to conditions requiring a Route Access Report including swept path analysis and identification of temporary signing or traffic control to facilitate delivery of abnormal loads. Area Environmental Health Manager (15.03.10) – no objection. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (17.03.10) – No objection subject to conditions requiring the submission of additional information about private water supplies and risk assessment in respect of any private abstractions identified which could be affected by construction activities, (a water feature survey of 1.2km radius form the development is recommended), and the requirement for a Construction Method Statement to address surface water run-off, timing of works, pollution risk, waste management and sensitive operations/activities. Regulatory advice for the applicant is supplied. Historic Scotland (17.03.10) – no objection. Scottish Water (23.02.10) – no objection. Health and Safety Executive (19.02.10 - no objection. West of Scotland Archaeology (11.03.10) – no objection subject to condition requiring a programme of archaeological works. Council Biodiversity Officer (19.03.10) – no objection, but would wish to be able to comment on the proposed Landscape and Habitat Enhancement Plan. Ofcom (23.02.10) – identifies telecommunications which may be affected by the proposal but does not raise objection. Joint Radio Company (17.03.10) – no objection. Civil Aviation Authority (19.02.10) – no site specific comments, but generic advice provided. National Air Traffic Services (03.03.10) – no objection. Prestwick Airport (24.02.10) – no objection. Defence Estates (05.03.10) – no objection. Scottish Natural Heritage (07.04.10) – does not object to the proposal on the basis that the development does not raise natural heritage issues of national importance. SNH has, however, commented adversely in respect of landscape and visual impacts and despite its reduction in scale from the previous proposal which was refused, concerns remain about the suitability of this location for windfarm in strategic and cumulative terms. SNH considers that the development remains visually highly prominent despite the more compact form proposed and therefore has consequences for the infilling of an area currently free of windfarms between those established areas of windfarm development in Kintyre and at the head of Loch Fyne. Accordingly, some landscape and visual impacts of significance remain. Significant adverse visual effects will arise from locations of importance on the coastal edge of Loch Fyne/Loch Gilp to the east, from Loch Caolisport to the west and from west Cowal. The locations contain settlement and transport routes concentrated on the coastal edge some of which would be subject to significant adverse impacts. Comment: clarification sought from SNH has indicated that their position of ‘no objection’ is founded upon the lack of impacts of significant magnitude upon national landscape and nature conservation designations. They have provided by way of an annex detailed landscape advice on matters of regional and local importance. SNH has indicated that it is for the Council to consider and give weight to this in reaching a decision. The substance of this advice is addressed further in Appendix A of this report where landscape and visual impacts are addressed. In terms of nature conservation interests, SNH has commented as follows: Knapdale Lochs SSSI and Special Protection Area for Birds – no likely significant effect on qualifying interests subject to mitigation and appropriate conditions. Golden Eagles – collision risk assessed to be low. Habitat management required to mitigate for loss of juvenile habitat as a consequence of development. Golden Plover – measures required to mitigate disturbance during construction. Blanket bog – condition required to address drainage design and incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Peat Slide Risk Assessment produced for this site. Other issues – Construction Method Statement and Habitat Restoration proposals to be subject to condition and consultation with SNH. Employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works to supervise construction, mitigation measures and restoration is recommended. Landscape and Habitat Enhancement Plan - should help address impacts arising from habitat loss, construction disturbance, hydrological impacts and collision risk contributing to habitat enhancement within the site and in the surrounding area. This should be an obligation imposed by way of a section 75 legal agreement in order to ensure deliverability. Barton Willmore (Planning consultants) (09.06.10) – have been contracted to provide a review of the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by the applicants in support of their proposal, in the light of consultation advice received from Scottish Natural Heritage and the subsequent response to the contents of that advice received from the applicants. Their advice to the Council (also considered in Appendix Section C xi below) may be summarised as follows: LVIA methodology – appropriate and generally in line with published guidance; Attribution of significance to viewpoints – flawed in the case of viewpoints 9 and 17 (Lochgilphead Front Green and Ballimore, Otter Ferry) where these locations ought to have been accorded high and medium high sensitivity respectively, rather than medium high and medium sensitivity respectively. Accepting the medium magnitude of change attributed by the applicants to the development at both of these locations, this higher sensitivity would result in both of these locations being subject to a significant impact as a consequence of the proposal, rather than the not significant impact attributed in both cases in the environmental statement. Also flawed in the case of viewpoint 14 (Kintyre Way) which ought to have been accorded a medium high sensitivity. However, in the view of the accepted low magnitude of change identified in the environmental statement, the impact from the proposal at this point remains not significant. Magnitude of change as a result of proposal – overstated in the case of viewpoint 1 (A83 Stronachullin) where the magnitude of change ought to be considered low rather than medium as stated in the environmental statement. Conclusion re visual effects – under-evaluation of the sensitivity of two viewpoints has resulted in the failure of the environmental statement to attribute significant impacts upon these locations. The review of visual effects supports the landscape advice provided to the Council by Scottish Natural Heritage in their consultation response. Cumulative effects - It is considered that cumulative landscape and visual effects are approaching a threshold of acceptable impact within the vicinity of Loch Fyne, particularly with regard to the sequential cumulative effects as experienced from the coastal edges of Loch Fyne. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (20.04.10) – objects unless a legal agreement is concluded to oblige the developer to implement a habitat enhancement plan in association with the development. Their principal concerns relate to the potential of the development to impact on sub-adult golden eagles. Conditions would be required for the monitoring of effects upon black-throated divers and for the management and restoration of blanket bog. The habitat enhancement plan should address mitigation/compensation for habitat loss and for blanket bog management and restoration, appropriate pre and post construction monitoring, and a mechanism to require further mitigation in respect of unforeseen effects revealed as a consequence of monitoring. South Knapdale Community Council ( 08.03.10 ) – expresses support for the proposal. Tarbert and Skipness Community Council (12.03.10) – expresses support for the proposal. Ardrishaig Community Council (18.03.10 and 30.05.10) – indicates that the community council has an interest in the scheme and has signed a Letter of Intent with the applicants in respect of the possible ownership of one turbine by the Community Trust in order to help finance the Ardrishaig Regeneration Masterplan. The community council supports the proposal having conducted a postal vote of residents with 86% of the 452 responding expressing support for community ownership of a turbine via the Community Trust.
(D) HISTORY:
06/01158/DET- Planning permission refused following a local hearing in 2007 for a 14 turbine windfarm (115m to blade tip and 90m rotor diameter) on grounds of landscape, visual and cumulative impacts upon Loch Fyne, Loch Coalisport, the Knapdale National Scenic Area, and the coast of west Cowal.
(E) PUBLICITY:
The application has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. The period for representations expired on 26 th March 2010.
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
(i) Representations received from:
Support for the proposal have been expressed by 21 individuals.
Objection to the proposal have been expressed by 93 individuals.
Names and addresses of representees are listed in Appendix B
A petition with 166 signatures of support ( and 1 of dissent to the petition process) has been received.
Letters of support have also been received from Councillors Hay, McAlpine and Philand on the grounds of the community benefit which will accrue from the proposal. A letter of support has also been received from Community Energy Scotland on the basis that it will help support the operation of the Ardrishaig Community Trust.
(ii) Summary of issues raised:
Grounds of support may be summarised as follows:
Local socio-economic considerations
• The development will bring economic benefit to surrounding rural communities,sustaining local jobs and incomes and generating income for potential future investment;
• The Ormsary Estate have in the past made the development of the local community a key priority in business decisions, but in changing times such support is unsustainable without additional income streams which could be provided by this development;
• Income form the windfarm will help support the local population and its village school;
• Income from the development would benefit the community of Ardrishaig who have voted overwhelmingly to buy a twelfth share of the windfarm to be able to support improvements in the village;
• The access route to the windfarm will open up recreational opportunities to walkers, cyclists and horseriders;
Global climate considerations
• The windfarm will contribute to a reduction in reliance on fossil fuels;
• The development will help meet Scottish Government targets to increase the proportion of renewably generated electricity.
Third party objections
• The orchestrated campaign against the impact of the development on west Cowal wildly exaggerates the visual impact of the development upon local people and tourists
Petition of support
• The petition has been submitted by Ormsary Farmers on the basis that the visual impact is acceptable, the development will not put endangered birds at risk or undermine the local tourist economy. Objection is raised to “wealthy incomers seeking to influence the local community with subjective opinions and mis-information”.
Comment: It should be noted that the majority of petition signatories appear to be from Ormsary Estate residents, with the remainder predominantly from Mid Argyll, with a small number from Kintyre and further afield.
Grounds of objection may be summarised as follows:
Impacts on the local environment
• The amended development proposed would have similar impacts on landscape, communities and tourist routes to that which was refused three years ago;
• The windfarm would have adverse impacts on Loch Fyne and the Knapdale National Scenic Area, as the chosen site places the turbines on a skyline rather than in a location with a backdrop of hills;
• The prominence of the site in the context of Loch Fyne is such that the development proposed would become an industrial landmark with influence the length and breadth of the loch;
• The development would have adverse consequences for protected habitats and birds, including species and habitats listed in EU Directives.
Consequences for tourism
• It would impact adversely on the the A83 tourist route to Kintyre and the B8000 tourist route along the west Cowal coast and the recreational and tourist usage of Loch Fyne itself, in an area where most of the tourism is scenery dependant.
Climate change and socio-economic considerations
• Wind power is inherently unpredictable, Renewables should be developed offshore to take advantage of the predictability of tides;
• The recent cold winter was characterised by long periods of still air. The contribution wind power can make to our electricity needs is dubious;
• The local environmental cost is out of all proportion to the benefit of the development to the global environment;
• The economic and global environmental benefits of the proposal should not be given undue weight, as they could be advance in respect of any windfarm proposal. The development should be assessed on it environmental merits;
• The development is misrepresented as a community initiative. Only one of twelve turbines is intended to produce community income with the remainder being in the hands of the landowner/developer;
• The Ardrishaig community ballot resulted in a poorly informed vote, due to the imbalanced information provided about the project. The possibility of a community turbine should not have any bearing on the planning decision.
• The suggested acquisition of community turbine would be an inherently risky venture in financial terms if productivity is less than anticipated or if subsidies are curtailed. It would result in the community mortgaging an uncertain future in order to acquire one. If the development is truly intended to support the community, why has the developer not offered to make annual contributions, as other developers do?
• The proposal has been misrepresented as a community venture when it is not. Ownership and control of profits will be in the hands of the landowner/developer.
Procedural Issue
• Ardrishaig Community Council, who have expressed support for the proposal, should have declared an interest in view of their expressed support for the proposal prior to its submission and their potential financial interest in the development.
NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in this report, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are available on request. It should also be noted that the associated drawings, application forms, consultations, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
(i) Environmental Statement: Yes - commented on in detail below.
(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Not necessary. Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:
(iii) A design or design/access statement: No, although design evolution is addressed in the Environmental Statement.
(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed No. Environmental development eg. Retail impact, transport impacts are assessed in impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage the Environmental impact etc: Statement.
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
Is a Section 75 agreement required: Not in the event of refusal as recommended.
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No.
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
Policy STRAT SI 1 – Sustainable Development.
Argyll and Bute Council shall adhere to the following principles in considering development proposals, and in its policies, proposals and land allocations in Local Plans. It will seek to:-
a) maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; b) make efficient use of vacant and/or brownfield land; c) support existing communities and maximise the use of existing service infrastructure; d) maximise the opportunities for sustainable forms of design, including energy efficiency; e) avoid the use of prime quality or locally important good quality agricultural land; f) use public transport routes fully and increase walking and cycling networks; g) avoid the loss of recreational and amenity open space; h) conserve the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and built heritage resources; i) respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; j) avoid places where there is a significant risk of flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability; and k) avoid having an adverse effect on land, air and water quality.
Policy STRAT DC 7 – Nature Conservation and Development Control
A) Development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura Site will be subject to an appropriate assessment. The development will only be permitted where the assessment indicates that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or, there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
B) On sites of national importance, SSSIs and NNRs, development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the overall objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the designated area would not be compromised, or where any adverse impacts are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.
C) Development which impacts on Local Wildlife Sites or other nature conservation interest, including sites, habitats or species at risk as identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan, shall be assessed carefully to determine its acceptability balance along with national – or local – social or economic considerations.
D) Enhancement to nature conservation interest will also be encouraged in association with development and land use proposals.
Policy STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control
1. Development which, by reason of location, siting, scale, form, design or cumulative impact, damages or undermines the key environmental features of a visually contained or wider landscape or coastscape shall be treated as ‘non-sustainable’ and is contrary to this policy. Outwith the National Park particulary important or vulnerable landscapes in Argyll and Bute are those associated with:
a) National Scenic Areas; b) Historic landscapes and their settings with close links with archaeology and built heritable and/or historic gardens and designed landscapes; c) Landward and coastal areas with semi-wilderness or isolated or panoramic quality.
2. Protection, conservation and enhancement to landscape will also be encouraged in association with development and land use proposals.
Policy STRAT DC 9 – Historic Environmental and Development Control
Protection, conservation, enhancement and positive management of the historic environment is promoted. Development that damages or undermines the historic, architectural or cultural qualities of the historic environment will be resisted; particularly if it would affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument or its setting, other recognised architectural site of national or regional importance, listed building or its setting, conservation area or historic garden or designed landscape.
Policy STRAT RE 1 – Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development
A) Wind farm development is encouraged where it is consistent with STRAT DC 7, 8 and 9. Proposals shall be supported where it can be demonstrated there is no significant adverse effect on:
• Local communities; • Natural environment; • Landscape character and visual amenity; • Historic environment; • Telecommunications, transmitting or receiving systems; and
B) The Council will identify, with appropriate justification in the Local Plan, broad areas of search or, where appropriate, specific sites where wind energy development may be permitted. The Council will also indicate sensitive areas or sites which it is adjudged that for overriding environmental reasons, proposals for wind farm development would only be considered in exceptional circumstances in line with the criteria set out above. Issues associated with the cumulative impact of wind farm and wind turbine developments will be addressed. This will be done in partnership with the industry and other interested parties including local communities.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009
Policy LP ENV 1 – Development Impact on the General Environment
In all Development Control Zones the council will assess applications for planning permission for their impact on the natural, human and built environment. The following general considerations (summarised below) will be taken into account: a) impacts on amenity and the environment as a whole; b) location and nature of the development, including land use, design and appearance; c) access considerations; d) infrastructure considerations; e) water resources; f) government guidance and other development plan policies.
In particular the Council will resist development proposals that would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity or character of designated sites (including nature conservation and landscape designations).
Policy LP ENV 2 – Development Impact on Biodiversity
When considering development proposals the Council will seek to contribute to the delivery of the objectives and targets set by the Local Biodiversity action Plan. Proposals that incorporate existing site interests within the design wherever possible wil be encouraged. Where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat or species of local importance exists on a proposed development site, the Council will require the applicant, at his/her own expense, to submit a specialist survey of the natural environment.
Applications with significant adverse impacts will be refused unless the developer proves to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the following criteria are met: a) There is no suitable alternative site for the development; and b) Satisfactory steps are taken to avoid, mitigate or compensate for damage.
Policy LP ENV 3 – Development Impact on European and Ramsar Sites
In all Development Control Zones development not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European site and which is likely to have a significant effect on the site (either individually or cumulatively in combination with other plans or projects) will be subject to rigorous examination. Where it cannot be ascertained that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the site it will not be supported unless: a) There is no alternative solution, and b) There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest…. Where the European site hosts a priority habitat type and/or a priority species (as defined in Article 1 of the habitats Directive), the reasons referred to at b) must relate to human health, public safety, or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment, or other reasons which in the opinion of the European Commission are imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
Policy LP ENV 5 – Development Impact on SSSI’s
In all Development Control Zones development which would affect sites of Special Scientific Interest will only be permitted where it can be adequately demonstrated that either: a) The proposed development will not compromise the conservation objectives and overall integrity of the site; or b) There is a proven public interest where social, economic, or safety considerations outweigh the ecological interest of the site and the need for the development cannot be met in less ecologically damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.
Note: the development is not situated within any nature conservation designations.
Policy LP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Habitats and Species
In considering development proposals, the Council will give full consideration to the legislation, policies and conservation objectives that may apply to the following: - Habitats and species listed under Annex I, II and IV of the Habitats directive - Species listed under Annex 1 of the Birds Directive; - Species listed on Schedules 1,5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (and as amended by the Nature Conservation(Scotland) Act 2004); - Habitats and Species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan; and - Habitats and Species which are widely regarded as locally important as identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
Policy ENV 9 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas
Development in, or adjacent to National Scenic Areas that would have a significant adverse effect on an NSA will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that: a) the objectives of the designation and the integrity of the area will not be compromised; b) any significant adverse effects in the quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social and economic benfits of national importance; c) where acceptable development must also accord with Appendix A of the plan.
Note: the development is not situated within an NSA but would be visible from NSA’s.
Policy ENV 10 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality
Development in or adjacent to an APQ will be resisted where its scale location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character o the landscape unless it is demonstrated that:
a) Any significant adverse effects in the quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social and economic benfits of national importance;
b) where acceptable development must also accord with Appendix A of the plan.
Note: the development is not situated within an APQ but would be visible from APQ’s.
Policies ENV 11,13(a) and 16 – Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments
These policies collectively seek to safeguard historic assets and their settings. Developments that have an adverse impact on such assets and their settings will be resisted.
Note: There are no designated sites physically affected by development, but the development would be visible from some relevant locations.
Policy ENV 17 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance.
Presumes in favour of protecting archaeological assets and excavating and recording remains where preservation in situ is not warranted.
Policy LP REN 1 –Wind Farms and Wind Turbines
Wind farm developments will be supported in forms scales and sites where the technology can operate efficiently, where servicing and access implications are acceptable, and where the proposed development will not have an adverse impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively on the economic social or physical aspects of sustainable development.
The policy sets out criteria against which applications will be assessed, including settlements and their settings, nature conservation, historic environment, landscape and amenity considerations, recreational and tourism interests, telecommunication constraints and peat stability.
Windfarm policy maps provide locational guidance for schemes over 20MW but are not applicable to this scale of development.
Appendix A – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles.
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
Scottish Planning Policy (2009) - supports sustainable economic growth which protects the quality of the natural and built environment as an asset for that growth. The key principles of sustainable development set out in policy include inter alia the development of renewable energy generation opportunities and the protection of the natural environment, including biodiversity and the landscape.
Positive change in the landscape is to be facilitated whilst maintaining and enhancing distinctive character. Landscapes are sensitive to inappropriate development and potential effects, including the cumulative effect of incremental changes, should be considered in planning decisions. Development that affects a National Scenic Area should only be permitted where it will not affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or any such effects are outweighed by social environmental or economic benefits of national importance.
Planning Authorities should establish a spatial framework for windfarm development but should continue to determine applications whilst policies are being updated. Guidance is provided on the criteria to be employed in the assessment of windfarm applications. Benefits provided by developers to communities in the vicinity of developments should not be treated as material considerations unless they meet the tests in Circular 1/2010 ‘Planning Agreements’
Planning Advice Note 45 (PAN 45 revised 2002) ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ – provides advice in the delivery of renewable energy proposals.
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: Environmental Statement submitted.
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): Not required for developments under 20MW.
(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No. Sustainability considerations are reviewed in the Environmental Statement and the accompanying review of socio- economic considerations.
(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No
(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): A Discretionary Hearing is recommended in view of the number of representations received.
(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
This application has emerged from the failure of a proposal promoted by a utility company for a 14 turbine commercial windfarm development on this site, which was refused planning permission by the Council in 2007. That application proposed large scale turbines (115m to blade tip) distributed across a wider area than that currently proposed, in order to achieve the necessary operational spacing for large rotors. The application was refused on grounds of adverse landscape, visual and cumulative impact.
The applicants in that case did not appeal against the refusal of permission, and as a consequence, the landowners involved have elected to pursue an alternative smaller scale development of 12 turbines of reduced height (77m to blade tip) and swept area, which has resulted in a more compact layout but has necessitated the turbines being grouped on the ridgeline of the site in order to maximise capture of the available wind resource.
The applicants in support of their proposal have advanced a comprehensive case stressing the socio-economic benefits which would be associated at the local level with the current approach. It details that the project would have significant benefits for sustaining employment, incomes, expenditure, demography and services at the local level. The project would also increase the income available for investment in the development of the two estates involved, thereby assisting diversification and development that would benefit the local community and economy in terms of jobs and incomes. The prospect of community ownership of one of the turbines by the Ardrishaig Community Trust could also facilitate the local community’s regeneration ambitions. Environmental benefits to the remainder of the estates are intended to accrue from a proposed Habitat and Landscape Enhancement Plan and from the use of income in order to support initiatives intended to sustain current land management practices.
As with the previous application, there are no technical impediments to the development and there are no objections to the current proposal raised by consultees provided that identified concerns are addressed by way of conditions and/or legal agreement. In view of the absence of impacts of significance on national interests, SNH has not objected to the proposal, but has provided the Council with details of their views of the landscape and visual shortcomings of the proposal at regional and local level. The proposal falls to be assessed against development plan considerations outlined in the report, along with other material considerations, including views expressed by consultees and third parties, macro-environmental considerations associated with climate change, and local socio-economic interests.
In common with the previous proposal, the site is not subject to any landscape, nature conservation, historic environment or other designations which would preclude development. There are, however, habitats, species and scenic designations in the surrounding area which would be affected by the presence of a windfarm, the significance of which has been assessed in the Environmental Statement accompanying the application, the validity of which has been reviewed by SNH.
Although it has been possible to reduce the visual envelope of the development, the site still occupies a prominent ridge where the turbines would be visible on the skyline from the margins of Loch Fyne and Loch Gilp to the east, and from Loch Caolisport to the west. Whilst the applicants have endeavoured to scale down the impacts which warranted the refusal of the previous proposal by a reduction in the size and number of turbines, and whilst a more compact grouping has removed impacts from some of the key viewpoints at issue last time, there remain shortcomings associated with the location of the site and the role it plays as a defining coastal edge from a range of vantage points. Despite its diminution in scale from the previous proposal, it would, in terms of its attention-holding qualities, remain of significance from those locations where views are available, particularly where these are unobstructed views across water, which tends to lead to an accentuation of the importance of the skyline forming the backdrop to the view. Accordingly this location does not lend itself to skyline development, even on this reduced scale.
The principal considerations at issue in this case therefore remain the visual impact of the proposal on key viewpoints and travel routes, the consequence of the presence of the development for the landscape character of the site and adjoining landscape character areas, and the contribution which this site would have in increasing the cumulative and incremental impact of windfarm development across the wider area.
Unlike the previous application, SNH has not objected to this proposal on landscape grounds, primarily in view of the recent decision to confine formal objections to cases where interests of national importance would be prejudiced. Although the development is relatively close to the Knapdale National Scenic Area, given that the designation citation accords the greatest weight to views out to the west and does not confer particular weight to the landscape to the east forming the setting of the NSA (within which the site lies), SNH has concluded that the magnitude of the impact of the reduced scheme is insufficient to warrant an objection on grounds of national importance. However, they have identified landscape, visual and cumulative impacts of significance in a regional and local context and have set these out as advice to the Council in decision-making.
The conclusion from a landscape and visual perspective is that the applicant’s Environmental Statement under-represents the sensitivity of important viewpoints and the anticipated consequence of the development, and that despite any reduction or change in the nature of impacts due to the revised scheme, fundamental adverse consequences remain. From a strategic point of view there is concern that a readily visible windfarm in this location will extend the influence of windfarms along the length of Loch Fyne, undermining the current benefit of separation between the established clusters of windfarms at the head of Loch Fyne and in Kintyre.
In terms of visual effects and the consequences for landscape character, some of the shortcomings of the previous scheme have been overcome by the deletion of turbines from the Stuchd Bhreac ridge to the east of the current site, which has substantially removed close quarter views form south Ardrishaig and Inverneill. The concentration of turbines in a more compact layout on Cruach a Phubill has led to a marginal improvement in some of the more distant views, but their grouping on the ridgeline of this defining coastal edge has maintained their adverse consequences in terms of a number of key views, including those from west Cowal (particularly from Kilfinan and Otter Ferry), from the A83(T) on the east side of Loch Gilp (between Castleton and the Front Green in Lochgilphead) and from Loch Coalisport (on the Ellary road) to the west. To that extent, palpable adverse consequences remain for those areas which were instrumental in the refusal of the previous proposal.
In addition, the development is proposed to be located outwith established areas of operational and consented windfarms which are clustered in Kintyre to the south and towards the north end of Loch Fyne. This development would occupy a coastal edge midway between these established clusters where it would introduce landscape and visual consequences into an area which is currently not influenced by the presence of windfarm developments. Its presence would exert a disproportionate influence in view of its proximity to and its relationship with nearby coastal settlement and transport routes, the landscape backdrop for which is provided in part by the ridgeline upon which the proposed development is intended to be situated. Its presence would also degrade the scenic contribution which this locality makes to the wider tourism resource of the area.
Members should note that in recognition of the increasing interest shown by prospective developers in siting windfarm proposals beyond the currently established areas of windfarm development, it has been decided to commission qualified landscape consultants to undertake two studies to better address the spatial distribution of windfarms in Argyll & Bute. The first of these addresses the merits of this current proposal, by reviewing the methodology and conclusions of the applicant’s landscape assessment, by considering the validity of the position adopted by Scottish Natural Heritage in the advice they have provided to the Council, and by having regard to the applicant’s response to SNH’s adopted position. The outcome of this is referred to in Section C above and Appendix A Section C xi below.
Secondly, a further strategic study is being commissioned to inform a longer term spatial strategy concerning the distribution of windfarm developments on the basis of landscape and cumulative impact criteria. That will not be prepared in time to influence the outcome of this proposal, but will provide future prospective developers, and the Council in subsequent decision-making, with a rational to inform the most appropriate distribution of sites based upon strategic considerations.
Notwithstanding the contribution that this development can make towards combating climate change, the financial contribution which it can make to sustaining creditable land management practices and rural employment associated with the estates involved, and the prospect of community ownership of a turbine to support local regeneration initiatives, development giving rise to inappropriate environmental consequences cannot be viewed as being sustainable. Development which would erode the landscape and scenic qualities of the area would be inappropriate as it would undermine the primary assets which support the tourism economy. It is considered that there remain adverse visual, landscape and cumulative impacts associated with the development of this site of such magnitude that the shortcomings associated with the previously refused proposal have not been overcome or reduced to such a degree as to warrant approval of the development, and accordingly it is recommended that permission be refused.
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No
(R) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No.
Author of Report: Richard Kerr Date: 9th June 2010
Reviewing Officer: Angus Gilmour Date: 10 th June 2010
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning
REASON FOR REFUSAL OF APPLICATION NO. 10/00160/PP
1. T he development proposed would be inappropriately located on elevated land immediately overlooking Loch Fyne, where its presence on the skyline would assert a commanding presence upon the coast, which in turn, would have adverse consequences for the maintenance of landscape character. The coastline of the loch does not have the capacity to absorb such magnitude of change given that it is the focus of settlement in the area, the conduit for people travelling around the area using established land and sea transport routes, and in view of the scenic sensitivity it derives from the role it performs in the inter-relationship between seascape and landscape. The prominence of this location is such that the presence of a windfarm would exert an all round influence, extending to the east and north coast of Loch Gilp to the north, the west coast of Cowal to the east, parts of Knapdale to the west, and to a lesser extent north Kintyre to the south. The LVIA contained within the environmental statement supporting the proposal under-estimates the sensitivity of viewpoints at Lochgilphead and Ballimore (Cowal), thereby failing to identify the consequences of the development as being of significance at these key locations, and leading to an under-representation of the impact of the presence of the development as a whole.
The proposed site fails to reinforce the established distribution of other consented wind farm sites in Mid Argyll and Kintyre, and would not share the advantageous locational characteristics of inland upland locations, where landform and the relative remoteness of sites have been such that developments have proven to be capable of being absorbed into their surroundings without asserting themselves upon transport routes and communities, and without giving rise to adverse consequences for landscape character or producing undesirable cumulative effects, thereby enabling the exploitation of the wind resource without unnecessarily compromising the landscape and scenic qualities of the area. This site, by virtue of its location on a coastal ridge defining and enclosing lochs to the west and the east, and with the availability of views across water, would, despite moderation of impacts associated with this amended proposal, extend the influence of wind farm development to locations not currently subject to such influence, thereby giving rise to additional adverse consequences in terms of sequential impacts in particular , to the detriment of the landscape qualities and the visual amenity of the area.
As well as the immediate adverse impacts the presence this wind farm would have upon Loch Gilp, west Loch Fyne, and the coastal margins of these lochs, it would also be significant in longer distance views, exerting an adverse influence upon isolated and sensitive locations along the west coast of Cowal, and upon sensitive locations within the Knapdale National Scenic Area. The development by reason of its siting and scale would therefore give rise to adverse visual and landscape impacts, not only in terms of its immediate surroundings and its wider landscape setting, but also in terms of the disproportionate contribution it would make to the overall cumulative impact of wind power development in Argyll.
In addition, the development is proposed to be located outwith established areas of operational and consented windfarms which are clustered in Kintyre to the south and towards the north end of Loch Fyne. This development would occupy a coastal edge midway between these established clusters, where it would introduce landscape and visual consequences into an area which is currently not influenced by the presence of windfarm developments. Its presence would exert a disproportionate influence in view of its proximity to and relationship with nearby coastal settlement and transport routes, the landscape backdrop for which is provided in part by the ridgeline upon which the proposed development is intended to be situated. Its presence would also degrade the scenic contribution which this locality makes to the wider tourism resource of the area.
The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected benefits which a development of this scale would make to the achievement of climate change related commitments, nor by the socio-economic advantages capable of being derived from the income generated over the intended life of the development, as to do so would not secure development which meet the fundamental principles of sustainability. The proposal would be contrary to Policies SI 1 and DC 8 of the 'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' 2002; to Policies ENV 1, ENV 9, ENV 10 and REN 1 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' 2009, and to government guidance given in ‘Scottish Planning Policy’ (2009) and PAN 45 (2002).
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 10/00160/PP
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
The application relates to an upland area overlooking the west coast of Loch Fyne 3km to the east, lying on the northern end of a ridge of high ground separating West Loch Tarbert from Loch Caolisport 6km to the west. The site of the proposed turbines lies on the Ormsary Estate and the access to the site and some of the associated infrastructure would be located on the Stronachullin Estate. The site is located 11km south of Lochgilphead and 7km north of Tarbert, to the west of the A83(T) some 3.5km south of the settlement of Inverneill. The proposed turbines are to be situated in three closely spaced parallel rows (of three, four and five turbines, from north to south) to the north-east of the summit of Cruach a’ Phubuill (477m AOD) and to the west of the slightly lower Stuchd Bhreac ridge (430m). The site is situated immediately to the north of the locally well known summit of Meall Mor (484m), with its distinctive array of transmission masts, which are visible over a wide area.
The site measures 181ha overall, of which 6ha would be occupied by development. The site to be occupied by turbines comprises relatively inaccessible elevated moorland which is dissected by a number of burns, including Allt Dearg which feeds from the upper slopes of Cruach a Phubuill to the Stronachullin Burn. The upland slopes are surrounded by areas of forestry on lower ground to the north, the west and the south east. The site consists mainly of upland blanket bog on deep peat with areas of wet acid grass and wet heath. Blanket bog is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat and subject to Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive, and is therefore of national significance, although there are no specific nature conservation designations within the site. The closest nature conservation interest is at Loch Fuar- Bheinne (2km to the north-west). This forms part of the Knapdale Lochs Site of Special Scientific (SSSI) and Area of Special Protection for Birds (SPA), which is afforded European protection in view of its value to upland breeding birds. A further SSSI lies 1.5km to the east covering coastal oak/beech woodland around the Artilligan and Abhain Srathain Burns.
There are no historic designations affecting the site, and no scheduled monuments within 5km. The closest location of significant historical interest is the designed landscape at Stonefield Castle to the north of Tarbert.
The nearest residential properties are over 3km away from the proposed windfarm, at Stronchullin Farm and Artilligan Cottage off the A83(T) to the east, and at Achahoish on the B8000 to the west.
Access to the site is proposed to be taken from the A83(T) via a proposed localised improvement of the existing access serving Stronachullin Farm. The construction compound, the proposed switchgear building and its associated transformer compound are to be situated close to the farmstead. The access to the site would then roughly follow the route of the Stronchullin Burn and the Allt Dearg to reach the network of tracks necessary to serve individual turbine locations. 8.4km of on site tracks would be required, of which 2km would be improvements of existing routes and the remainder would be new construction.
This access would pass the site of a proposed borrow pit located in a forested area, which would be intended to provide an on-site source of stone to serve the needs of construction (to be the subject of a separate mineral planning consent application). It is envisaged that 26,000m 2 of the 36,000m 2 of stone required to form the access tracks and turbine foundations could be sourced on site from this location, with the remainder being imported by road.
The proposed turbines would be of the three bladed tubular tower mounted type, located on a concrete base and with an associated crane hard standing and a ground level transformer housing. An on-site wind monitoring mast would be located to the west of the turbines. The installed capacity of the site would be around 10.8MW, dependant on the final turbine type procured, which is sufficient to meet the electricity demand of around 6,000 homes. The anticipated capacity factor at this location would be around 35% of the theoretical maximum output.
Cabling on the site would be underground. The windfarm would be connected to the existing 33kv national grid transmission line along west Loch Fyne. Consent is sought for a period of 28 years to allow for construction, decommissioning and a 25 year operational life.
B. Renewable Energy Policy
In considering this proposal, in addition to having regard to local environmental issues, it is necessary to have regard to those macro-environmental factors which are material considerations in assessing the acceptability of renewable energy developments. EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009 sets a target for the UK to achieve 15% of energy consumed from renewable sources by 2020. The UK Climate Change Act 2008 sets a legally binding commitment to cut UK carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, with an intended minimum 34% reduction against a 1990 baseline by 2020. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 predicts that in order to meet targets, renewables should provide 30% of electricity generation by 2020, with two- thirds of that expected to be met by a combination of onshore and offshore windfarms.
In Scotland, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. Given that Scotland is estimated to have 20% of the European wind resource, it is important that wind energy should be exploited where it does not compromise other overriding environmental considerations.
In terms of the most up to date expression of national planning policy, Scottish Planning Policy 2009 indicates that planning authorities should support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. An emphasis is placed on the role of Development Plans in providing clear indication of the potential for development of wind farms of all scales, and setting out the criteria that will be considered in deciding applications for all wind farm developments, including extensions. The criteria will vary depending on the scale of development and its relationship to the characteristics of the surrounding area, but are likely to include: landscape and visual impact; effects on the natural heritage and historic environment; contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets; effect on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests; benefits and disbenefits for communities; aviation and telecommunications; noise and shadow flicker, and cumulative impact. The design and location of any wind farm development should reflect the scale and character of the landscape. In the absence of a spatial framework established by the Development Plan, planning authorities should continue to determine applications whilst policies are being updated to meet the new approach set out in the guidance.
In terms of Development Plan policy, Structure Plan Policy STRAT RE 1, reflects government policy in expressing support for the development of windfarms provided that they do not have adverse consequences for landscape assets, the historic environment, nature conservation interests, local communities or telecommunications installations. Likewise, Local Plan Policy REN 1 supports exploitation of the available wind resource provided that there are not environmental or other constraints which would have an adverse impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively on the economic social or physical aspects of sustainable development.
At present, with the exception of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan Wind Farm Proposals Map (which identified preferred and potentially constrained areas for developments in excess of 20MW, so is not relevant in this case), there is not at present a spatial framework to guide the location of schemes of a lesser scale. However, in view of the continued interest in the development of onshore windfarms and the fact that the areas of search attracting interest appear to be becoming focused on areas hitherto devoid of windfarms, such as coastal edges (as opposed to the upland plateaus which were have primarily been the focus of commercial scale schemes thus far), both the Council and SNH recognise that there is a pressing need for a capacity evaluation to identify areas of opportunity and areas of constraint in respect of the current round of emerging proposals. To that end, the Council is in the process of commissioning a landscape study to inform the spatial strategy sought by the advice in the SPP, although its findings will not be available in time to influence the outcome of this particular application. The study will address cumulative and incremental impacts, will identify landscape character types which should be protected and inform the debate as to whether we should have a dispersed or clustered approach to windfarm development in Argyll & Bute.
C The Environmental Statement
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement the purpose of which is to identify any significant effects on the environment arising from the development proposed, to assess the magnitude of those effects, and the extent to which they can be avoided or mitigated as part of the design and implementation process.
The key issues arising from the environmental statement, as amended, are summarised and commented upon below, and form the structure of the assessment of the environmental aspects of the proposal:
Site selection
The site has been selected on the basis if land availability for development, wind resource, absence of nature conservation, landscape or historic environment designations, lack of predicted impacts on protected species, availability of local grid connection and trunk road access, distance from habitation and the absence of any stated presumption against development established by planning policy.
Design Evolution
The original concept underpinning the previous proposal was for a site of up to 40 turbines located in the centre of the Ormsary estate. This was discounted due to grid connection and access considerations along with the limitations imposed by the presence of upland protected birds. A proposal for 14 turbines was eventually submitted on land to the west of the estate. That was refused on grounds of it being a poor landscape fit with adverse cumulative impacts. The current proposal has been developed with input from consultants and prospective consultees to the planning process, in the light of the previous refusal. It comprises a reduced scale of project and a smaller design of turbine which affords the opportunity to reduce spacing and produce a more compact layout. The windfarm now occupies around a third of the site which was previously refused, with turbines reduced in overall height from 115m to 70m.
The current scheme has the benefit of reduced and more even spacing with less outliers, it occupies a reduced length of skyline, inappropriate impacts on Inverneill and Ardrishaig have been overcome, the scale of the development in views form the Knapdale NSA has been reduced and the Environmental Statement concludes that of the 11 viewpoints identified as being subject to significant effects by the previous proposal, only 3 now give rise to significant impacts - Loch Sleibh (3km), Ellary (7km) and Cruach Lussach (7km).
Landscape and visual considerations i) Background – A 30km study area was agreed in advance with the Council and SNH. The study has been undertaken by landscape consultants employing a methodology derived from Landscape Institute guidance. It reviews physical effects of development (on the landscape of the proposed windfarm site), effects on landscape character types (LCT) and landscape character areas (LCA) as defined in the ‘Landscape Assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde’ (1996) (commissioned by SNH), and on key representative viewpoints (where there is likely to be an effect by development upon the visual resource as experienced from receptors at particular vantage points). The purpose of the study has been to assess the significance of anticipated effects in the light of the sensitivity of the landscape resource, the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of change.
Additionally, a cumulative effect assessment has been undertaken over a wider 60km study area, taking in 19 other windfarm sites which are either operational, consented or proposed. The closest sites are A’Cruach (west of Minard - consented but not constructed), Cruach Mhor (Cowal - operational) and Deucheran Hill (Kintyre - operational) at about 20km, 23km and 30km respectively. The Meall Mor windfarm proposal (undetermined application) is the closest to the current application site, at a distance of 2km to the south. Simultaneous visibility (same field of view), successive visibility (visible from a single vantage point) and sequential visibility (travelling through a landscape) have been assessed with reference to all the existing and proposed sites.
Comment: Members should note that since the applicants produced their Environmental Statement and their cumulative impact assessment, additional windfarm proposals have been advanced for the following sites:
Cour, East Kintyre - scoping opinion issued, application submitted (not yet valid) Raera, north of Loch Melfort - application under consideration Clachan Seil, north of Loch Melfort - scoping opinion issued Creag Dubh – East Loch Awe – section 36 proposal, scoping opinion issued by Scottish Ministers.
The ongoing interest in additional sites, some of which are removed from the established clusters of consented sites thus far, has prompted the need for the Council to commission a strategic spatial strategy to inform the appropriate distribution of sites. ii) General characteristics - The study area is characterised by a complex pattern of peninsulas and tidal and inland lochs, with underlying geology trending NE–SW, producing parallel knaps or ridges as a result of glaciation. The site lies within the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic landscape character type, lying south of the upland parallel ridges characterising the Knapdale NSA. The site produces a long horizontal skyline, subordinate to the local high point of Meall Mor, which contrasts with flat expanses of water and provides a setting and enclosure for both Loch Fyne to the east and Loch Caolisport to the west, forming a watershed between the two.
The site itself comprises rough grassland with rock outcrops and areas of peat which forms part of a rounded upland plateau rising to a summit of 477m which is dissected by small burns, projecting above the afforested areas lying generally below the 400m contour. The Upland Forest Moor Mosaic landscape character type is identified in the study referred to above as having a moderate sensitivity to change from wind power developments. The site is not subject to landscape designation, but is visible from the Knapdale NSA 2km to the west. The proposed site only occupies a small horizontal section of the available skyline, forming a visible but compact feature. Its reduced height is such that the hills will remain large in scale than the turbines. The more developed coastal edges of the lochs, which also support transport routes, are more sensitive to impacts from the presence of the proposed development, as are locations within the National Scenic Area from which visibility of the site could be obtained. iii) Physical effects on the site – are limited to those upon the pasture around Stronachullin Farm, and the grass moorland/peat around the site of the turbines. Some removal of coniferous plantation and deciduous woodland will be required to allow for the access road and borrow pit, but the overall impact is assessed to be not significant.
Visual influence – is currently influenced by the grain of the landscape, the availability of long distance views over water, and the elevated skyline location of the site. The Environmental Statement reviews the effects on the landscape character areas and types adopted by SNH and the conclusions are summarised below. iv) Effects on landscape character -
Upland Moor LCA (includes application site) – moderate sensitivity, and high magnitude of change, producing significant landscape and cumulative impacts within 3km, but not significant beyond that.
Upland Forest LCA (in Knapdale) – low/medium sensitivity, low/medium magnitude of change, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Upland Ridges with Lochs LCA (mostly NSA and both sides of Loch Caolisport) – high sensitivity, low to medium magnitude of change, producing significant effects within 4.5km of windfarm in terms of landscape effects, but low in terms of cumulative effects.
Upland Afforested Ridges with Lochs LCA (west Knapdale) – medium sensitivity. low magnitude of change, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Exposed Coastal Edge with Bays LCA (Kilmory Knap) – high sensitivity, low magnitude of change, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Wooded Sea Loch Fringe LCA (coast of loch Caolisport) – medium to high sensitivity, low magnitude of change, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT (North Kintyre, Loch Fyne and Cowal enclosing hills) – low to medium sensitivity, low magnitude of change in North Kintyre and West Loch Tarbert, low to medium change in Cowal, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Rocky Mosaic LCT (Loch Fyne and West Loch Tarbert Coast) medium sensitivity, medium to high magnitude of change within 2.5km and medium out to 4.5 km in respect of Loch Gilp, low for north Kintyre and West Loch Tarbert and low to medium for Cowal, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect, other than in the case of Loch Gilp within 2.5km where significant . Not significant in terms of cumulative effects.
Craggy Upland LCT (Kyles of Bute) high sensitivity, low magnitude of change, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect. v) Designated landscapes have been assessed as follows:
Knapdale NSA (+2km) – important island views and wooded sea loch coastal edges. Western views compelling, inland views less so. Sensitivity medium to high and high. Magnitude of change up to 4.5km medium, beyond that low. Significant effect in the 3 to 4.5 km band of visibility where a medium magnitude of change is produced. Elsewhere in the NSA the overall effect is not significant largely due to the lesser value ascribed to landward views. Cumulative magnitude of change low hence no significant cumulative effect. Overall, the integrity of the NSA designation is not compromised by the development proposed.
Kyles of Bute NSA (+15km) – sensitivity high, magnitude of change low, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Jura NSA (+22km) – sensitivity high, magnitude of change low, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Scarba Lunga and Garvellachs NSA (+30km) – sensitivity very high, magnitude of change low, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Loch Lomond National Park (+25km) – sensitivity medium, magnitude of change negligible, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Jura Search Area for Wild Land (+22km) – sensitivity very high, magnitude of change low, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect.
Balliemore Designed Landscape (Otter Ferry, Cowal +11km) - sensitivity high, magnitude of change low to medium, producing a not significant landscape or cumulative effect. vi) Route Corridors have been assessed as follows:
A83(T) – sensitivity medium magnitude of change (south of Furnace 30km, east of Ballimore 10km, Lochgilphead Front Green and Inveneill) mainly low magnitude of change except between Ballimore and Stronachulin where it would be medium, producing a not significant landscape effect, other than for a short section at Inverneill travelling south where it would be significant. . Cumulative effects not significant. . B8024 (Kilberry Road) – sensitivity medium to high, magnitude of change medium (but over relatively short distances from intermittent points) producing significant landscape effects for 1km between Loch Avrail and Loch Sleibh at 3km from site, otherwise not significant. Cumulative effects not significant. .
B8000 (west Cowal) – medium sensitivity, medium to low magnitude of change, producing not significant landscape or cumulative impact.
Nominal sailing route to Ardrishaig – sensitivity medium , magnitude medium increasing to high with proximity. Significant effect north of Stonefield, otherwise not significant . Cumulative effects not significant. vii) Representative viewpoints:
14 out of 22 representative viewpoints previously assessed as part of the refused application have been re-evaluated in the light of the current proposal. Three of those assessed have been identified as having the potential to be significantly affected, as follows:
Loch Sleibh (3km) low sensitivity but a high magnitude of change due to proximity, producing a significant effect. Cumulative effects not significant.
Ellary (7km) medium to high sensitivity due to NSA designation, medium magnitude of change due to presence on undeveloped long horizontal skyline, producing a significant effect. Cumulative effects not significant.
Cruach Lussach (7km) medium to high sensitivity due to NSA designation, medium magnitude of change due to presence on undeveloped long horizontal skyline, producing a significant effect. Cumulative effects not significant.
The landscape and cumulative effects upon the remaining viewpoints (including those contributing to the refusal of the previous proposal – Kilfinan, A83 Ballimore, Lochgilphead, Ardrishaig, Inverneill – are now assessed to be not subject to significant visual or cumulative effects. viii) Conclusion of the Environmental Statement
The Environmental Statement concludes that the site is not a focal point in the landscape, but performs a lesser role as a backdrop to the nearby lochs. The hills around the site are larger in scale than the turbines, and the site benefits from its relationship with the telecommunication masts at Meall Mor, whilst the wider landscape is influenced by the presence of commercial forestry. Views over the water are panoramic, hence the windfarm would appear a small component in these wider views. Views from around Loch Gilp benefit from the screening effect of buildings although there still remains potential for significant effects in available views under 7km.
ix) Response to the Landscape and Visual Assessment by Scottish Natural Heritage
Strategic Location of Windfarms and Cumulative Impacts – Despite the reduced scale of the proposal from that previously refused, the proposal would spread development and its associated landscape character, visual amenity and scenic quality consequences along the length of Loch Fyne and would result in the loss of undeveloped coast current providing a break between windfarm clusters. Its presence would be apparent in coastal views from the coast routes on both sides of Loch Fyne and would introduce windfarm development to areas presently unaffected by such development. If consented, it would be the third or fourth windfarm visible from some locations. Landscape Character – The development occupies the skyline ridge defining the coastal edge to Loch Fyne and Loch Caolisport. The visual prominence of the nearby Meall Mor masts gives a clear indication of the likely prominence of development in this location. Whilst the scale of the development will not dominate the ridgeline, it will provide a further focus leading to a moderate adverse effect upon landscape character. It is considered that the development will impact on the seclusion/remoteness which is of importance to the landscape character types adjacent to the site. Knapdale National Scenic Area – The site lies outside but is visible from the NSA. The windfarm will have an adverse influence on the horizontal nature of the ridgline containing Loch Caolisport and its presence will compromise the feeling of isolation and seclusion which can be experienced in the area around the loch and also the area around Point of Knap. This will give rise to moderate adverse impacts, but not of such magnitude to compromise the overall integrity of the NSA. Visual amenity – as the development sits on a ridge separating lochs, its visual influence extends over a considerable area to the east and to the west. Significant adverse visual effects will arise from locations of importance on the coastal edge of Loch Fyne/Loch Gilp to the east, from Loch Caolisport to the west and from west Cowal. The locations contain settlement and transport routes concentrated on the coastal edge some of which would be subject to significant adverse impacts. x) Response to SNH’s consultation response on behalf of the applicants (letters dated 19.04.10 & 28.04.10) The applicants have responded to SNH’s stated position on landscape and visual effects in a statement which contrasts the suggested subjectivity of their analysis with that of the applicant’s objective landscape methodology. The points raised may be summarised as follows. The premise that the site is inappropriate in a strategic sense is not backed up by any study produced by the Council or SNH to that effect, nor is there any spatial planning advice directing development towards the reinforcement of existing clusters. The suggestion that the development would introduce windfarm presence along the length of Loch Fyne is inaccurate, as the Environmental Statement indicates that effects would be largely localised and views from the coastal routes would be intermittent. The relative seclusion and remoteness of Knapdale is overstated in its magnitude and in terms of its tourist draw. The significance of the site as a focal point is also overstated. It is rather a backdrop to seascape views than a focus in itself. The features of the Knapdale NSA prompting designation, do not include landward views out of the NSA towards the proposed site. The site is now more compact and contained in a relatively smaller proportion of the view from Ellary, and the scale of the landscape is large enough to accommodate the reduced scale of turbines proposed. SNH’s suggested distribution of visual consequences appears based upon consideration of ZTV’s and does not take into account the influence of buildings and forestry which reduce the availability of views to more localised areas. Although visible from Lochgilphead and Cowal, the windfarm will not dominate these views nor lead to any redefinition of landscape character. Comment: Whilst the presence of the development is considered to have negative consequences in landward views out of parts of the Knapdale National Scenic Area, SNH has concluded that the significance of this effect would not be of such magnitude as to affect the integrity of the NSA designation, hence the lack of formal objection on their behalf on national interest grounds. It is clear from their review of the applicant’s landscape and visual analysis, that SNH does not, however, accept those findings in their totality and remains concerned about the presence of a windfarm in this location, notwithstanding its reduced scale to that previously refused. This stems from the enhanced value they ascribe to skyline of the coastal edge, the value in maintaining an undeveloped break between existing windfarm clusters and the adverse consequences the development would bring to the remoteness and seclusion of surrounding landscape character types. As these consequences are regional and local in their effect, SNH are content for the Council to decide whether the concerns they have highlighted are sufficient to continue to resist wind turbine development at this location. xi) Review of the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and advice provided to the Council by Scottish Natural Heritage – Barton Willmore (09.06.10) Having regard to the conflict between the conclusions of the applicant’s LVIA and the landscape advice provided to the Council by SNH in their consultation advice, and in view of the lack of qualified landscape expertise within the Council, a review of the available information informed by a site visit was commissioned by the Council from the consultancy Barton Willmore. This has confirmed the suitability of the methodology employed by the applicants (which conforms with recognised landscape practice and advice), but has disagreed with the level of sensitivity attributed to two of the key viewpoints at issue, namely Lochgilphead Front Green and Ballimore Otter Ferry, Cowal. Whether impact of significance arises by application of the LVIA methodology, is determined by a combination of the sensitivity accorded to the viewpoint and the magnitude of change accruing from the development being assessed. Consequently, any under or over-estimation of either of these variables is capable of skewing the significance of the expected impacts of development. In the case of Lochgilphead and Otter Ferry, the reviewer employed by the Council has attributed enhanced significance to both of these viewpoints over and above that accorded by the applicants in their environmental statement. Lochgilphead Front Green is identified as a focal point of importance for the local community and visitors, with facilities to allow enjoyment of the view, and people using this open space in numbers, either as recreational users or tourists. Otter Ferry is identified as the key location to stop and enjoy the view along the length of the B8000 route along the Cowal coast. Given the value and quality of the view and the nature of the viewer the sensitivity of this location is also considered to have been underestimated by the environmental statement. Accepting the medium magnitude of change identified in the environmental statement at both of these viewpoints as a result of the presence of the proposed development, enhancing their sensitivity results in significant effects arising at both of these locations. That conclusion conflicts with the conclusions advanced in the applicant’s environmental statement, and lends support the landscape advice provided by SNH. It is therefore a material consideration of weight in the determination of the application. The applicant’s cumulative assessment identifies significant cumulative effects on one landscape character and one route corridor, but no significant cumulative visual effects. The reviewer also agrees with SNH’s stated position that cumulative landscape and visual effects are approaching a threshold of acceptable impact within the vicinity of Loch Fyne, particularly with regard to the sequential cumulative effects as experienced from the coastal edges of Loch Fyne.
Ecology The site comprises a mixture of upland vegetation types which are common in Scotland and it is it is not subject to any nature conservation designations. Blanket bog is of biodiversity interest and regional importance, particularly in view of losses due to forestry operations. In view of the lack of intervention in upland areas there has been little degradation in these areas so the bog areas remain in good condition, being founded on areas of deep peat. Potential damage to blanket bog is to be minimised through micro-siting of turbines to avoid better quality areas, through the use of ‘floating’ construction in track formation and by the employment of an on-site ecologist to oversee construction activities. The Environmental Statement concludes that the consequences of the development for upland bog will, however, still be ‘moderate’ . Impacts on the woodland areas below the turbines will be of less significance in terms of access route construction, with the consequences for these areas being classified as ‘low’ . Loss of semi-natural woodland is expected to amount to approximately 0.5 hectare overall.
In terms of fauna, the development is not anticipated to give rise to any ‘significant’ effects. Whilst there is evidence of otters and water voles frequenting the area surrounding (rather than on) the site, with the employment of mitigation measures no adverse consequences of significance are anticipated.
Scottish Natural Heritage are satisfied that any nature conservation concerns they have could be addressed by mitigation measures and conditions.
The proposal is accompanied by a Landscape and Habitat Enhancement Plan for the two estates with land use and land management practices identified which could benefit the ecology and landscape of the area. These measures include blanket bog restoration and heathland enhancement, habitat enhancement to benefit upland waders and raptors, black grouse and water vole; predator control measures, native woodland creation and enhancement and landscape character enhancement (clearing of trees to open up views, removal of invasive species, maintenance of stone dykes etc.). In the event of permission being granted, SNH would wish to be party to the agreement of proposed measures, which should become an obligation by way of a section 75 legal agreement.
Ornithology
As with most wind farms, potential impacts upon ornithological interests are a primary consideration in the acceptability of the site. The Environmental Statement indicates the presence in the locality of Black-throated Diver, Red-throated Diver, Golden Eagle, Merlin, Hen Harrier, Short-eared Owl and Golden Plover. It concludes that disturbance to these species should not be ‘ significant ’ Whilst the presence of the windfarm will displace some foraging activity, potential collision risk can be mitigated by habitat enhancement away from the turbines, in order to draw birds away from areas where they might be at risk from possible collision. The site is close to a European Special Protection Area and site of Special Scientific Interest affording protection to the upland Knapdale Lochs, which are of particular significance for breeding Black-throated Divers.
The onerous requirement to maintain the integrity of European protected sites (including the protection of those sites from development outwith designated areas, but which may pose a threat to protected species within designations), and to avoid attrition of protected species, is such that development ought not to be permitted unless there is reasonable certainty that qualifying interests will not be prejudiced as a consequence. Given the proximity of an SPA, the Habitats Regulations place a duty upon the Council as ‘competent authority’ to determine whether it is necessary to undertake an ‘appropriate assessment’ as to whether the integrity of the designated area would be threatened significantly by the proposal.
Taking into consideration the applicant’s data, it can be concluded that the proposal would not have a ‘significant’ impact upon the SPA breeding Red-throated Diver population, provided that any planning permission were to be conditioned to prevent construction works occurring during the breeding season (1 st April – 31 st October). On the basis that such a condition would be reasonable and enforceable in the event of permission being granted, it may be concluded that the potential significant effect of disturbance from construction during the bird breeding season could be avoided, and consequently an ‘ appropriate assessment’ is not required to be carried out in this case.
Whilst Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB do have residual concerns about the dispersal of wind farms across upland areas in Argyll (particularly in terms of the fragmentation of juvenile eagle territories), the repositioning of this site away from the upland raptor territories and the protected freshwater breeding lochs has not attracted formal objection from either body on ornithological grounds, subject to the imposition of conditions/legal agreement to ensure appropriate mitigation measures.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology
The construction period (and decommissioning) is most likely to give rise to implications for the water environment, particularly in connection with the formation of access tracks and turbine bases. However, no important adverse consequences for water resources are identified, subject to prudent construction practice and appropriate mitigation measures being employed, as identified in the Environmental Statement. Consequences for the water environment are considered by the Environmental Statement not to be ‘significant’ , as there are no particularly sensitive features within the site and risk from pollution and sedimentation can be avoided by appropriate mitigation measures during construction.
SEPA have raised concerns about protection of water supplies, prevention of pollution during construction and the management of waste, but these could be appropriately addressed by way of condition as they are not fundamental to the overall acceptability of the proposal.
Cultural Heritage
The presence of peat has the potential to conceal remains of archaeological interest which would warrant fieldwork in association with construction activity and WoSAS have recommended a condition to that effect. Consequences for archaeology within the site itself are considered to be of ‘low’ magnitude.
Historic assets beyond the site which are predicted to have visibility of one or more turbines include the Stonefield Castle designed landscape, two scheduled ancient monuments (Crinan Canal and fort at Ardmarnock) and two listed dwellings at Inverneill and Stronchullin. The Environmental Statement concludes that the consequences for these assets will be ‘insignificant’ .
Historic Scotland has not raised objections in terms of the consequences of the proposal for historic assets surrounding the site.
Noise and shadow flicker
Baseline noise levels have previously been recorded at the four properties closest to the site, the closest of which would be 3.4 km away from the current layout proposed. The noise study undertaken in respect of the previously refused scheme remains relevant in the contest of smaller machines in a more compact layout, but the results over-predict the impacts of this new proposal. The assessment was carried out by comparing the predicted levels with the noise limits recommended in Planning Advice Note 45 which are derived from DTI/ETSU guidance on The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Windfarms (ETSU-R-97). This concluded that predicted levels for the previously proposed scheme met recognised standards in terms of night time noise limits and the lower amenity hours noise limits in all circumstances. Accordingly this amended scheme will not give rise to noise impacts of significance. The Council’s environmental health officers are satisfied with the approach taken and do not raise objections to the application.
Shadow flicker will not be an issue at this site given the distance from the nearest communities and other occupied properties.
Access and traffic
Delivery of turbines to the site is assumed to be via the A83 from the Campbeltown direction (by sea or from the Welcon factory at Machrihanish) with other deliveries of materials coming from the north or the south. Access form the A83(T) at Stronchullin Farm can be readily improved to cope with large loads and visibility on egress is satisfactory. The estimated traffic levels associated with construction are considered within acceptable limits as far as the capacity of the trunk road is concerned. Operational traffic is expected to be insignificant.
The Trunk Roads Authority are satisfied with the access arrangements proposed, subject to minor upgrading of the junction with the A83 and recommended conditions concerning abnormal loads. .
Effects upon Tourism
There are no public rights of way or long distance paths or cycle routes crossing or passing the site (although public access to the area in general for recreational purposes is afforded by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003).The upland nature of the site is such that there would appear, in practice, to be little public access to this area and its immediate surroundings at present; although it is noted that Meall Mor is frequented by walkers and will afford clear views over the turbines. The Statement of Social and Economic Benefit accompanying the application suggests that the presence of the wind farm will not act as a deterrent to tourists, and a number of studies are referred to in support of this.
However, I am of the opinion that developments of whatever nature which diminish the quality of the local environment and its scenic attractions to visitors might well have adverse consequences for the tourist economy. In this case, the development will impact upon key tourism assets, including the A83 tourist route along Loch Fyne, waters frequented by yachts accessing the Crinan Canal, ferry routes, the local centre of Lochgilphead, and more rural areas such as Knapdale, which are particularly valued for their unspoilt qualities. Many of the persons raising objections have raised the likelihood of the development giving rise to consequences for tourism although it has to be acknowledged that as with attitudes to wind power in general the strongest views tend to be expressed at either end of the spectrum of opinion.
It should be noted that in two recent Scottish Ministers appeal decisions the Reporters accorded weight to the extent of the importance of tourism on the local economy in Argyll & Bute. (14 turbines Corlarach Hill, east of Glen Fyne, Bullwood Road, Dunoon, PPA-130-209 dismissed 27 th May 2009 and 16 turbines Black Craig to Blar Buidhe, Glenfyne, Cowal, PPA-130-214 dismissed 22 nd September 2009).
Although in the light of the studies and evidence available it was not possible to be definitive about the likely impact on tourist interests, reservations remained about the extent to which detrimental landscape and visual impacts would impinge upon such interests. Whilst it was concluded that the deterrent effect of inappropriately sited windfarms was only likely to affect a small percentage of visitors, in the context of the particular importance of tourism to the Argyll economy, even marginal harm to the tourist economy would assume significance. The likelihood of unacceptable impacts on tourism conflicted with development plan policy and government advice and was a contributory factor in the dismissal of the appeals.
Telecommunication and Aviation Interests
No adverse impacts are identified and no objections have been raised by aviation interests or telecommunicatons operators.
D. Statement of Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits
In support of their application the applicants have submitted a comprehensive and detailed report indicating why the development is of importance to the ongoing management of the estates in the manner in which they have been managed to date, which in turn is of importance to the maintenance of the mixed land use which contributes so much to the unique character of the area which is in contrast to the predominance of commercial forestry in the surrounding area. It is claimed that:
- a commercial scale windfarm is the only viable diversification route to sustain the estates; - the site benefits from its remoteness from surrounding communities; - shortcomings of the previous proposal have been address and the development reduced in scale; - development would help sustain 40 jobs and a local primary school; - the £4m investment would support local construction jobs; - the development could afford an opportunity for locally manufactured towers to be used; - there is opportunity for a turbine to be trust owned to support local regeneration initiatives; - the development would support an education trust to support local young people; - income would support the continuance of mixed land use to the advantage of the landscape and ecology of the area; - the development would afford improved recreational access and possibly timber transport; - as the development is not promoted by a utility company, the maximum socio- economic benefit can be captured locally; - the Ormsary estate has an established track record in rural economic innovation and development, although the previously lucrative fish farm development cannot now sustain the estate as its income potential has reduced due to factors beyond local control.
The Ormsary estate comprises 7,100ha comprising stock farming, commercial forestry, holiday letting accommodation, hydro electricity and salmon breeding and juvenile production. The Stronachullin Estate comprises a 184ha stock farm with forestry and holiday accommodation.
The Ormsary Estate provides house and employment for 37 families (including those employed at the Landcatch fish farm) and employment for a further two dozen is provided via direct employment or contracting. The annual wage bill is in excess of £1m and the annual spend locally is approx £0.5m.
Loss of secure income from Landcatch is the principal threat to the continued management of the estate in the manner it has been carried out to date. Other opportunities for estate diversification have been discounted as follows:
- wave or tidal power (not viable in shallow waters); - biomass power (not viable in the absence of capital grants); - tourism (insufficient revenue potential); - housing (one off income from sales); - commercial forestry (prejudicial to mixed land use and landscape character); - commercial field sports (currently economically marginal).
An additional revenue stream to support the estates could support the following:
- pending development projects (requiring revenue support); - scallop farming (high risk capital intensive); - local meat production (currently small scale and in need of investment); - hydro scheme upgrade (investment need to increase output); - housing stock upgrade (curtailed due to lack of finance); - firewood (small scale but capable of development); - new housing at Achahoish (to meet ownership aspirations of tenants) - employment from the above (10 to 30 direct and 4 to12 indirect local) - reinstatement of Stronachullin hydro scheme (currently derelict)
The development also offers an opportunity for:
- a community trust owned turbine to provide finance towards implementation of the Ardrishaig Regeneration Masterplan (estimated income over 25yr £3m - £4m after deduction of financing and operational costs); - an educational trust fund (circa £30k/annum); - use of locally sourced components and contractors (£16m capital investment); - operational employment (2 FTE plus local supplies and services); - business rates (estimated at £65k/annum).
Tourism - the potential impact on tourism is considered in the statement and UK and Scottish published attitude surveys are reviewed. Generally, only small percentages indicated negative attitudes to windfarms, with direct experience of completed schemes provoking a more positive attitude in before and after studies, indicating that fears of potential impacts may be unfounded. There is no persuasive evidence that windfarms deter tourists or tourism investments. It is concluded that the presence of windfarms is not a significant factor in most tourism related decisions.
Land Management – additional sources of income would be important to be able to support desirable but cash negative land management, such as deer control. provision of rafts for nesting divers, pest control, bracken and grazing management, upkeep of stone dykes and hedges and maintenance of historic bridges and buildings. Ormsary’s ‘well kept farmaland’ is referred to in the Knapdale NSA citation, and diminution in its quality and character would have inevitable adverse consequences for the qualities of the designated area. The development would not affect the principal assets of the NSA nor the key views out to the west. The citation states that ‘the special qualities that combine to make the Knapdale NSA of national importance do not generally extend beyond the boundaries’ (site 2km to the east).
Anticipated consequences in the absence of the windfarm:
- reduced economic activity and estate employment; - inability to implement estate development plans; - reduced support for local contractors/suppliers; - abandonment of uneconomic land use in favour of forestry to the detriment of landscape character and scenic/tourism value; - inability to support Ardrishaig regeneration plans; - failure to contribute to reduction in CO 2 emissions .
E CONCLUSION
In accordance with statutory requirements, the starting point for the consideration of this application must be the policies of the approved Development Plan, on the understanding that the application should be determined in accordance with these policies, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Having considered relevant policies, these other material considerations should then be weighed in the balance with the position established by the plan. They include inter alia governmental energy policy commitments and the contribution the scheme can make to meeting targets set for renewables, views expressed on the merits of the proposal by consultees, the socio-economic case advanced by the applicant in support of land management practices and estate development aspirations, along with views expressed by third parties, both for and against the development.
The most fundamental planning principle established in ‘Scottish Planning Policy’ and the Council’s development plan is one of sustainable development, which aims to support economic development and renewable electricity generation in particular, provided that this can be carried out in a manner which does not bring with it unacceptable consequences for the environment. Accordingly, persuasive cases established in support of the need to secure additional renewable energy generation in the interests of the global climate, and to enable local economic and other benefits such as those outlined in the applicant’s ‘Statement of Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits’, should not be advanced as a means of offsetting otherwise unacceptable adverse consequences of development upon the environment. They can, however, be legitimate considerations in the weighting given in favour of development which is assessed as being satisfactory in environmental terms.
A further material consideration in this case is the Council’s previous decision to refuse a windfarm development on this site on landscape/visual/cumulative impact grounds. Unless the revised proposal can be considered to have overcome the shortcomings of the original scheme, permission for the revised development should clearly not be given. As with the previous scheme, there are no technical considerations which would preclude development on this site, and the acceptability of the development continues to hinge on whether the landscape/visual/cumulative impact implications of the proposal remain unacceptable, or whether they are now moderated to such a degree by the changes which have been made to the scale of the development, that it may now be viewed as being acceptable.
The amended scheme involves two less turbines and a size of turbine which is significantly reduced, therefore enabling a closer spacing of towers and a more compact layout. This has allowed the eastern part of the original site, with its previous straggle of prominent outliers, to be kept clear of development to the benefit of close quarter views from the A83(T) between Ardrishaig and Inverneill. It has, however, resulted in the development becoming focused on the summit of Cruach a Phuibill where the turbines occupy a visible location on the skyline of the ridge, albeit with a more cohesive layout within a reduced envelope to the original more straggling proposal, where the development would have occupied more of the skyline and descended further down the east facing slopes.
Whilst close quarter views are much improved by the current scheme, the areas of concern prompting the refusal of the last application – the Cowal coast to the east, the environs of Lochgilphead to the north and Loch Coalisport to the west - remain at issue, as they continue to be influenced by the presence of the proposed development. The applicant’s landscape consultants have concluded that the adverse impacts of the original scheme have been largely overcome by the new proposal and that the scale of residual impacts is now within what the landscape is capable of absorbing without prompting changes in landscape character or significantly impacting upon key views. SNH do not subscribe to this view, and although they have not objected (on the basis of there not being any significant impact on interests of national importance), they continue to have concerns as to whether this location is suitable for windfarm development on both landscape and visual grounds and have supplied the Council with their conclusions in that regard. The Council’s commissioned landscape consultants have concluded that in the case of Ballimore on the Cowal coast and the Front Green at Lochgilphead, the applicants have under-estimated the sensitivity of these viewpoints, as a consequence misdirecting themselves to conclude in both cases that despite medium magnitude of change, visual impacts of significance will not arise. The consultant’s conclusion is that significant visual consequences will arise in both of these locations.
Those areas from which the revised proposals will be visible to the greatest number of receptors will be influenced by the route of the A83(T) which skirts Loch Fyne and Loch Gilp, from which the landform of the site assumes importance in terms of its relationship with the loch as a defining and enclosing coastal edge. Such views will be obtainable from between Castleton and Lochghilphead, from points such as Ballimore, the school campus and the Lochgilphead Front Green. Whilst the applicants have concluded that the impact will not be significant in visual or landscape terms, even if this position were to be accepted, it would nonetheless extend the influence of windfarm development to an area of Argyll not currently subject to such influence. Despite the lack of an agreed spatial strategy, SNH concludes that there is benefit in maintaining the current clustering of developments to the spine of Kintyre and the head of Loch Fyne, in order to limit inappropriate dispersal of windfarms and to avoid the development of sites which do not share the visual seclusion of more upland locations.
The development will also remain visible from locations on the west coast of Cowal from the water on Loch Fyne and Loch Gilp, and from locations within the Knapdale National Scenic Area, such as the west coast of Loch Coalisport and the Point of Knap. These locations are more distant and benefit from the reduction in scale of the intended development, although the presence of windfarm development in the wider landscape will remain palpable from these locations. Although they are frequented less than the trunk road corridor, the sensitivity of receptors may be considered to be high in these locations, particularly given the value of these locations for recreational and tourist purposes, and the scenic qualities recognised in the landscape designation accorded to the NSA locations. Again, the applicants conclude that the magnitude of the impact will not be sufficient to give rise to significant landscape or visual impacts, whereas SNH feels that the scenic qualities and the perceived remoteness of these areas makes them vulnerable to influence exerted by the presence of windfarms, even on the reduced scale associated with the current proposal.
Accordingly, despite the diminution in the scale of anticipated landscape and visual impacts associated with the current proposal, shortcomings remain with a lesser scale of development in this location, given its potential to exert residual influence in several directions. The benefit of those large scale developments which have been approved by the Council thus far in inland upland locations, is that the landform and the relative remoteness of sites have been such that developments have proven to be capable of being absorbed into their surroundings without asserting themselves upon transport routes and communities, and without giving rise to adverse consequences for landscape character or producing undesirable cumulative effects. These advantages are difficult to replicate in coastal locations such as that under consideration, due to the concentration of habitation and transport routes around the coast, the potential for increased visibility of such sites across water, leading to the consequent importance of coastal landforms which might otherwise be regarded in themselves as being unremarkable. Accordingly, even modest sized proposals such as that under consideration have the potential to exert and disproportionate influence upon their surroundings, despite best endeavours in terms of the scale and layout of proposals.
Whilst the impacts of the development in landscape and visual terms would be moderated by the contraction of the extent of the scheme and its reduction in overall scale, by virtue of its intended location, it would retain an influence over a range of landscapes, routes and communities, to the detriment of amenity, scenic quality and landscape character, and therefore it is not considered that its diminution in proportion has been capable of overcoming the reasons advanced inr the refusal of the previous proposal. Accordingly, having taken cognisance of the landscape and visual assessment undertaken by the applicants in support of the revised proposal, along with the critique provided by SNH in their consultation response and the additional consultancy advice commissioned by the Council, it is concluded that shortcomings remain with windfarm development at this site, despite those areas which have been improved as a consequence of the revisiting of the scheme. It is therefore appropriate to adhere to the reason for refusal sustained in the case of the last application, with some modification in recognition of the moderation of impacts associated with the current proposals, and to reflect more recent changes in the prevailing policy framework and the landscape advice available. APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 10/00160/PP
Names and Addresses of Representees
In support:
N Manchester, Corran Cottage, Ormsary, Lochgilphead (05.03.10) M Donald. Lochview, Ormsary, Lochgilphead (08.03.10) Landcatch Ltd, Ormsary, Lochgilphead (08.03.10) K Drynan, Kilmaluaig, Ormsary, Lochgilphead (08.03.10) F Drynan, Kilmaluaig, Ormsary, Lochgilphead (08.03.10) C Munroe, Ballieboideach, Ormsary (08.03.10) K Craig Barloiste, Ormsary, Lochgilphead (10.03.10) G Gauld, 19 Wilson Road, Lochgilphead (11.05.10) B Cutler, Roadmans House, Ormsary Road, Lochgilphead (12.05.10) K Stephens, Caberfeidh, Tighnabruaich (29.04.10) D McLeod, Tigh an Eas, West Bank Road, Ardrishaig (14.05.10) D Turner, Brenfield Farm, Ardrishaig (14.05.10) J Laughton, Burnside Steading, Glengilp Road, Ardrishaig (12.05.10) G Stenhouse, Crispie House, Kilfinan, by Tighnabruich (17.05.10) Dr L MacGregor, Springhill, Ormsary Road, Lochgilphead (30.03.10) H Nicol, Allt-Na-Craig House, Ardrishaig (21.05.10) L Carver, 8 Kilmory Road, Lochgilphead (13.05.10) A McArthur, Manager’s House, Ormsary Farm, Lochgilphead (01.06.10) H Unkles, Sandisland, Tayvallich (31.05.10) E and H Thompson The Anchorage, Kilberry Road Tarbert (12.03.10)
In opposition:
R Wilson, Dunaluinn, West Bank Road, Ardrishaig (19.05.10) J Patterson, Westwood, Tayvallich (11.05.10) I Patterson, Westwood, Tayvallich (17.05.10) H Graham, Burnside, Kilberry, Tarbert (12.05.10) W Barr, Duisdale, Lochgilphead (13.05.10) D Morrison, Free Church Manse, Manse Brae, Lochgilphead (13.05.10) A Foyle, 1 Wilson Road, Lochgilphead (12.05.10) J McVean, 31 Fearnoch Park, Lochgilphead (13.05.10) R Cooper, Auchencairn, Inverneill, Lochgilphead (15.05.10) A Peace. Caledonia Court, Ardrishaig (11.05.10) G Webster, Jura View, Tayvalich (15.05.10) K Walker, New Park, Glengilp Road, Ardrishaig (17.05.10) A Davidson, 49 High Bank Park, Lochgilphead (11.05.10) E Sharp, Otterburn, Tighnabruich (17.05.10) J Day, 16 Caledonia Court, Ardrishaig (12.05.10) K Enock, Craigdene, Ardrishaig (14.05.10) S Enock, Craigdene, Ardrishaig (12.05.10) G Atkinson, La Madrugada, Shore Road, Tighnabruich (13.05.10) J Young, 3 Ross Crescent, Lochgilphead (12.05.10) P Angus, 4 Poltalloch Street, Lochgilphead (14.05.10) F Fleming, Sheilean, Lorne Terrace, Lochgilphead (14.05.10) T Callan, Corra, Otter Ferry, Tighnabruich (08.05.10) S Callan, Corra, Otter Ferry, Tighnabruich (08.05.10) J Crawford Brown, Ferguslie, Shore Road, Tighnabruich (01.05.10) Dr and Mrs Carstens, Cuildrynoch House, Carse, by Tarbert (11.05.10) A Hewitt, Craigengower, Tighnabruich (07.05.10) J Dawson, Ferguslie, Shore Road, Tighnabruich (02.05.10) C Crawford, Anfield Cottage, Kilfinan (07.05.10) D Johnston, Heatherfield, Shore Road, Kames (30.04.10) J Johnston, Heatherfield, Shore Road, Kames (30.04.10) M Leech, Corran Farm, Ardlamont, Tighnabruich (02.05.10) N Willis, Otter Estate, Otter House, Kilfinan (undated) Mr and Mrs C Black Albion Villa, Kames, Tighnabruich (02.05.10) A Wyatt, Kilfinan Hotel, Kilfinann (30.04.10) H Wyatt, Kilfinan Hotel, Kilfinann (30.04.10) M Burrell, Glenshee, Tighnabruich (04.05.10) D Pearks, An Darroch, Tighnabruich (04.05.10) L Whitehall, Auchnaskeoch Farmhouse, Kilfinan (04.05.10) C Reader, Auchnaskeoch Farmhouse, Kilfinan (04.05.10) J Heatherington, Brackenbank, Tighnabruich (03.05.10) A Heatherington, Brackenbank, Tighnabruich (03.05.10) A Robson, Ardencraig, Shore Road, Kames (27.04.10) J Buckland 36 Trevi Street, Jindalee, Queensland, Australia (11.03.10) C Girdwood, Sealladh A Bhaigh, Tighnabruich (06.05.10) Mr and Mrs C Harding, Jocks Lodge, Kilfinan (03.05.10) D Gibson, Old Police House, Tighnabruich (07.05.10) M Leech, Corra, Ardlamont, Tighnabruich (02.05.10) A Petrie, Park Cottage, Kilfinan (06.05.10) C Fry, Annfield, Kilfinan (05.05.10) W Sutherland, Drum Cottage, Kilfinan (22.04.10) M Sutherland, Drum Cottage, Kilfinan (22.04.10) N Ferguson, Inveryne Farm, Kilfinan (23.04.10) A Dean, Pinmore Cottage, Whitehouse, Tarbert (20.04.10) P Clark, Glen Caladh, Tighnabruich (29.04.10) G Newton, Ivybank, Tighnabruich (26.04.10) R Alexander, Piermount, Kames (28.04.10) S Allison, Highgate, Tighnabruich (25.04.10) S Harper, 5 Cowal Terrace, Kames, Tighnabruich (27.04.10) E Watson, Ardlamont Ferry, Kames, Tighnabruich (30.04.10) V Lall, Lindsaig Mill, Kilfinan C Lall Lindsaig Mill, Kilfinan K Logan, Benview, Tayinloan, Tarbert (18.04.10) I Logan, Benview, Tayinloan, Tarbert (18.04.10) E Molloy 44 Largiemore Holiday Estate Largiemore Otter Ferry (27.04.10) J Haythornthwaite, 8 Westside Gardens, 6 Partickhill Road, Glasgow (19.05.10) P Rowlands, 16 Blarbuie Road, Lochgilphead (15.05.10) D and B Williams, 5 Walled Garden, Achnaba, Lochgilphead (12.05.10) I Vaughan, Beech Hill, Inverneill, Lochgilphead (19.05.10) D Warden, The Old Smiddy, Kilfinan (23.05.10) K Warden, The Old Smiddy, Kilfinan (23.05.10) Mr and Mrs J Moran, Cairnsmore, Manse Brae, Lochgilphead (17.05.10) V Igo, Beech Hill, Inverneill, Lochgilphead (19.05.10) D & B Williams, 5 Walled Garden, Achnaba, Lochgilphead (12.05.10) D Lyon, Monydrain Cottage, Lochgilphead (10.05.10) B Sutherland, Tigh Na Leven Cottage, Dunmore, Tarbery (17.05.10) M Drysdale, Barmaddy, Tayvallich (17.05.10) M Macpherson, Ardmarnoch Estate, Kilfinan (07.05.10) G Sutherland, Ardmarnoch Estate, Kilfinan (07.05.10) J Macdonald, Mo Neamh Gorm, Millhouse, Tighnabruich (16.05.10) J Doyle, South Lodge, Otter Ferry (18.05.10) M Doyle, South Lodge, Otter Ferry (18.05.10) R Malik, Brackley Villa, Glenburn Road, Ardrishaig (26.05.10) R Beddows, Ardmarnock House, Kilfinan (27.05.10) N McKay, 28 Dun Mor Avenue, Lochgilphead (27.05.10) A MacKay, Tigh-an-Rhuda, Ardrishaig (30.05.10) J Houston, The Lodge, Kilberry (28.05.10) D Warden, The Old Smiddy, Kilfinan (23.05.10) K Warden, The Old Smiddy, Kilfinan (23.05.10) D Sloan-Griffiths, Dunmore Cottage, Kilmory, by Lochgilphead (01.06.10) W Turnbull, Moine Mhor House, Tayvallich (06.06.10) J Porter, Altafern, Kanes, Tighnabruaich (03.06.10)
Note
In addition to the above, three ostensibly fraudulent letters of objection have been received, with the purported author in each case having subsequently confirmed that they were not the originator of the letters of representation in question.