Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals Appeal Decision Notice
T: 01324 696 400 F: 01324 696 444 E: dpea@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Decision by Sinéad Lynch, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers
Planning appeal reference: PPA-270-2099 Site address: Land 240 metres south-east of Balmore Farm, Dounreay, Thurso, KW14 7YB Appeal by Jeffrey Bannerman against the decision by The Highland Council Application for planning permission 12/04399/FUL dated 16 November 2012, refused by notice dated 23 September 2013 The development proposed: Erection of single wind turbine 78 metres to blade tip, 49 metres to hub with 58 metre diameter blades, formation of access track and new road junction along with ancillary electrical switchgear housing. Date of site visit by Reporter: 8 and 9 March 2014
Date of appeal decision: 14 March 2014
Decision
I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.
Reasoning
1. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
2. The development plan for this area comprises the Highland-Wide Local Development Plan 2012 (HwLDP) and the Caithness Local Plan 2002 (in so far as it remains in force). No policies in the Caithness Local Plan have been drawn to my attention.
3. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan, the main issues in this appeal are whether (a) the proposed wind turbine would have an unacceptable landscape or visual impact, including cumulatively with other existing, approved and proposed wind energy developments and (b) whether it would have any other unacceptable environmental effects.
4. The site falls within an area covered by Policy 36: wider countryside, which clearly states that renewable energy development proposals are to be assessed against the renewable energy policies, the non-statutory Highland Renewable Energy Strategy,
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX 557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a
PPA-270-2099 2
and where appropriate Onshore Wind Energy: Supplementary Guidance. All proposals should still accord with the other general policies of the Plan.
5. Policy 57 of the HwLDP which states that all development proposals will be assessed taking into account the level of importance and type of heritage features, the form and scale of the development, and any impact on the feature and its setting, in the context of the policy framework set out at appendix 2 of the plan. Policy 28 sets out the commitment to sustainable design and development, supporting developments which will promote and enhance the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the people of Highland. Developments are assessed based on a number of criterion. Policy 61 sets out requirements in relation to landscape. New developments should be designed to reflect the landscape characteristics and special qualities identified in the landscape character assessment of the area in which they are proposed, including appropriate scale, form, pattern and construction materials, as well as the potential cumulative effect of developments where this may be an issue.
6. Renewable energy developments are addressed at Policy 67 of the HwLDP. In summary, the policy states that the council will support proposals where it is satisfied that they are located, sited and designed such that they will not be significantly detrimental overall, either individually or cumulatively with other developments. There are a number of criteria against which proposals will be assessed, these include the determining issues.
7. The Highland Renewable Energy Strategy has been superseded by the HwLDP
8. Onshore Wind Energy (interim March 2012) provides non-statutory guidance for large wind farm proposals, and is primarily aimed at large scale developments of 20MW in size. I agree that given the 78 metre overall height of the proposed turbine, it can be considered large. The proposed turbine at Balmore lies in a “Stage 3 Area of Search” as set out in the guidance, where turbines are considered acceptable subject to meeting impact –based criteria.
Impact on landscape character
9. The proposed turbine would have a hub height of 49 metres, a height to blade tip of 78 metres and a blade diameter of 58 metres. The capacity of the generator would be 900 kilowatts. The turbine is proposed to be located approximately 240 metres south-east of Balmore Farm, which lies to the south of the A836. The closest settlement to the proposed turbine is Reay at approximately 5 kilometres. Thurso is some 9 kilometres to the east.
10. The appeal site lies within the Caithness and Sutherland Landscape Character Assessment Mixed Agricultural Settlement (14) area, as defined by SNH in 2002 in Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. The key characteristics of mixed agricultural settlements (14) are as follows:
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a
PPA-270-2099 3
wide open landscape dominated by horizontal emphasis; extremely exposed landscape; gently sloping landform; land rising to create hills and dips to create basins; a complex visual composition with no obvious hierarchy, consisting of skyline, power lines, field boundaries and roads; historic features are located throughout in hills and glens, representing a history of cultural change; mixed evenly dispersed land use, with no clear division between different townships or areas.
11. The proposed turbine is also located in close proximity to a number of other landscape character areas, being long beaches, dunes and links, and open intensive farmland. Each of those character areas has defined characteristics.
12. The landscape in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site is relatively in accordance with the defined characteristics of LCA 14. The land slopes down to the sea to the north, and rises gently to the moor to the south. Balmore Farm sits in an exposed flat area of cultivated farmland to the north and south of the A836. The turbine is proposed to be located to the south east of the existing Balmore farm buildings, south of the A836, in an exposed field with no trees, shrubs or built elements available for screening. The only other vertical elements currently in the landscape are the electricity pylons adjacent to the site, and the operational wind farms at Forrs and Baillie to the north-east and south of the proposed turbine respectively.
13. The proposed turbine would be substantially higher than any other landscape features in its vicinity, excluding built and consented elements. I consider that it would overwhelm or significantly alter the landscape of its immediate surroundings and would have a detrimental effect on the overall character of the Mixed Agricultural Settlement LCA. In terms of the wider landscape setting, I accept that the turbine would have a relatively minor impact on landscape character.
14. Single wind turbines of some 78 metres in height are not common elements in this landscape. The predominant form of energy related development is large turbines within wind farms, forming distinct, cohesive and defined features in the landscape. I therefore conclude that the proposed turbine at Balmore Farm would, as a single isolated element, have a detrimental effect on landscape character. As a result, the turbine would be contrary to policies 57 and 61of HwLDP.
Visual impact
15. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) as set out by the appellant illustrates the visibility of the turbine within a 20 kilometre radius of the site. The turbine would be theoretically visible to varying degrees within the ZTV. Overall, the appellant concludes that the visual impact of the proposed turbine would be limited to a very small area, not harmful and only slightly different to that which exists now. The council consider that the visual impacts within the 5-6 kilometre radiuses may be significant and adverse.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a
PPA-270-2099 4
16. The photomontages produced by the appellant illustrate the existing and consented turbines and wind farms to the north-east and south of the proposed turbine. Wind turbines are a common sight in the vicinity. I agree with the appellant that the overall impact from the selected viewpoints would be minor / moderate.
17. However, I find that the full scale of the turbine would be visible when travelling west or east on the A836. The landscape is wide and open, and there is little or no potential for screening the proposed turbine. The parties disagree as to the extent of the impact on travellers on this road. SNH, in their submission, have made reference to concerns regarding cumulative and cumulative sequential impacts on users of the A836 which is the north coast tourist route. The predominant form of energy-related development in the area is of clusters of turbines in distinct groups. Cumulative and sequential views of these clusters at Forrs and Baillie Hill are available from the A836 when travelling east and west. The proposed turbine at Balmore would not be read as part of either cluster, rather I consider that the turbine would be perceived as a large isolated vertical element unrelated to other similar elements in the visual realm. The advice contained in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is that the location of turbines should be considered carefully to ensure that landscape and visual impact is minimised. Policy 67 of HwLDP has a similar requirement.
18. At present, the existing wind turbines within the immediate 2 – 5 kilometre ZTV of the proposed development are clustered and visually distinct from each other, and do not give rise to unacceptable cumulative visual impacts. The introduction of a similar size single turbine, in a flat wide open setting with no screening would, in my opinion, create an unacceptable visual link between the windfarms where none currently exists.
19. I consider that the proposed turbine would lead to an unacceptable visual impact from the A836 and therefore would not be in accordance with either SPP or policy 67 of HwLDP. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of other features in the area including the Dounreay power station, the radar station, pylons and existing and proposed turbines and wind farms including the single turbine consented at Hill of Lybster. None of these features would impact visually on the A836 or the adjoining open farmland to the extent of the proposed turbine.
Cumulative impact
20. I consider that the most obvious cumulative visual impact would be with the similarly sized adjacent turbines on the operational wind farms at Forrs and Baillie Hill, with Shebster wind farm which is currently in the planning process and with the consented but not constructed single turbine at Hill of Lybster.
21. In terms of cumulative landscape impact I consider that this would be confined to turbines within the same Mixed Agricultural Settlement LCA as the appeal site. I give less weight to the proposed turbines, as they might not receive planning
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a
PPA-270-2099 5
permission, but I am not persuaded that the overall cumulative impact on the landscape character of the area would be acceptable.
22. In this instance, the large windfarms in the ZTV are those operational at Forrs and Baillie Hill, and at Shebster which is in the planning process. The proposed turbine at Balmore would give rise to cumulative visual impacts, and would lead to a visual coalescence of turbines where none currently exists.
23. I find the turbine proposed at Balmore Farm cannot be satisfactorily accommodated. It would not form part of the distinct grouping of turbines at the wind farms at Forrs and Baille Hill and potentially at Shebster, and I find that the appeal site is located in an LCA which does not have the capacity to accommodate a single turbine of the height proposed without resulting in unacceptable visual and landscape impacts. Based on my observations during my site visit, sequential views from roads such as the A83 and the local road network would be cumulative and unacceptable.
Other environmental effects
24. The site is not affected by international or national heritage designations. The site is not within an area of significant protection, nor is it in the green belt. It is not within a special landscape area or located on prime agricultural land. The proposal would not have a negative impact on nature conservation interests, trees and woodland, the historic environment, peat and soil or on the water environment. There is no evidence of an impact on protected species, on countryside birds, on tourism, on transmitting or receiving signals, on aviation or on radar and defence. All parties agree that transport issues could be acceptable subject to appropriate conditions.
25. In addition to the issues I have discussed above, the environmental statement submitted by the appellant covers the following matters: ecology and ornithology; hydrology, hydrogeology and geology; noise assessment; shadow flicker; and safety and infrastructure. It advises that there are no adverse impacts in relation to these matters that could not be mitigated by conditions. From the evidence, I find no reason to disagree with these conclusions.
Other matters
26. The appellant has drawn attention to a consented turbine at Hill of Lybster, which is of a similar size as that proposed at Balmore. The appellant was unaware of the planning application (13/01191/FUL) for this turbine which was submitted and determined during the determination process for the subject turbine. Council have confirmed in their response to the grounds of this appeal that Members were aware of the application at Hill of Lybster at the time of both the committee site visit and the committee meeting. In reaching my decision I have had regard to the potential cumulative landscape and visual impact of the consented turbine at Hill of Lybster.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a
PPA-270-2099 6
27. The appellant feels that the financial viability of the farm at Balmore and the potential economic benefit the proposed turbine could bring to the farm should be a material consideration in the determination of this appeal.
28. Both National Planning Framework 2 and SPP are explicit in their support for the generation of energy from renewable sources. SPP states at paragraph 184 “Development plans should support all scales of development associated with the generation of energy and heat from renewable sources, ensuring that an area's renewable energy potential is realised and optimised in a way that takes account of relevant economic, social, environmental and transport issues and maximises benefits”. The advice in SPP relates to the wider economic benefit (if any) of a proposal, not to the viability of the particular scheme or the individual circumstances of the appellant. It is also qualified in terms of location and potential visual impact. In addition, SPP states that “Planning Authorities should support the development of wind farms at locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed”. The appellant has provided no evidence in relation to this issue, and under these circumstances the financial viability of the particular scheme cannot outweigh the cumulative impact outlined above.
29. There were submissions from third parties made in this appeal process. None of the submissions expressed support for the proposal. The planning issues raised by third parties have been addressed in my reasoning as set out above, particularly in relation to landscape, visual and cumulative impacts, noise and shadow flicker and tourist routes.
30. The appellant has indicated that they believe that the procedural defects they assert took place during the determination of the planning application were unfair and prejudicial to the outcome of the application. These alleged defects relate to the lack of information regarding the now consented turbine at Hill of Lybster and the dissemination of factual information to the committee by officers, both on the site visit and afterwards. The appellant has also expressed concerns regarding the assessment of the landscape and visual impact elements of the application and appeal, and the reasons for refusal. Council has responded to these criticisms. My decision does not rely on the decision-making process of the council, and I have taken account of the consented turbine at Hill of Lybster in reaching my decision.
31. My duty is to consider only the planning merits of the case. I have no remit to assess the council’s administrative or decision making processes and procedures. Should the appellant wish to pursue these matters, a complaint can be made to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). Responsibility for deciding whether or not to investigate complaint rests with the Ombudsman who is entirely independent from the Scottish Government. The SPSO can be contacted at Freepost EH641, Edinburgh EH3 0BR, by telephone on 0800 377 7330 or online at www.spso.org.uk.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a
PPA-270-2099 7
32. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would justify granting planning permission.
33. I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions.
Sinéad Lynch Reporter
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a