010 Issue 5 Wind Energy Response ID Respondent 835 Mr James Stewart 4 Kemnay Community Council Response ID Respondent 5 Mr Bill Pitt 836 Mrs Alison Stewart Mountaineering Council of 860 Mr Michael Morgan 8 Scotland 889 Mr Alan Joyner 15 Mr Richard Morris 890 Ms Sheila Wright 17 Mr James Bayne 928 Gourdon Community Council 24 Ms Dawn Gibbs 938 Dr. Sheila & Marcus Marsh 26 Ms Dawn Gibbs Mr and Mrs James & Louise 29 Mr Marius Anderson 955 Davidson 51 Mrs Rowena MacDougall Catterline, Kinneff & Dunnotar 956 Community Council 63 Mr Andrew Kings 1020 Mr Philip Duffield 72 Mr Mike Davies 1044 Ms Helen Kings 73 Mr John Stevenson 1046 Mr Ken Hood 76 Dr. Edward Hugh Morel 1056 Ms Lynn Simpson 89 Mr Lachlan Rhodes 1077 Mr Kenneth Hood 91 Mr Douglas Traquair 1114 Mr Mark Radford 92 C.P. Vadler 1118 Mr Ian Francis 100 Ms Jan Adler 1122 Ms Anne Mansfield 106 Mr Michael Taylor 1127 RES UK & Ireland Ltd 107 Mrs Donna Taylor Echt & Skene Community 1131 West Coast Energy Ltd 111 Council 1137 Mr Jason Hunt 112 Mr Peter Hales 1140 Mr Steve Wilkes 119 Mr Max Oakes 1141 Ms Diane Goldsworthy 120 Mr George Lumsden 1142 Mr Earnest Hurry 155 Mr John Paul Smith 1162 Frances Cowie 414 Mr William Rawles 1166 Mr and Mrs Douglas Morrison 441 Ms Liz Jones 1203 Mr John Owen 447 Mr David Hayhurst 1207 Ms Julia Martindale 451 M Cawthorne 1214 Ms Lorna Chapman 452 Mr James Cawthorne 1228 Mr Hamish Keddie 477 Mr Kenneth Phin 1232 Mr and Mrs Alan Murray 525 Mr Hugh Falconer 1235 Ms Rachel Shanks 571 Cruden Community Council 1236 Ms Fiona Manson 581 Mr David Morris 1237 Mr Michael Small 622 Mr Paul Scrivin 1239 Mr and Mrs Leslie Reid Mrs Irina Birnie on behalf of the 1243 G. Jones Regional Land Use Strategy 1247 Mrs Burnett-Stuart 638 Pilot 1255 Mearns Community Council 648 Mr David Dunkley 1293 Ms Rosemary McCafferty Mr and Mrs Ian & Rosemary 1309 R. Plumley 668 Nicol 1319 Mr Christopher Rushbridge 678 Alastair Struthers 1326 Ms Carol Bristow 691 Mrs Hilary Ridge 1333 Mr Greig Walker 713 Mr Chris Cullingworth 1340 Fred Olsen Renewables 719 Mrs Kirsteen Cullingworth 1346 Mr Brian Hill 722 Mr Richard Hammock 1360 Banchory Community Council 728 Ms Irene Rowe 1373 Miss Bridget Robinson 742 Mr John Thorogood 1377 Mr Rod McGovern Grampian Microlight Flying 1379 Ms Trudi Hoffmann 807 Club/Insch Airstrip 1384 Ms Caroline Hobbs 818 Ms Lorraine Jones 1393 Mr Edwin Gordon Page 1 of 16
1394 Mr Glen Chaplin 1415 Ms Julia Hunt 1557 Ms Rona Main 1416 Mr David Melhuish 1570 Ms Katherine Martindale 1419 Ms Gena Blaxter 1580 Ms Alison Wilson Marr Community Planning Jones Lang Lasalle on behalf of 1425 Group 1591 Burcote Wind Limited 1427 Ms Rhona Newman 1597 Mr Revor Hodgeson 1428 Mr Ian Gordon 1605 Mr Nick Carroll 1431 Chris Hamlet 1608 Mr Robert Bryce 1433 Chris Hamlet 1616 Mr Jonathan Latimer Crathes, Drumoak & Durris 1621 Dr. C. Chaplin 1434 Community Council 1635 R. B. H. Easter 1435 Ms Annabel Urquhart 1638 Mr Richard Orpwood 1443 Mr Bob McKinney 1639 Mr Richard Dixon 1445 Ms Christine Mechie 1646 Bailies of Bennachie 1447 Ms Laura Martindale 1649 Case Consulting Mr and Ms Tom & Sarah 1655 Ms Wendy Mouser 1450 Robinson 1671 Mr Ray Jowitt 1455 Mr Andrew McCartney 1679 Mr Richard Martindale on behalf of Laurencekirk 1467 Development Trust 1682 Ms Helen Bayne Inverurie Community Council on 1683 Arbuthnott Community Council behalf of Inverurie Community 1684 Baillies of Bennachie 1477 Council 1686 Mrs Lyn Harber 1478 Ms Judith Smit-Haffmans Marnoch and Deveron Valley 1479 S.K. Jackson Protection Group on behalf of 1481 Mr Alexander Spracklen Marnoch and Deveron Valley 1697 Protection Group 1483 GVA on behalf of INFINIS 1698 Mr Jacky Player 1494 Mr Eddie Breen 1496 Ms Margaret Whyte 1703 Mr Andrew Brown 1502 Ms Wendy Breen 1718 Mr James Bayne 1503 Ms Helen Jackson 1744 Mr John L. Eddie 1506 Mr Mark Keighley 1811 Scottish Government 1508 Ms Amanda Truscott 1814 Mearns Community Council 1532 Ms Mary Scott 1819 Bennachie Community Council Glenbervie & District Community 1544 Association 1823 Donside Community Council 1548 Mr Paul Mather 1825 ACSEF 1551 Miss Alice Robinson John Handley Associates Ltd on 1552 behalf of Shell UK Limited
1. Issues The wind energy topic deals with three specific topics: 1. The content of current policy “Supplementary Guidance Rural Development 2 wind farms and medium to large wind turbines” (SG RD2); 2. The Main issue 5 “Wind energy”; and 3. The “Spatial Framework for Wind Energy Development” (referred to throughout as the “Spatial Framework”). In the Main Issues Report Main Issue 5 Wind Energy suggested a revised policy for SG RD2 which incorporates reference to a Strategic Landscape Capacity Assessment (SLCA) as well as to the Spatial Framework.
Page 2 of 16
The Spatial Framework was based on draft advice produced by the Scottish Government which suggested a methodology for the development of such documents, and advised “The process set out in this policy for preparing a spatial framework should be closely followed in order to deliver a consistent approach nationally and to help monitor progress towards Scotland’s renewable energy targets”. This advice was followed, but with the full recognition that there were risks associated with following advice in a draft document. New Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is due to be published in June 2014 and is likely to require modification to both the inputs and outcomes of the study. The Scottish Government notes that the existing SPP should continue to be used until the final SPP is published in June 2014 (1811). Depending on the change required there may be a need for significant change to the Spatial Framework. This does not invalidate the consultation (it has been an excellent means of focus) but may result in significantly different conclusions being presented in the Proposed Local Development Plan. General Views We received both support for and against the wind energy industry, with most commentators expressing negative or heavily conditioned acceptance of wind energy development. Development of wind turbines is observed by some respondents to be causing deep divisions in rural areas with a perception that there are too many losers and insufficient winners (441, 1746). The absence of a coherent national strategy on the location of turbines was noted as a reason to be cautious over a revised policy at this time (525). It was a common view that very strong protection, or even a moratorium, was required to curb the proliferation of wind turbines and protect residents from noise, loss of amenity, landscape impacts and impacts on property values. (1255, 1477, 1570, 1679, 1746). It was noted that turbine developments were divisive to communities and that the whole process was currently biased towards the development industry (441, 525). The future financial burden to the public purse from decommissioning and on-going subsidy was raised, although these are not land use planning matters (477). Impact on the tourism industry was also raised(1393). The economics of the development of the industry was questioned (1608). Some encouragement was taken from the pro-active steps proposed to modify policy (91, 112) but a prevalent view was that the case by case assessment of turbine applications had allowed over- development and landscape compromise (722, 1746) and that large turbines should be stopped (713). It was observed that promoting both living in the countryside and large turbines is a contradiction (1379) and that wind turbines were eroding the character of rural areas. A plea for a proportionate response was made (1478) In support of wind turbines respondents expressed the views that it was a better form of energy generation than alternatives and that there was widespread public support, and urgent need, for renewable energy (119, 678, 1203, 1235, 1340, 1445). Support from national and regional policy was referred to (1340, 1508). Small turbines were seen as a deliverable rural development opportunity, while large turbines had adverse impacts despite the significantly greater contribution that large turbines can make to energy generation targets (955, 1425, 1508). Current policy was thought to restrict wind turbine development, providing too little opportunity for this form of development to the detriment of local communities and making it unlikely that we would achieve the target set in the Strategic Development Plan for 2020 (1340, 1377, 1508, 1548). Calls were made for a separate planning process specifically for wind turbines ( 1142) and 3rd party rights of appeal to overcome deficiencies in the current system (1309). Concern was expressed regarding bias in the tone of the language used in the consultation (1127) The Scale of Wind Energy Development in Aberdeenshire Should be Specified. A number of respondents suggested that the scale of our ambition for wind energy should be the starting point for development of a policy and were concerned that Main Issue 5 did not present this option for debate (92, 889, 1467, 1508) or set limits on the number of wind turbines that should be allowed (441). The starting point should be the Strategic Development Plan target of 100% electricity generated by renewable means and the requirement from this that sites for large turbines of up to 400ha across Aberdeenshire should be identified, even if this does impact on landscape (1649). The existing policy was seen as flawed, because it was allowing turbines to be constructed in a piecemeal manner and in the “wrong” places (1506, 1333) and on the basis of Page 3 of 16
only economic arguments (1467). Some respondents were clear that they would support any measures to restrict wind turbine development (1503). The Existing Policy Context The current policy is considered to be in need of change as it is causing landscape damage and an adverse impact on property values (111, 956).Constraints need to be tightened and a more robust policy provided (1319, 1814). It is not being adhered to and the industrialisation of the countryside does not reflect local feeling in rural areas (890, 956, 1137). The policy is considered vague (956) and methods advocated such as the noise assessment methodology used in the current policy is inadequate and should be based on the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (622). There are also concerns regarding the length of time taken to determine applications and the impact that this has on well being. Cumulative impacts are already at a critical stage and having a dramatic impact on people and property values (107). Concern was voiced that current policy was allowing wind farms by stealth (1228). Current policy was accused of not demonstrating compliance with human and equal rights legislation , and not implementing the Councils own strategy on fuel poverty by promoting an industry that requires subsidisation through increased fuel prices (1415). A comparison between Angus and Aberdeenshire was made to illustrate the different ways in which Government policy could be interpreted and the disproportionate impact of the policy in Aberdeenshire compared to the rest of the country (1467, 1207). There are too many applications already in the system that will continue to have an impact on the wider environment (155) and that Aberdeenshire was saturated (5, 571, 1044, 1056, 1447, 1496). One view was that a revised policy should be introduced immediately (1635) Conversely two respondents suggested that the policy should relate to the existing spatial framework and not the one specifically developed for this plan (1638, 1671). It was further suggested that cumulative impact of turbine developments still to be determined should not be part of any assessment process (1605). Comments were received on procedural issues including identification that an inadequate notification distance for wind turbines was used and insufficient time given for making representations. Consultation with local communities should be mandatory (1142). A 2-3 mile consultation zone for wind turbine applications was suggested (1162) with all within a specified distance notified (greater than the current notification area) (1232) The Preferred Policy Approach While there is support for the amended policy (120, 447 807, 860, 1597, 1682) the approach promoted is thought to not go far enough to protect residents, is too vague, inconsistent, subjective and over-reliant on the Strategic Landscape Capacity Assessment (SLCA) (111, 1046, 1077, 1214, 1255, 1483). It will cause further damage to the landscape, the environment, historic assets and impact on property prices, residents and tourists (1428, 1478, 1746). The criteria used were not considered to be understandable (713). The policy should apply to turbines of all sizes (1056, 1141) although it was also noted that a restrictive policy may lead to larger turbines being proposed (1416). One respondent thought that promoting large turbines should be the preference in policy (1377). A key deliverable from the new policy is that it should promote certainty of outcomes (722, 1040, 1293, 1377, 1494). Some contradiction between this policy and other policies of the plan was noted (24). The policy should identify areas with no capacity for additional turbines (111, 525, 1481) particularly for large turbines in areas of significant protection (4) or otherwise as directed by the SLCA (8, 1346) to provide an appropriate and definitive tool. The assumptions that landscape change is inevitable require to be challenged in some areas (691). Greater weight should be given to cumulative impacts (89, 1503) and risk (1142). There is no definition of what constitutes “local amenity”, ”significant protection” or “public health” adding to the vagueness of the policy (91, 1127, 1137, 1239, 1384). Likewise definitions of what “cumulative impacts" might need to be clarified, perhaps adopting the SLCA study’s definitions of
Page 4 of 16
where cumulative impact is an issue (89, 1293, 1597, 1746). Health is not a hazard of wind turbines recognised in national policy (1127). It provides insufficient protection to residents (1056) Recognition should be given in the policy to the likelihood that the SLCA will be amended in time by making reference to the “current” SLCA (1671). Mitigation of potential impacts on aerodromes TV, Radio and telecom is possible and thus impact on these elements should not be a reason for refusal of a planning application (1127) Reference to other constraints such as “carbon balance”, bats, pipelines, private water supplies, peat deposits, groundwater dependant ecosystems and agricultural land should be included (719, 1140, 1142, 1162, 1243, 1552, 1580). Insufficient protection is given to wildlife and biodiversity (92, 1056) and to the historic environment (1384). Economic viability was also suggested as a constraint (938, 1487). A much greater level of constraint should be provided (928, 742) and the criteria used are incomplete (1118). Impact of ancillary developments, such as borrow pits, should be considered as should the management of forestry and peat wastes that arise from wind turbine development (The policy should be updated to reflect references to SEPA best practice policy and guidance on these issues) (1580). In the revised policy consideration should be given to the infrastructure required to connect wind turbines to the grid (668, 1577). Clarity was requested over the measurement of a 15m high turbine (is it hub or tip height?). In relation to Natura 2000 sites it was felt that a greater level of protection was required around them and modification to the wording of the policy regarding Natura 2000 sites was suggested to bring it into line with the Habitats Regulations; the scope for confusion between this policy and policy SG natural Heritage 1 was highlighted. An addition should be added to the policy to draw a distinction between areas where applications are likely to be supported and those where good siting and design will be required (1703). Some respondents suggested that the policy should be more prescriptive and that there should be an absolute presumption against wind turbine development in Areas of Significant Protection. If the limitations of the SLCA are to be applied then this may go a long way towards addressing concerns (111, 414, 1020, 668). Two respondents suggested that potential developers should be obliged to inform all those within the separation zone before a planning application was submitted (1166, 1496) One respondent suggested that the application of a policy was entirely inappropriate and that decisions on the acceptability or otherwise of proposals should be determined on a case by case basis (through an Environmental Impact Assessment process that balances significant effects against each other, including impact on domestic amenity). In any case significant change could be expected in the final publication of the SPP (1127). This idea of supporting wind turbine applications on a case by case approach and by a full assessment of planning issues at a local level was also favoured by other commentators (1207, 1481, 1508, 1570, 1679). One commentator identified that the existence of a framework should not automate decisions (1679). One responded claimed the policy was contrary to the draft SPP insofar that it did not support development of wind turbines at locations where impacts can be addressed and did not comply with the Scottish Government’s objectives to maximise renewable energy production. It was suggested that the policy should allow for some form of financial compensation for losses incurred on property value or amenity (1141, 1487, 1566). It was noted that a permissive policy precluded housing development in the countryside and had adverse impacts of noise and traffic during construction (1140). The human rights implications of a policy that discriminated against those living in rural areas was noted (1140, 1414). Specific support for community based enterprises was called for (1568). Scottish enterprise supports the general approach of the policy but requests careful consideration of the wording to ensure that it does not preclude equipment associated with off-shore wind energy (1557, 1825) The Reasonable Alternative Page 5 of 16
An even more stringent approach to policy would be counter to national climate change policy and the climate change objectives of the plan (1127). It would be unreasonable to exclude turbines from areas where they can be accommodated by careful siting and design (1340) A suggestion was made that policy should concentrate on extending existing groups of turbines (1532, 1605) or that policy should favour large, more efficient, turbines (1377). Decommissioning Concern was expressed over the legacy of the turbines erected unless some form of guarantee for decommissioning was put in place (648, 889, 1744). The use of bonds was suggested (1393). Repeat Applications Concern was voiced by a significant number of respondents concerning the way that developers were able to return with slightly different proposals after having received refusal of a proposal, leading to prolonged uncertainty and anguish for affected parties (26, 890, 1044, 1232, 1379, 1236, 1237). The spatial framework was seen as a means of introducing certainty that might avoid such an eventuality (1236). Surcharging with an additional fee or levy for such proposals was suggested as a means of recouping the public costs of reassessment (1239, 1502). The Council was asked to provide guidance for such circumstances (1236). Areas that should be either “Areas of Significant Protection” or “Areas where Planning Constraints are Less Significant” It was common for respondents to advise that an area had reached a capacity for wind turbines and should have no more (i.e. move from being an area where planning constraints are less significant to become an area of significant protection) or limits should be placed on turbine development (i.e. move from areas where turbines are likely to be supported to areas where planning constraints are less significant). These areas include: • Drumlithie (73); • The area around Touks, Stonehaven (76); • Fetteresson Forest , Cairn ‘o’ Mount, Drumtochty and Strathfinella Hill, (1814,1255, 1467, 1544, 1635); • East of the A92 through Catterline, Kinneff & Dunnotar Community Council area (956); • Bennachie, Suie Hill, the Coreen Hills and the Tap’o’Noth due to their iconic stature and recreational uses (525, 742, 807, 1114, 1326, 1373, 1431, 1433, 1450, 1551, 1646, 1684 1819); • Pitcaple (1455); • The area around Sauchen and Cluny (due to its environmental quality and impact on quality of life) (1046, 1077); • The vista north and west from the Glens of Foundland(1393), • Drumblade, Ythanwells and Largue area as these are settlements and suffer from over dominance from the Glens of Foundland (713, 1207, 1394, 1428, 1479, 1481, 1570, 1621, 1683); • Cuminestown and New Deer (on the basis of previous decisions by the Scottish Government) (955); • Berefold area because of the concentration of development (1616); • Whiterashes and Hattoncrook as they are settlements (1419); • The Devron Valley as it is attractive and unspoiled (1247, 1435, 1655, 1697, 1698); • Kirkton of Alvah (as it is a settlement) (17); and • Peterhead to Cruden Bay, including the area at Aldie and Bissethill due to proximity to RAF Buchan and potential impact on Bullers of Buchan SPA (571, 1140). These areas are shown approximately on the following figure:
Figure 1 Proposed additions to the areas of significant protection within the Wind Energy Spatial Framework
Page 6 of 16
A number of respondents thought that the Strategic Framework was too lax and allowed development in areas where the Strategic Landscape Capacity Assessment (SLCA) noted there was no further capacity for wind turbines and that in such areas there should be a presumption against wind turbine development and they should be named accordingly (1122, 1235, 394). Separation Distances and Areas of Significant Protection Associated with Villages The 2.5km exclusion zone around settlements promoted at this time by the Scottish Government was welcomed (622, 668, 1141, 1162, 1232, 1236, 1638) as a minimum distance although some respondents suggested greater or lesser distances (678, 955 ,1046, 1077, 1214, 1443, 1597). 20 times the height of the turbine was suggested as an alternative (1384, 1696, 1746). A variety of justifications were given for this, including most commonly health and well being and preservation of domestic amenity. There was the suggestion that this should be implemented immediately (100). The fact that this was just a guideline and could be ignored by decision makers was highlighted (92, 451, 452, 1293).
Page 7 of 16
A significant number of respondents made the point that the exclusion distance should relate to all residential buildings in the countryside and that not to do this would be contrary to human rights and equalities regulations (29, 525, 713, 1140, 1142 1239, 1243, 1247, 1379, 1415, 1502, 1638, 1789). Suggestions were made for lesser distances to domestic properties (91, 414, 728, 1443). Other views confirmed the opinion that it should be restricted just to settlements (1122, 1235) Contrary views were expressed regarding the impacts of topography on the actual effect on a settlement and claiming that inclusion of such a distance would be premature prior to the statement of National policy expected in Scottish Planning Policy (1483, 1235, 1340, 1377, 1425, 1532, 1649 ). Any distance should remain just a recommendation for evaluation of impacts on a case by case basis rather than a matter of policy (1127, 1508) There was considerable debate on the nature of “settlement” and how this should be defined (570, 1140, 1237, 1293, 1679), with the use of settlements identified in the Local Development Plan being criticised as unfair (1207). It was suggested that the settlements listed in appendix 1 of SG RD2 should be included (1443). Drumblade, Largue, Kirkton of Alvah, Whiterashes, Hattoncrook, Berefold and Greenness were all proposed as “villages” (713, 1207, 1394, 1428, 1479, 1481, 1419, 1570, 1616, 1621, 1683, 1686) with a variety of definitions being proposed including having an urban character through street lighting and pavements through to being a dispersed but cohesive community. Some respondents agreed that only settlements included in Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan should be included (1532, 1639). One respondent suggested that for clarity the settlements should be listed (111). One respondent queried whether settlements in Moray had been buffered (51) The Spatial Framework Despite being criticised as hard to read (26, 955, 1340, 1427, 1431, 1433, 1483), insufficiently detailed (1635), immediately out of date (414, 1671,1638), and in need of revision once SPP is published (1127, 1340, 1591, 1703), the Council was commended for producing the framework, which was identified as providing an accurate reflection of the constraints and giving vital clarity and significant protection to large areas (72, 91, 956, 1020,1040, 1162, 1236, 1239, 1635,1671, 1703). The urgent need for such a document was stressed (106) although some stated that it was overdue and much needed (835, 836, 1506). Many calls were made for it to be adopted in full (63, 451, 452, 1237, 1293, 1360, 1494). The criticism was made that its findings could be overruled by elected members (1309, 1718). Not all voices supported the creation of the Spatial Framework, with one respondent noting that it was just the view of one landscape architect (1340). Specific public consultation on the SLCA was suggested (581, 1131, 1340) with one respondent unable to support the framework as they had no confidence in how the areas were identified (1434) The protection afforded to peat bogs in the spatial framework was welcomed (1243). Modification was suggested to take full account of the views expressed by SNH in the SLCA (111, 451, 452, 1502, 1697). A number of respondents highlighted an apparent anomaly between the SLCA and the Spatial Framework where the SLCA identified no capacity for wind turbines yet the Spatial Framework had identified the area as an area where turbines might be allowed subject to siting and design issues. (1483, 1655, 1703, 1823) Sport Scotland welcomed the consideration of long distance routes in the spatial framework and asks that the council ensures all relevant sports interests have been engaged with (818). Additional constraints were proposed to be added to the spatial framework, including pipeline consultation zones (1552) and existing and consented turbines (1340). One respondent claimed that the framework was flawed as it did not look at the bigger picture and the total level of constraint across Aberdeenshire (1393). Another criticised the framework for considering proximity to nature conservation sites such as SSSI’s (1508). It was noted that the best places for wind turbines coincided with the best places for expansion of the national forest (638). Clarification was provided that draft SPP did not presume that areas of significant protection would be areas where there would be no wind turbines and the final SPP may result in a different set of criteria having to be used (1127, 1340). In this context changes to the key associated with the
Page 8 of 16
spatial framework map were suggested to reflect that they were areas where developments should be assessed against the criteria of the plan. (1703) Criticisms were raised that the Spatial Framework was a generalised and basic approach to the issue which was simplistic and inappropriate, especially in the context of cumulative impacts, which did not protect the environment and the integrity of Natura 2000 sites. Additional work was required by the Council to do this (1309, 1478, 1703). Specific identification of the areas where cumulative impacts require careful consideration was suggested (1425). More accurate mapping was required to include boundary edge effects and it was suggested that “areas of significant protection” should be amalgamated with the areas where planning constraints are less significant to more accurately align with the current (2010) SPP (1697). Concern was expressed that mapping of areas where turbines were likely to be accepted would target development to these areas, creating a wind farm by stealth (1616) and it would be better to call these areas “areas where there are no significant constraints” (1207,1679). Some parties thought that the Spatial Framework was too restrictive, particularly in Formartine and Buchan where an industrialised landscape has already been created (15) and that aesthetic objections to turbines were over emphasised. The claim was made that the Spatial Framework was not fit for purpose as the underlying SLCA was flawed, insofar that it did not take into account National Policy and contained no compromise to allow more turbines in areas with no or low capacity so as to help to meet the national targets (581, 1131); future wind turbine developments were not recognised (1443). Criticism was raised that as the assessment was based on value judgements as to the visual sensitivity and capacity of the landscape it is not neutral, but biased in favour of landscape conservation and against wind turbine developments, failing to recognise the temporary nature of wind turbines. There was thought to be no sound basis for the objector view that the landscape is at capacity (1340). The areas where wind turbines would be supported are inappropriate due to the density of development in these areas, existing development activity and aviation interests, and as such Moorland landscape types should be targeted for major wind farm development as the existing pattern of development disproves assertions that they have no intrinsic capacity (581). Further, it was suggested that while the framework is the right approach the constraint set that it uses is still under consideration by the Scottish Government and significant changes may occur. It is in effect premature (1131). Existing designations were argued to provide sufficient protection and a case by case approach should be implemented (1639) Areas where turbines would be allowed should be identified, particularly where it maximised community benefits (1532, 1605, 1639). Multiple frameworks should be produced to reflect acceptability on the basis of turbine size (51, 1703).
2. Action It is clear that the issue of wind turbines is an emotive one with strongly held views on both sides. It is to our credit that of the 152 representations received only one was concerned that the tone of the Main issues Report text had been coloured to deliver a desired outcome. The Planning Service is charged with making recommendations to implement national and regional policy, and to promote good planning. General Comments It would be inconsistent with national policy and good planning to introduce a moratorium on turbine development in Aberdeenshire Council, but the scope of the LDP policy may have a very significant impact on the Council’s assessment of proposed wind turbines.. The standards that the Council accepts for impacts on noise, loss of amenity and landscape impacts would all influence both the scale and number of applications that should be permitted, and allow a proportionate response to be made. It should be noted that property values are not considered to be a material planning consideration . There is no scope for compensation to be paid for loss of property value as part of the planning system, although this impact may influence the degree of impact accepted by the Council as will views taken by members on the impact on the tourism value of the area. Page 9 of 16
The perceived bias towards the development industry observed by some respondents in current policy is a direct result of national policy on this topic and is likely to persist for the foreseeable future. Likewise landowners have the right to submit planning applications and have their proposal considered on the merits of the case, informed by the content of the development plan and other material considerations. The proposition that the current policy unnecessarily restricts turbine development is not accepted. Issues of the economics of wind turbine development are not a matter for the land use planning system, but potential unintended consequences of dereliction and abandonment of turbines is a legitimate concern. While dissatisfaction with the planning system as a tool for determining wind turbine applications is noted it is difficult to see what alternative could be introduced to resolve the deficiencies; another process is likely to have similar flaws. The Scale of Wind Energy Development in Aberdeenshire It would be misleading to put an absolute scale on the development of the wind energy industry in Aberdeenshire as National policy does not provide any form of apportionment between different Planning Authorities in this regard. There may be very good reasons why Aberdeenshire should or should not accept a proportion of the total target number of turbines that would be required to serve Scotland and the setting of a local target would ignore the national requirement. The Strategic Development Plan target of 100% of electricity from renewable sources provides no indication of the scale of the total that should be made up from wind turbines as opposed to other renewable sources. In this case it is appropriate to consider constraints on the development of the industry as being the main factor that determines how many turbines would contribute to this 100% total; If landscape or other issues limit turbine development then active consideration will have to be made of alternative sources to achieve the 100% target. Such issues are impossible to evaluate within the context of the development plan. However, it is a valid point of debate whether large turbines should be “preferred” by policy as these are significantly more efficient and may be being constrained due to cumulative impacts from smaller turbines. If the only purpose of a wind energy policy was to maximise energy production then a presumption in favour of large turbines would logically follow. However, turbines of all sizes also have a significant role in economic development, providing a long term guaranteed income to sustain other rural industries. Restricting the size of turbines to only large sizes would remove opportunities for small and medium sized enterprises to avail themselves of the current economic opportunities. The Existing Policy Context It is important to distinguish between failings in the current policy and dissatisfaction with the results. The current policy is neither vague or based on inadequate methods. It provides an appropriate level of control to achieve the support for the industry required by National Policy. However, a key element of the issue is whether Aberdeenshire’s interpretation of National Policy should be changed in the light of and the comments received on the resulting impacts on landscape and amenity. Issues raised regarding notification and consultation, the length of time required to determine planning applications, and on speed of revision of the policy are dependant on a range of factors which the Local Development Plan cannot address. It is not clear how the current policy does not meet human rights legislation; there is no active discrimination against any single groups through the application of the current policy. There is no logic to relating a revised policy to the existing spatial framework (Planning Advice 1/2009 Broad areas of search for wind farms), as this was found to be wanting by the Examination into the 2012 Local Development Plan. Likewise it remains a prudent approach to consider impact of proposed turbines as well as those that have been approved and / or built. The Preferred Policy Approach It is clear that there is an overwhelming weight of opinion that the preferred policy approach is not likely to address the issues of concern to many respondents. Modifications to the policy would be Page 10 of 16
required to significantly reduce impacts on landscape and residential amenity (and by inference impacts on property values and other economic assets). This is probably best achieved by revising the standards used and providing a set interpretation of areas where there is remaining capacity without unacceptable cumulative impacts (as proposed by the SLCA, and incorporated into the revised policy). We note that many respondents referred to the issue of certainty of outcome within their submissions and the revised rules aim to increase levels of certainty. It remains appropriate to provide caveats to guarantee health and safety and telecoms quality (otherwise there is no reason for developers to seek to mitigate these impacts). Other suggestions for additional constraints to be added to the policy are unnecessary as all are already covered by other policies in the plan, and the plan must always be complied with in full. Additional policies are proposed to protect carbon sinks such as peat-lands, but protection of “groundwater dependant ecosystems” would seem to be an onerous level of protection that is well beyond the Natural Heritage policies of the plan. Comparison against these policies is the appropriate test in this regard. Economic viability is not a valid land use planning consideration. Likewise ancillary developments and associated infrastructure would be subject to their own consent processes and refusal of a wind turbine development should not be dependant on the acceptability of a distant sub-station. Finally it is true that within land use planning there will be conflicts between different potential land uses, such as development in the countryside and wind turbine development. It remains a key element of the issue as to what the objectives are for rural development in Aberdeenshire’s Countryside; promotion of a dispersed settlement pattern or promotion of major economic development activities. It would seem that the two could be incompatible. We do not agree with Scottish Natural Heritage that specific consideration is required of impacts on and adjacent to Natura 2000 sites as the existing Natural Heritage policy provides adequate protection. It would be inappropriate within the wind turbine policy to make premature judgements about the potential impacts on species important to Natura 2000 sites (such as geese) that may be present on any land many miles away from the designation. While we await the publication of SPP in June 2012, and note that change can be anticipated at this time, the draft SPP is clear that “significant protection” cannot be equivalent to a localised moratorium on turbine development. A higher tier of constraint (National Scenic Areas, Wild land, National Parks) exists reflecting Ministers views on these matters. We would agree that the SCLA is a very important and useful tool in identifying the limitations that should be placed on wind turbines. We cannot agree that we should not have any policy on wind turbines at all. “Case by case” consideration is required for all planning applications and a policy is necessary to provide a framework for identifying the key issues that will be considered and the thresholds that need to be achieved. The preferred policy option through a spatial strategy and prescriptive measures provides greater certainty for developers and communities. We do not agree that the preferred policy is contrary to national policy insofar as the Scottish Government has not placed any form of quota on Aberdeenshire Council to provide its share of wind turbines for Scotland. Likewise SPP is clear that there are constraints to wind farm development, as expressed in the proposed policy, and we are confident that the proposed policy will promote development in areas where impacts either do not occur or can be mitigated. Human rights impacts of the policy could result from applying the spatial framework within the policy. We address this below. In addition the planning system is unable to provide support for specific proposals based on the characteristics of the applicant, such as whether they are a community group or not. The Reasonable Alternative Objection to an even stronger policy approach than is suggested by the preferred policy is noted. A revised approach that permits extension to existing turbine groups or prefers large turbines has some attraction but is currently not favoured as it does not embrace opportunities to spread the economic benefits of wind turbine development widely to other areas and other landowners. It also may negate the arguments that resulted in the original turbines being deemed acceptable.
Page 11 of 16
Decommissioning Decommissioning is an important issue acknowledged by the revised policy. This could be strengthened by noting the need to lodge a financial bond to secure the costs of dismantling the turbine. Decommissioning costs are very modest in comparison to the scale of investment in the turbines themselves or the revenues that they can generate for the owner. There is no evidence that a requirement for a decommissioning bond has resulted in wind turbine developments from being viable, but their preparation has resulted in delays to consents being issued and the same objective can be achieved through the use of conditions. Repeat Applications There is no scope in law to limit the number of times an applicant can submit planning applications Areas that should be either “Areas of Significant Protection” or “Areas where Planning Constraints are Less Significant” Elevation of areas identified in the spatial framework from areas where turbines are likely to be supported to areas where planning constraints are less significant has only been identified in four places ( Catterline ,Whiterashes and Hattoncrook, Cuminestown and New Deer, and Berefold). It is important to establish the criteria by which these changes are proposed and challenge the framework on the basis of the wider principles raised. Of these the argument that Whiterashes and Hattoncrook should be included in a “higher level” of policy constraint is that they are “villages”. This is a principle that is discussed in the next section. Areas at Catterline, Cuminestown and New Deer, and Berefold are much more difficult to redefine as it is as much a perception by the residents that the area is at capacity or that the dispersed community represents a settlement that leads them to wish to have their area given protection. These are very dangerous rules to apply in so far that it may contradict the findings of the SLCA or be unsupportable by any evidence base that they are in fact a settlement. A number of additional proposals were made to re-classifiy areas identified as where “planning constraints are less significant” to the more restrictive category of “areas of significant protection”. In the majority of the areas proposed to us the SLCS identifies only scope for very small turbines. This includes areas around Fetteresso Forest , Cairn ‘o’ Mount, Drumtochty and Strathfinella Hill and Bennachie, Suie Hill, the Coreen Hills and the Tap’o’Noth. As such the communities in these areas already have significant protection from major turbine developments. The exception to this is the area of Drumblade, Ythanwells and Largue where the SLCS identifies some very limited capacity for wind turbine development . In order to be internally consistent and defensible in the face of National Policy no further change is proposed.
Areas where only small turbines are permitted by the SLCA are shown in figure 2 below:
Figure 2 Areas where only small turbines are permitted (SLCA 2014)
Page 12 of 16
Separation Distances and Areas of Significant Protection Afforded to Villages Recognising that there is some debate at this time regarding the 2.5km “exclusion zone” around settlements as contained in draft Scottish Planning Policy, this is a nationally applied standard and the justification for departing from this is very limited. We acknowledge that this would seem to be an arbitrary distance but also observe that the proposed policy allows an argument to be made by developers that the exclusion should not apply due to the siting of the proposal, its design or proposed mitigation. Because of this caveat we believe that there are there are no potential human rights issues associated with such a policy. To be identified as a village is clearly a measure of comfort that some communities might wish to have. No consistent definition of a village has been applied to the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan, and it might be appropriate to identify a set of criteria that can be fairly applied across Aberdeenshire to identify settlements that are not currently in the Local Development Plan (as they have no development allocations). The definition suggested by one respondent (that a settlement should have the pavements, street lighting and facilities (hall, church, shop) that give them a settled feel) could be used, or alternatives based on size could also be employed. The Spatial Framework The support given for the framework is welcomed, even if there seems to be a basic misunderstanding surrounding the level of protection that the framework provides. In essence it is a reflection of existing constraints, but as noted in the proposed policy, it can be overruled by application of the policy, whether it is “an area identified as being an area where turbines are likely to be supported”, or “an area of significant protection”. Adoption of the spatial framework in full as a clear statement of policy which could not be altered by a detailed assessment of impacts would not be an appropriate response, or be in line with the draft SPP. Further consultation on the content of the Framework is not seen as being necessary.
Page 13 of 16
The misunderstanding of the role of the SLCA in development of the framework is also noted. Areas “where the cumulative impact of existing and consented wind farms limits further development (including areas where landscape capacity or similar studies indicate that carrying capacity for wind farms has been reached and further wind farms would have detrimental impact)” are deemed to be “areas of significant protection”. Areas where there is no intrinsic capacity within the landscape for significant wind turbines (and NOT as a result of existing wind turbine development) are classed as “land falling within the high or medium sensitivity categories in landscape capacity studies” and are treated as areas where planning constraints are less significant. This is a specific instruction within draft Scottish Planning Policy. Cumulative impact areas are shown by figure 3 below: Figure 3 areas where cumulative impacts limit wind turbine development (SLCA2014)
We are content that all the appropriate constraints were considered in the framework. No buffer areas have been drawn around natural heritage sites. It was not possible to draw such boundaries around Natura 2000 sites despite consultation with responsible authorities. For example geese do not fly on the same line consistently and identification of goose height at any point on a trajectory between possible feeding grounds and roosting grounds becomes a matter of speculation. It is inappropriate for Aberdeenshire Council to undertake further work to identify potential cumulative impacts on Natura 20000 sites. Any such impacts would be dependant on the nature of specific proposals and more suited to Appropriate Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment of individual applications. Likewise the introduction of a fourth tier within the framework specifically referencing areas where cumulative impacts require greater consideration ( essentially figure 2
Page 14 of 16
above) or to highlight “ boundary effects” is not within the scope of draft SPP and is unlikely to add significantly to the decision making framework. The coincidence of land suitable for the national forest and areas where wind farms are likely to be supported is a reflection of the level of constraint in these areas and emphasises the importance of documents such as the regional land use strategy in reconciling competing land uses such as these. It is important to remember the counter view; that the Spatial Framework is thought by some to be too restrictive, did not reflect national policy, and that aesthetic objections have been over emphasised. We recognise that the Scottish Government has considerable commitment to wind energy but disagree that the framework and policy do not contribute towards this policy. The level of constraint identified by the Framework is appropriate but, while largely based on empirical data this element of the wind energy framework cannot be entirely neutral. The judgement of when a landscape becomes a “landscape of windfarms” rather than a “landscape with wind turbines” is a matter of judgement. However, the Strategic Landscape Capacity Assessment (SLCA ) was undertaken independently with significant professional rigour, and was underwritten by SNH who have assessed it as competent. With the extensive impact on amenity and sense of place that very large turbines can have we do not think it appropriate to promote areas where there is already cumulative impact for additional development. We would agree that existing rural development constrains much of Aberdeenshire from making a significant additional contribution to the National and Regional targets and there may be merit in “sacrificing” an upland moorland area to major wind turbine development to achieve these objectives. One area that could be considered is the area south of Glen Dye, in Kincardine and Mearns / Marr but to do so would sacrifice significant tourism potential and cannot be guaranteed as deliverable. It is not a course of action that we can support at this time. Conclusion To summarise, wind turbine development remains an emotive subject. While the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy Development has significant merit it does not alone provide a definitive map based policy and an approach based on the case by case assessment of each proposal will continue to be required. It provides significant clarity as to the extent of constraints to wind energy developments but will have to be amended in the light of final Scottish Planning Policy (to be published in June 2014), and any decisions taken by the Council over the character of a “settlement” in Aberdeenshire. The Strategic Landscape Capacity Assessment is a very useful and defensible tool to use, but because it was undertaken at a strategic level it cannot be used as a definitive rule against which wind turbine proposals should be judged. It provides a significant measure of agreed constraint and capacity across Aberdeenshire, but it will always be possible to argue that a specific proposal does not breach the environmental limits that it sets. On the basis of the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy Development it can be demonstrated that Aberdeenshire can accommodate some more of the National requirement, but this contribution is limited by amenity and landscape impacts and other authorities should shoulder the bulk of the remaining National requirement. The Strategic Cumulative Landscape Assessment strikes the appropriate balance in consideration of large and small turbines. It assists in judgements over balancing the energy generation benefits of the largest proposals with the wider impact that they have on landscape and amenity, and the loss of opportunity for “small” landowners to benefit from the industry . It is appropriate to reference it within the policy. Basing a modified policy on the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy Development and the Strategic Cumulative Landscape Assessment tips the balance for the rural development strategy in Aberdeenshire’s countryside towards vital communities and a vibrant and diverse rural economy, within which wind turbines have to fit.
Page 15 of 16
3. Committee Recommendations 1. It must be noted that this is one area where Scottish Planning Policy is in flux and likely to undergo further change. These changes will not be known until late June 2014 2 The preferred approach should be adopted, with appropriate changes to the relevant supplementary guidance. 3. Clarification should be provided that the height is always measure to hub height. A second measurement to tip of blade height should be identified in documents. 4. Further consideration should be given to including those communities that are identifiable and defensible as settlements by having public facilities (shops, halls, churches, schools etc.) and urban characteristics (such as pavements and street lighting) within the spatial strategy.
4. Committee Decisions
1. Kincardine and Mearns Area Committee agreed the above recommendations at their meeting on 6 May 2014.
2. Banff and Buchan Area Committee agreed the recommendations 1, 2 and 3 at their meeting on 13 May 2014. The Committee also agreed that the wording of recommendation 4 should be changed to read as follows and there should be an additional recommendation:
5. Further consideration should be given to including those communities that are identifiable and defensible as settlements by having public facilities (shops, halls, churches, schools) and/or urban characteristics (such as pavements and/or street lighting) within the spatial strategy.
6. To avoid the sterilisation of much needed habitable houses, there should be a relaxation in the ruling that insists that houses in close proximity to a wind turbine, which do not meet the required noise criteria, should remain unoccupied during the operation of the wind turbine or in the event that the property is occupied, the turbine should cease to operate during the period of occupancy. 3. Garioch Area Committee agreed the above recommendations at their meeting on 27 May 2014 by a vote 10:3. It was also agreed that consideration should be given to the use of bonds for decommissioning of wind turbines. 4. Marr Area Committee agreed the above recommendations at their meeting on 3 June 2014. The committee also agreed an additional recommendation: 5. To strengthen decommissioning policy reference should be made to the need for conditions to be placed on grants of planning permission to require a bond to secure the costs of decommissioning turbines be agreed prior to the commencement of development. 5. Buchan Area Committee agreed the above recommendations at their meeting on 10 June 2014. 6. Formartine Area Committee agreed the above recommendations at their meeting on 17 June 2014. The committee also agreed an additional recommendation: 5. The inclusion of restoration bonds for applications for large wind turbines. 7. Infrastructure Services Committee noted the recommendations of the Area Committees and agreed the recommendations at their meeting of the 3 July 2014.
Page 16 of 16