Agenda Item No 4/1
REPORT BY PLACE DIRECTORATE
REGULATORY PANEL: 24 MARCH 2020
SUBJECT: CONSULTATION UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989
ARECLEOCH WINDFARM, C72 FROM GOWLANDS TERRACE BARRHILL TO COUNCIL BOUNDARY SOUTH OF CHIRMORRIE, SOUTH OF BARRHILL, SOUTH AYRSHIRE FOR PERMISSION TO ERECT AND OPERATE 13 WIND TURBINES WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: REF 19/00658/DEEM
1. Purpose
South Ayrshire Council has been consulted by the Scottish Government, under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, on an application by “Scottish Power Renewables UK” for the erection of a windfarm and associated ancillary development at Arecleoch, south of Barrhill, South Ayrshire.
It should be noted that the Council is not the determining authority for this proposal. This report recommends a response to the Scottish Government.
It should also be noted that the comments within this report have a focus on the impacts of the proposal within the administrative boundary of South Ayrshire Council. Although all of the proposed turbines are to be located within South Ayrshire, an access to the site is taken from within Dumfries and Galloway.
It should be noted that the Planning Service has delegated authority to respond but has chosen not to due to the large scale of the proposal, community interest and history of referring such matters to Regulatory Panel.
2. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council submits this report as an objection to the Scottish Government.
It is also recommended that a comment be submitted to the Scottish Government for consideration in its own assessment of the proposed development.
In the event that a Planning Authority objects to a Section 36 application, and does not withdraw its objection, a public inquiry must be held, before the Scottish Ministers decide whether to grant consent (Refer Paragraph 2, Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act, 1989).
3. Background
On 12th June 2019, Scottish Power Renewables (UK) Limited submitted to the Scottish Government a Section 36 application together with an application that planning permission be deemed to be granted in respect of the construction and operation of a windfarm comprising of 13 turbines with an anticipated height at tip of 200m providing an installed capacity in the region of 72.8 megawatts (MW) on land to the south west of the settlement of Barrhill. Under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, the construction of a generating station with a capacity which exceeds 50 MW requires the consent of Scottish Ministers.
The application is supported with an Environmental Impact Assessment and associated documentation. The Scottish Government formally consulted the Council on the proposed development in July 2019, with a deadline for response on the application extended to 7th April 2020.
Under the Electricity Works (Environment Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, Scottish Ministers are required to consider whether any proposal for a generating station is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. These Regulations stipulate that Scottish Ministers must consult the planning authority, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Historic Environment Scotland.
In reaching their decision, Scottish Ministers have to take into account the environmental information submitted with the application and supporting Environmental Impact Assessment, the representations made by statutory consultative bodies and others in accordance with the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, Scottish Planning Policy on Renewable Energy , other relevant Policy, Planning Advice Notes, the relevant planning authority’s Development Plans and any relevant supplementary guidance.
4. Development Proposal
4.1 Proposal
The proposal comprises of the following principal components: 13 wind turbines up to a height of 200m to the tip with a combined rated output in the region of 72.8MW; Turbine foundations; Crane hardstandings; Transformer/switchgear housings located adjacent to turbines; New and upgraded access tracks including watercourse crossings where necessary; Underground electrical cabling; Substation compounds including control buildings, external equipment and ancillary grid service equipment/battery storage; One permanent anemometer mast; Up to four temporary Power Performance Masts; Close circuit television mast(s); Communication mast(s); Site signage; Search areas for up to six borrow pits; and One temporary construction compound area.
4.2 Application Site
The application site is located approximately 3km south west of Barrhill, centred on National Grid Reference NX 19194 80689. The majority of the site is located within the South Ayrshire Council area, although one entrance to the site is within the Dumfries and Galloway Council area. The application site covers some 1,440 hectares of Plateau Moorland which is mainly covered by commercial forest and encompasses the western side of Shiel Hill. The site is bound to the north and east by commercial forestry, to the south by plateau moorland and to the west by the operational Arecleoch Wind Farm.
4.3 Landscape
The site is located within the “Plateau Moorland with Forestry and Windfarms” landscape character type (as defined in the 2018 South Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study). Part of the site is located within the South Ayrshire Scenic Area (as defined in the LDP) due to the application boundary encompassing the existing access tracks from the A714 at Wheeb Bridge and Bents Farm, although it should be noted that no turbines are proposed within this Scenic Area.
4.4 Built and Cultural Heritage
There are a number of archaeologically sensitive sites and finds in the surrounding landscape of prehistoric and later date. There are no Scheduled Monuments within the site but Scheduled Monument ‘Cairn Kenny’ (a chambered cairn) is located approximately 4.1km south of the nearest proposed turbine (although there are existing turbines within approximately 800m).
4.5 Tourism and Recreation
The application site doesn’t have any specific assets which are important to the tourism economy of South Ayrshire, but the A714 is recognised as an important tourist route into South Ayrshire (from which large wind farms are already prominent), the Southern Upland way passes close to the site (some 2.4km to the south east), the Whithorn Way crosses the site access road approximately 6km to the west of Wheeb Bridge and the Dark Sky Park, biosphere and Merrick Wild Land area are located to the northeast of the site.
4.6 Natural Heritage
There are no national or locally designated sites within the application site. There are five statutory designated sites within 5km of the site which are designated for ecological features, namely: Craig Wood (Site of Special Scientific Interest) 2.29km, River Bladnoch Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 3km, Kirkcowan Flow (SAC and SSSI) 3.06km, Feoch Meadows (SSSI) 2.8km and Blood Moss (SSSI) 4.82km. Glen App and Galloway Moors Special Protection Area and Site of Special Scientific Interest is designated for ornithological interests (breeding hen harrier) and is located approximately 3km to the south of the application site.
4.7 Residential Context
Four properties are located within 2km of the application proposal. The EIA Report notes that one of these properties (Farden Farm) would have no visibility of the proposed development. Kilrenzie Farm, Wheeb Farm and Glenour are the other properties within the immediate vicinity; however it is noted that Glenour is currently derelict and is on the Buildings at Risk register. At the time of the site visit it was noted that Wheeb Farm was vacant.
4.8 Wind Related Development
There has been considerable interest in the locality for wind farm development. Arecleoch windfarm (60 turbines, 118 metres to tip) is operational and located to the immediate west of the application site. There are two other operational windfarms within the immediate area – Kilgallioch Windfarm (96 turbines, up to 146m to tip), located approximately 3.5km to the south and Mark Hill Windfarm (28 turbines of 110m to tip) located approximately 5.7km to the east. In addition, there are a number of consented windfarms in the wider area, the closest of these include Chirmorie (21 turbines, up to 146.5m to tip) located approximately 0.5km to the south of the proposed development and Stranoch (24 turbines, 10 x 110m, 8 x 135m) located 5.4km to the south of the proposed development. The EIA Report lists a number of other windfarms in the locality, all of which contribute to the cumulative baseline position of wind energy development.
The constructed and consented wind energy developments already have considerable cumulative landscape and visual impact on the locality. This impact results in a specific landscape character type being formed, where wind energy developments have become a distinctive and significant element in the landscape.
5. Consultations
Consultations on this application are undertaken by the Scottish Government, a number of responses were passed to South Ayrshire Council for information. Comments arising from consultation within South Ayrshire Council (department services) are incorporated into the assessment section of this report and will be forwarded to the ECU. The following consultation responses are for noting only.
Visit Scotland: No objection. Strongly recommend any potential detrimental impact of the proposed development on tourism - whether visually, environmentally or economically – be identified and considered in full. An independent tourism impact assessment should be carried out. This assessment should be geographically sensitive and should consider the potential impact on any tourism offerings in the vicinity.
Marine Scotland (MS): No objection. MS welcomes the proposed Fish Monitoring Plan (FMP) and Water Quality Monitoring Programme (WQMP) and that they should follow MS guidelines.
Fisheries Management Scotland: No objection. Guidelines in relation to best practice provided.
Galloway Fisheries Trust: No comment.
Ayrshire Rivers Trust: No objection. Up to date best practice guidelines should be followed.
Ministry of Defence: No objection subject to conditions. In the interests of air safety, the MoD request that the development should be fitted with MoD accredited aviation safety lighting. The turbines should be fitted with approved aviation safety lighting in accordance with the Civil Aviation Authority, Air Navigation Order 2016. If permission is granted, the MoD would like to be advised of the following prior to commencement of construction: the date construction starts and ends, the maximum height of construction equipment and the latitude and longitude of every turbine.
British Horse Society: No objection.
Transport Scotland: No objection subject to conditions. Transport Scotland is satisfied with the submitted EIA Report and have no objection to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network. The proposed conditions are as follows:
Prior to commencement of deliveries to site, the proposed route for any abnormal loads on the trunk road network must be approved by the trunk roads authority. Any accommodation measures required including the removal of street furniture, junction widening, traffic management must similarly be approved. Reason - To minimise interference and maintain the safety and free flow of traffic on the Trunk Road as a result of the traffic moving to and from the development.
During the delivery period of the wind turbine construction materials any additional signing or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary due to the size or length of any loads being delivered or removed must be undertaken by a recognised QA traffic management consultant, to be approved by Transport Scotland before delivery commences. Reason - To ensure that the transportation will not have any detrimental effect on the road and structures along the route.
Historic Environment Scotland (HES): No objection. HES agree with the conclusion of the EIA Report that none of the impacts on historic assets (specifically Cairn Kenny Chambered Cairn) are likely to be significant.
Scottish Natural Heritage: No objection. Provide comment in relation to landscape and visual impact, lighting and ecology. In relation to landscape and visual impact, SNH agree with the LVIA that there is potential for significant effects upon the Duisk Valley but also agree that visibility would be somewhat moderated by the substantial amount of forestry at the edges of the LCT. SNH state that the proposed development would be perceived as an extension to Arecleoch. In relation to lighting, it is considered that the proposal would introduce eye catching and prominent lights into an area important for its dark skies and in particular to a part of the view which contributes strongly to the dark sky experience. Mitigation is required in order to avoid the aforementioned impact. Finally, in relation to ecology, SNH welcome the production of a Bird Protection Plan (BPP); however recommend that the BPP includes specific measures to protect a Goshawk nest throughout any felling, construction activities and operation of the wind farm. Also recommend post construction ornithology survey work to monitor the presence (and breeding success) of goshawk within the general forest area. Welcome the mitigation measures stipulated in relation to bats. Recommend that position of turbine 9 should be confirmed and would welcome the micro-siting of turbines to areas of peat less than 1m deep.
Barrhill Community Council: Object to the proposed development. A survey letter was sent to 160 households, with a 42% response rate – of these 86% objected to the application. The Community Council considers that the locale is at saturation point in relation to turbines, with the turbines proposed excessive in scale. There are amenity concerns in relation to noise and concerns in relation to the cumulative impacts of windfarms in the area – Arecleoch, Kilgallioch and Mark Hill already operational.
Colmonell and Lendalfoot Community Council: Object to the proposed development on the following grounds; saturation point has been reached in relation to turbines in the area, excessive scale, amenity concerns regarding noise/shadow flicker and adverse impact or flora and fauna.
Glasgow Prestwick Airport: No objection. LOS Analysis conducted and airport is satisfied that the proposed development is shielded from primary radar.
NATS: No objection. Proposed development does not conflict with safeguarding criteria.
Scotways: No objection although state concern that consent in perpetuity is being sought.
SEPA: Initially objected to the proposal on the grounds of lack of information regarding water crossings, private water supplies, peat reuse, borrow pit restoration and forestry waste. Further information was subsequently provided by the applicant in this regard and it now appears that SEPA do not object in their latest consultation response. SEPA consider that the issue in relation to private water supplies has now been addressed. Further, SEPA consider that peat and borrow pits should be addressed in the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), in areas not being replanted all stumps should be removed and that SEPA welcome the provision of a Habitat Management Survey providing appropriate mitigation as a planning condition. SEPA therefore appear to offer no objection as previous matters of concern have been addressed and can be conditioned.
Scottish Forestry: No objection subject to conditions. Request that Scottish Forestry is consulted on the conditioning of the compensatory planting and that there is a condition which requires that the compensatory planting is agreed with Scottish Forestry to ensure that UKFS and the Forestry (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 are complied with.
Dumfries and Galloway Council: No objection subject to conditions. The proposed conditions are as follows:
That prior to commencement of any work on site, the applicant will submit detailed plans identifying off-site accommodation works (to include passing places, verge strengthening/carriageway widening and associated works, all supported by swept path analysis) to be approved in writing by the planning authorities in consultation with the roads authorities.
All necessary work identified in Condition 1 above shall be completed at the applicant’s expense to the specification and satisfaction of the planning authorities in consultation with the roads authorities, prior to commencement of any haulage operations.
That prior to the commencement of any work on site, a Traffic Management Plan (whole life construction phase, and to include detailed programme, breakdown of deliveries by type and month, agreed access and excluded routes, mitigation measures, vehicle tagging system details and contact list) shall be agreed, in writing, with the planning authorities in consultation with the roads authorities and Police Scotland.
That prior to the commencement of any AIL deliveries, a test run of the route is undertaken (based upon the largest expected component and transporter) in conjunction with the roads authorities and Police Scotland, in order to demonstrate the suitability of the accommodation works and route.
That prior to the commencement of work on site, the extent and detail of ‘post construction’ carriageway, verge and public road boundary restoration works within the public road boundary are agreed in writing with the planning authorities in consultation with the roads authorities.
That within 3 months of the completion of construction work; the works identified in Condition 5 above are implemented to the satisfaction of the planning authorities in consultation with the roads authorities.
RSPB: No objection subject to conditions. Wish to see an accompanying Habitat Management Plan focussed on peatland restoration. This could include forest to bog restoration within the area of the proposed windfarm. The activities described in the Peat Management Plan could be included in the wider Habitat Management Plan.
BT: No objection.
Joint Radio Company: No objection.
Crown Estate Scotland: No objection.
6. Development Plan
6.1 Legislation (Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997(as amended)) requires that decisions on proposals for development are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The following provisions of the development plan are considered relevant to the consideration of this application:
The South Ayrshire Local Development Plan policy: wind energy states that the council will support proposals if:
a. They are capable of being accommodated in the landscape in a manner which respects its main features and character (as identified in the South Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study or in any subsequent updates to that study), and which keeps their effect on the landscape and the wider area to a minimum (through a careful choice of site, layout and overall design;
b. They do not have a significant detrimental visual impact, taking into account views experienced from surrounding residential properties and settlements, public roads and paths, significant public viewpoints, and important recreational asserts and tourist attractions;
c. They do not have any other significant detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby residents, including form noise and shadow flicker;
d. They do not have a significant detrimental effect on natural heritage features, including protected habitats and species, and taking into account the criteria in LDP policy : Natural heritage;
e. They do not have a significant detrimental effect on the historic environment, taking into account the criteria in LDP policy: historic environment and LDP policy : archaeology;
f. They do not adversely affect aviation, defence interests and broadcasting installation; and their cumulative impact in combination with other existing and approved wind energy development, and those for which applications for approval have already been submitted, is acceptable.
We will produce a supplementary guidance on wind farms, which will identify preferred areas of search, areas with potential constraints and areas requiring significant protection; and will provide more detail on how the above mentioned criteria will be applied in assessing all proposals for wind farms and turbines, we will use the South Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study (or subsequent updates to that study) to help us decide the effect of the proposals on the landscape.
Development proposals will not be permitted where, whether individually or cumulatively, they would adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site.
6.2 Whilst the above stated policy provides the basis for assessing wind energy developments, South Ayrshire Council adopted the Supplementary Guidance (SG) it refers to, in December 2015. That SG provides detail by which wind energy proposals can be fully assessed. It provides a spatial strategy for wind energy, in line with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy (and in so doing identifies areas within South Ayrshire which are afforded significant national protection) and it provides guidance on how the policy of the Local Development Plan will be applied in the consideration of proposals.
6.3 The SG identifies the site as falling within an area of “significant protection” by reason of the area being a location where carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat exist. The SG follows the principles of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) by stating that in such circumstances, further consideration will be required to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. This specific matter is considered in more detail in the Assessment section of this report. The SG covers the following issues:
Impacts on landscape and landscape character Visual impacts Residential amenity, (noise, shadow flicker, visual impact and traffic) Natural heritage including national and locally protected species and habitats Impacts on the historic environment and archaeology Aviation, defence and broadcasting interests Cumulative impacts Environmental management Hydrology and the water environment Borrow pits Carbon losses Flooding Decommissioning and restoration bond obligations Repowering Extensions Monitoring
Each of the above sections includes a reference to the Council’s policy on these issues and the matters which will be taken into account in the assessment of the proposals.
6.4 The LDP has a number of additional policies of relevance to the assessment of the planning application, although they relate closely to the criteria on the wind energy policy. For ease of reference, they are listed beneath the corresponding criterion of the wind energy policy in the subsequent sections of this report.
6.5 On 27 June 2019, the Council approved the Proposed Replacement South Ayrshire Local Development Plan (PLDP2) and associated Environmental Report and draft Supplementary Guidance for publication and public consultation and agreed that, on publication, PLDP2 would become a material consideration in determining planning applications, with the weight accorded to it increasing as it progresses through the statutory process. As public consultation on PLDP2 concluded in mid-November 2019, it is therefore now a material consideration in the determination of all planning applications. Whilst its relative weight as a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications is limited, it is an indicator of the Council’s settled position on the direction of future development and planning policy in South Ayrshire. This application has been assessed in this context. The applicable policies in PLDP2 are not materially different to those of the existing LDP.
7. Assessment
7.1 In assessing the proposal, it is important to note that South Ayrshire Council is not the determining Authority, but has been asked to provide comments as a Statutory Consultee.
As previously stated, a number of comments have already been submitted directly to the Scottish Government. Where especially important in South Ayrshire Council’s assessment of the proposal, they are referred to in the following assessment, and where appropriate, have been incorporated into the recommendations made with regard to suggested comments to be sent to the Scottish Government. The full text of the submissions made to the Scottish Government can be found at The Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit web page (case reference ECU00001864).
For ease of reference, the assessment section of this report has been divided into the Sections of the LDP policy Wind Energy: a) Landscape b) Visual c) Residential amenity d) Natural Heritage e) Historic Environment f) Aviation and Cumulative impacts
Other policies: As stated above, a number of policies throughout the Local Development Plan are also relevant in the assessment of the proposed development. They are listed beneath the primary wind energy policy criterion.
7.2 Criterion a) Landscape Character
We will support proposals if: They are capable of being accommodated in the landscape in a manner which respects its main features and character (as identified in the South Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study or in any subsequent updates to that study), and which keeps their effect on the landscape and the wider area to a minimum (through a careful choice of site, layout and overall design;
In considering landscape and visual matters, the expertise of Carol Anderson, Landscape Architect has been commissioned. Members will recall that Carol Anderson Landscape Associates is the author of the South Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study, the original version of which was used to inform South Ayrshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Wind Energy.
Additional LDP policies: LDP Policy Sustainable Development LDP policy Landscape Quality
7.2.1 This proposal falls within the “Plateau with Forest” landscape character type identified in the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment (1998). A landscape wind capacity study was undertaken for South Ayrshire in 2013 and updated in 2018. The capacity study considers the sensitivity of landscape character types to different sizes of wind turbine. It is largely based on the landscape classification set out in the Ayrshire Landscape Assessment although in this area, the Plateau with Forest was re-defined as the Plateau with Forest and Wind Farms landscape character type, reflecting the major changes that have occurred in this landscape.
7.2.2 The capacity study describes the Plateau with Forest and Wind Farms landscape character type as “forming an expansive upland plateau which extends into neighbouring Dumfries and Galloway to the south. It has a simple landform of broad rounded hills and flatter basins which form a low, even and generally indistinct backdrop to smaller scale settled valleys and glens within South Ayrshire. Land cover is dominated by coniferous forestry with small areas of open moorland and moss occurring on lower ‘edge’ slopes at the transition with the Duisk and Stinchar valleys and with very small pockets of rolling farmland, wooded policies, lochs and settlement found in the south-eastern part of this landscape. Extensive operational wind farm development is accommodated within the two largest tracts of this character type which lie either side of the Duisk Valley. This landscape is very sparsely settled with few roads.”
7.2.3 Key character constraints within the landscape identified by the study include:
The outer edges of the upland plateau which form the immediate skyline to the smaller scale settled Duisk valleys and to the dramatic and strongly contained Glen App
Small pockets of farmland and lochs in the Drumlanford and Corwar area where small farms and houses, woodlands and rolling enclosure pastures provide ready scale references and a valuable contrast with extensive forestry
Steeper hill slopes and higher ground present in the north and east at the transition with the “rugged hills and lochs and forest” landscape character type.
Dramatic views of the Galloway Hills suddenly revealed when travelling south-east on the designated tourist route of the A714 as dense forest cover opens up on the Corwar area.
The high rugged Galloway Hills focussed on Merrick within Dumfries and Galloway and the Carrick Forest Hills which are popular with walkers, offering a strong experience of wildness that could be diminished by development lying close by and / or incrementally encircling these hills.
Potential cumulative effects with the existing wind farm developments of Hadyard Hill, Arecleoch and Mark Hill, particularly on landscape character and views from the Stinchar and Duisk Valleys.
Views from Loch Ryan and the Rhinns of Galloway where turbines sited within the south western area of this character type could intrude on views to the intriguing Glen App.
7.2.4 The capacity study concludes that the Landscape Character Type (LCT) has only some limited scope to accommodate further large turbines (greater than 130m). The study states that ‘Capacity is close to being reached in the part of this landscape lying to the south and south-east of the Duisk Valley with little scope for any additional larger wind turbines to be accommodated. Operational and consented wind farms already occupy much of the least sensitive ‘interior’ of these plateau uplands and any additional development would be likely to impinge on the more sensitive outer edges of these uplands’. The guidance given for this LCT additionally states that ‘Development should be sited within the simpler basins and low hills lying in the interior of this upland plateau and set well back to avoid intrusion on adjacent smaller scale settled valleys and glens’.
Consideration of Landscape Effects
7.2.5 In assessing the landscape effects and visual impact of the proposed development the Council has taken on board the findings of Carol Anderson, Landscape Architect. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which was submitted by the applicant acknowledges that significant adverse effects would arise on part of the Plateau Moorland with Forestry and Wind Farms LCT within which the wind farm would lie. This LCT forms a large area which extends into neighbouring Dumfries and Galloway. It is almost split by the Duisk Valley in South Ayrshire, with the south-western part (where this proposal would be located) principally characterised by wind farm development. This proposal would consolidate this character in combination with the existing Arecleoch, Kilgallioch and consented Chirmorie and Stranoch wind farms.
7.2.6 Although the proposed turbines are located within the Plateau Moorland with Forestry and Wind Farms LCT which has been identified as being less sensitive to wind turbines greater than 130m in height, they are proposed on the outer fringes as opposed to being located in the plateau interior or set back from adjacent settled valleys. As such, it is considered that the development proposal would incur significant adverse effects on the character of the Duisk Valley which lies within the Intimate Pastoral Valley LCT. This is an issue which has been raised several times within the letters of objection received by the ECU. It is noted that SNH state that the proposed development would be viewed as an extension to Arecleoch from most of the viewpoints within the Duisk Valley. However, the Council would respectfully disagree with this position. In viewpoint 5, one of the most important viewpoints within the Duisk Valley, the operational Arecleoch wind farm is not readily visible so it is considered that the proposal does not appear as an extension due to its much closer proximity to the valley. While the proposal would be viewed in front of the operational Arecleoch turbines (and also adjacent to Chirmorie/Kilgallioch) from Viewpoint 13 along the A714 in the upper Duisk Valley, the turbines within this proposal would be substantially and noticeably larger and therefore, not compatible with the design of the original scheme.
7.2.7 It is further considered that significant adverse effects would arise on Glen Tig which is classified as Upland Glen LCT. While the operational Arecleoch wind farm already influences this intimately scaled and diversely wooded glen, this proposal would increase the extent and dominance of very large turbines close to this landscape. This is demonstrated in EIA Viewpoint 8 where the proposal would detract from the appreciation of this glen, particularly given the proximity of turbine 4 to the edge of this glen.
7.2.8 The Council are in agreement with the LVIA that effects on the character of the Stinchar Valley would be adverse but not significant due mainly to the limited visibility of the proposal.
Concluded Landscape Assessment
7.2.9 It is considered that the proposed development is not accordance with LDP Policy Wind Energy Criterion a) and conflicts with LDP Policy Sustainable Development and LDP Policy Landscape Quality.
7.2.10 The Council objects as the development proposal is considered contrary to the guidance set out in the SALWCS in that the turbines would be sited closer to the Duisk Valley and this, together with the very large size of the turbines, would result in significant adverse effects on the character and on views (which is addressed below) from the Duisk Valley. It is also considered that the proposed development would have significant adverse effects on the character of Glen Tig, although the removal or relocation of turbine 4 could mitigate this impact.
7.3 Visual Impacts
We will support proposals if: They do not have a significant detrimental visual impact, taking into account views experienced from surrounding residential properties and settlements, public roads and paths, significant public viewpoints, and important recreational asserts and tourist attractions;
Additional LDP Policies LDP policy Sustainable Development LDP policy Landscape Quality
7.3.1 The representations received have highlighted concerns regarding the visual impact of this proposal. Significant effects on views will extend up to approximately 7km from the development proposal. The LVIA considers a representative range of viewpoints which were agreed with the Council. The proposal would commonly be seen with other operational wind farm development. It is considered that contrasts between the 118m high turbines of the existing Arecleoch wind farm and the proposed 200m high turbines of this proposal will contribute to significant effects on some views, most notably from EIA Viewpoints 2, 6 and 13. This proposal will also appear noticeably larger than the existing Kilgallioch wind farm in some views. It is further considered that the effects of different sizes of turbines is unlikely to be perceived solely as being related to ‘natural perspective’ as argued in EIA 7.8.1.2 due to the substantial height differential between existing and proposed turbines.
7.3.2 The proposed development would be visible from a substantial part of the Duisk Valley between Corwar and Barrhill and on the more sparsely settled, and generally less frequented, eastern valley sides between Barrhill and Pinwherry. In some views from the Duisk Valley, for example EIA Viewpoint 11 from the B7027, intervening rolling landform and forestry will screen turbine bases, reducing visual impact. However, elsewhere within the Duisk Valley the effects on views from settlement, minor roads/tracks and the A714 will be significant and adverse. This is demonstrated in EIA Viewpoint 5 where very large turbines will be seen on the skyline above the smaller scale pastoral landscape near Barrhill significantly affecting views from the A714 and nearby properties.
7.3.3 In contrast to the opinion expressed within the EIA Report, it is considered that the effects from Viewpoint 4 in Barrhill cannot be discounted as not being significant. It is regarded that some of the factors relating to land cover and scale identified as decreasing the magnitude of change at this viewpoint in the LVIA are tenuous and that effects, while transient for road users and likely to be experienced from relatively few residential properties, would be significant and adverse.
7.3.4 There would be little visibility of the proposal from settlement and roads which are generally sited on the lower slopes of the Stinchar Valley although there would be views from more elevated north-western valley sides. This is demonstrated in EIA Viewpoint 10 north east of Colmonell. While there are already views of the operational Arecleoch wind farm from these valley sides, this proposal will increase the extent of development seen on the skyline and comprise notably larger turbines. However, while effects will be adverse, the proposal will be seen in the context of a wide array of wind farm development sited within the Plateau Moorlands of South Ayrshire and neighbouring Dumfries and Galloway lessening its visual effect.
7.3.5 There will be significant adverse effects on views from the popularly accessed hill of Knockdolian, although the focus on views from this ‘landmark hill’ over the Ayrshire coast and the Firth of Clyde would not be affected.
7.3.6 Consultation responses from Glasgow Prestwick Airport, the MoD and NATS raise no objections subject to a requirement that the development should be fitted with MoD accredited aviation safety lighting. The turbines should be fitted with approved aviation safety lighting in accordance with the Civil Aviation Authority, Air Navigation Order 2016. This request will have impacts on the night time visibility of the development. Having considered this, with particular attention paid to the consultation response from SNH and night time viewpoints illustrated in Technical Appendix 7.3 of the EIA Report, it is considered that the requirement for aviation lighting at this location would introduce eye catching and prominent lights into an area important for its dark skies and in particular to a part of the view which contributes strongly to the dark sky experience. It is further considered that this could result in significant adverse impacts on views from the wild land area and core area of the dark sky park, as well as adverse impacts on the wild land qualities of the Merrick Wild Land Area. It is currently unclear as to whether the impacts outlined above can be mitigated. In a letter to the ECU dated 21 February 2020, the applicant states that they would welcome discussion of aviation lighting mitigation with the ECU at the appropriate time and the EIA Report states that it is proposed to explore the use of ‘smart’ aviation lighting, whereby the lights would only be switched on when low altitude aircraft approach them. In light of the current uncertainty in relation to mitigation measures which could potentially be utilised in relation to lighting, the Council objects to the proposed development by reason that the applicant has not demonstrated that aviation lighting would not introduce eye catching and prominent lights into an area important for its dark skies.
Tourism and Recreation
7.3.7 The tourism sector is important to the South Ayrshire economy and was worth some £108.8m annually in 2014, with a significant potential for growth. This expansion will be dependent on the maintenance and enhancement of environmental quality whilst ensuring that the assets on which the sector is based are protected from the impacts of inappropriate development. These objectives are reflected within the policy framework of the Local Development Plan.
7.3.8 Assets in Ayrshire and surrounding areas particularly sensitive to inappropriate development include areas designated for their scenic or recreational potential, such as the Galloway Hills and the Galloway Tourist Route which stretches from Ayr to Gretna and links a number of Robert Burns attractions. Other regional significant tourist assets in this area also include the Galloway Forest Park, the Dark Skies Park and the Galloway & Southern Ayrshire Biosphere and its associated ecosystem centred around a series of core Natura sites. There are also a number of driving/recreational and walking routes popular with visitors and tourists. These include National Cycle Route 7, a long distance route which forms part of the Ayrshire Alps Cycle Park.
7.3.9 The National Catalogue of Rights of Way (maintained by Scotways) does not show any rights of way affected by the application site boundary. However, it should be noted that there is no definitive record of rights of way in Scotland. It is also noted that the long distance route, the Whithorn Way, is crossed by a proposed access track. There are no Core Paths within the application site, although it is noted that core paths are in situ to the north and west of the application site boundary. A visualisation is provided from SA61 Core Path to the north (viewpoint 2, EIA Report Figure 7.23 a-e). This shows the potential impacts of the proposal and it is noted that the existence of the existing Arecleoch windfarm means that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the experience of walkers using this route.
7.3.10 The landscape and visual impacts of the proposal are the primary considerations with regard to the potential impacts on tourism and recreation for this particular application and it is noted that representations received have raised adverse impacts for tourism as a reason for objection to the proposed development, along with the wider area having reached saturation point in relation to wind turbines due to their cumulative impacts.
7.3.11 It is noted in their consultation response that Visit Scotland has highlighted that scenery and the natural environment have become the two most important factors for visitors in recent years when choosing a holiday location. The importance of this element to tourism cannot be under estimated. The character and visual amenity value of landscapes is a key driver of the tourist product: a large majority of visitors come because of landscape, scenery and the wider environment, which supports visitor activities such as walking, cycling, wildlife watching and visiting historic sites. They also raise specific concerns about the quantity and cumulative impact of renewable sites within South Ayrshire.
7.3.12 The EIA Report suggests that the access tracks would be accessible to walkers, cyclists and horse riders. In isolation, it is considered that such use is unlikely, however, there may be possibilities to link tracks associated with the Kilgallioch wind farm and forests, Chirmorie wind farm and the Arecleoch windfarm to create an extensive network of routes that have potential to become a large-scale informal leisure resource that could link the rural communities and add to the existing informal recreational resources including the core paths network and Southern Upland Way.
Concluded Visual Impacts Assessment
7.3.13 As with the concluded assessment on landscape matters, the Council objects to the development proposal as it is considered contrary to the guidance set out in the SALWCS in that the turbines would be sited closer to the Duisk Valley and this, together with the very large size of the turbines, would result in significant adverse effects on the character and on views from the Duisk Valley as the proposed development would introduce views of turbines from the Intimate Pastoral Valley LCT (viewpoint 5) and the settlement of Barrhill (viewpoint 4) which previously did not exist.
7.3.14 However, should the Scottish Government be minded to approve this application, it is recommended that a condition be applied which seeks an access plan that would actively work towards maximising the potential for recreational use of the site, and connections with both Arecleoch, Chirmorie and Kilgallioch windfarms.
7.3.15 It is considered that the proposed development is not in general accordance with LDP policy wind energy Criterion b) and conflicts with specific relevant elements of LDP policy Sustainable Development or LDP policy Landscape Quality.
7.4 Criterion c) Residential Amenity
We will support proposals if: They do not have any other significant detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby residents, including from noise and shadow flicker;
Additional LDP Policies LDP Policy Sustainable Development LDP policy Air, Noise and Light Pollution. LDP policy Land Use and Transport
Noise
7.4.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment Report considers construction, operational and cumulative noise impacts. The Council’s noise consultant, ACCON UK Limited, has advised that the methodologies used in the EIA noise chapter represent good practice and are in line with ETSUR-97 (operational noise) and the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) Good Practice Guidance for wind turbines. The existing Arecleoch and Kilgallioch windfarms were consented with noise limits at the upper end of the limits allowed according to ETSU-R-97. As such, the assessment of cumulative noise carried out for the proposed development appropriately utilised noise limits at the upper end of the range allowed by ETSU-R-97 and the cumulative assessment demonstrates that these noise limits could be met taking account of existing consented wind turbines and the proposed Arecleoch Extension wind turbines. The Council’s noise consultant also states that site specific noise limits have been derived that could be used in a planning condition to control the operational noise levels from the proposed development in combination with the existing Arecleoch wind farm so that, when combined with cumulative noise levels, the ETSU-R-97 limits are not predicted to be exceeded. In conclusion, subject to the adoption of the proposed noise limits, there would be no over-riding reason for refusal in respect of noise.
South Ayrshire Council’s Environmental Health Service has also provided comment in respect of construction noise and offers no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions in relation to the following: impact on water, shadow flicker and construction noise.
Shadow Flicker
7.4.2 Under certain conditions when the sun passes behind the rotors of a turbine a shadow can be cast on neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate a flicking on and off effect is created by the shadow, referred to as “Shadow Flicker”. This can be a considerable nuisance to residents within nearby properties. Although there are no local or national UK mandatory requirements or criteria in relation to shadow effects caused by wind turbines, a report prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change suggests that a maximum of 30 hours of shadow flicker in a calendar year is a threshold for consideration, ideally with no longer than 30 minutes on any single occasion. The incidence of “Shadow Flicker” is considered only to be an issue of significant concern if the distance between the nearest dwelling and rotor blades is less than 10 times the diameter of those blades. Additional guidance states that in the UK the limit of the zone is between 130 degrees either side of north.
The Council’s Supplementary Guidance requires an assessment to be undertaken for all properties within 2.5 km of a proposed development (this distance threshold should take into account any screening of turbines offered by topography). The diameter of the rotors being proposed is some 150m and this gives a study area of 1,500m – with the addition of a further 50m to account for micro siting. Two properties fall within this area: Glenour (currently derelict and on buildings at risk register) is 1,130m from turbine 4 and Kilrenzie is 1,220m from turbine 4. Wheeb (currently vacant) is located marginally outside of this area at 1,590m from turbine 4.
The results of the study confirm that that the properties assessed would not experience over 30 hours of shadow flicker in a year and with a maximum of 24.2 hours predicted at one property (Glenour – derelict), that the predicted shadow flicker hours would be below the 30 hour limit and therefore considered to be acceptable. The model does predict Glenour may occasionally experience up to 35 minutes of shadow flicker on certain days throughout the year, which is more than the 30 minutes suggested by guidance. However, this is not considered to be significant given that the results are based on a maximum theoretical basis. South Ayrshire Council’s Environmental Health Service has not raised any concerns with regard to shadow flicker, although a condition is suggested in this regard.
Amenity
7.4.3 The SAC Supplementary Guidance on Wind Energy states that the design process for windfarms should take into account local residential property and the extent to which the proposal will be visible. The design process should seek to minimise significant visual effects on private property. It states as a general rule, that a separation distance of 2km should be maintained between turbines and settlements and that an assessment of all residential properties within 2.5 km from proposed wind farms should be undertaken.
The documentation provides detailed wireline visualisations of the impacts and cumulative impacts that will arise as a consequence of the proposal. The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) (Technical Appendix 7.2) identifies 4 properties within 2km of the boundary – Farden Farm, Kilrenzie Farm, Wheeb Farm and Glenour). ZTV Figure 7.2-1 of the EIA Report shows that 1 of these properties, Farden Farm, would have no visibility of the proposed development. The RVAA identifies that significant adverse effects are considered likely on two properties – Kilrenzie Farm and Wheeb Farm (1.26km and 1.58km from nearest turbine respectively). While the RVAA undertaken in the EIA process appears sound, some of the text under the Stage 4 Assessment seems to be incomplete and it is therefore considered difficult to fully understand the judgements made. The RVAA states that:
‘Whilst it is recognised that that there are further residential properties beyond 2km that may also experience a significant effect, the technical Guidance Note explains that ‘exceptionally large’ study areas of up to 3km are disproportionate further stating that ‘the logic for these (exceptionally) large study areas was based on certain findings of LVIAs which identified significant visual effects from ‘settlements’ or from clusters of residential properties within this range. This fails to recognise that RVAA is a stage beyond LVIA. Consequently, many RVAAs, including those of windfarms with large turbines (150m and taller), have included disproportionally extensive study areas incorporating too many properties. This appears to be based on the misconception that if a significant effect has been identified in the LVIA adjacent to a property at 2.5km it will also potentially lead to reaching the Residential Visual Amenity Threshold’. This reasoning is accepted in the justification for the study area of 2km.
7.4.4 The Council has taken into account Residential Visual Amenity Assessment Technical Guidance Note 2/19 in its consideration of the potential impacts on residential amenity arising from this development proposal. This is a matter for planning judgement taking into account a wide range of matters. Planning Officers have undertaken site visits to the affected properties and note the proximity of the proposed turbines to these residential properties and other key characteristics including the layout of the houses, areas of useable garden ground, orientation and landform. Having visited the properties and taken into consideration the above noted matters, the Council agrees that there will be significant adverse effects on these two properties and although the operational Arecleoch wind farm is already visible from both Kilrenzie and Wheeb Farms, this development proposal would introduce closer and significantly larger turbines to these properties, to a degree that is considered to be overbearing and consequently would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. Although Wheeb Farm is currently vacant, it remains a residential dwelling and impact of the proposed development requires to be considered. It is not considered possible to mitigate the impact of the proposed development to an extent that would make it acceptable in planning terms.
7.4.5 As such, it is considered that the proposed development would have a significant adverse and overbearing impact upon the residential visual amenity of the aforementioned properties to the extent that it is recommended that the Council object to the proposal.
Access, Traffic and Transport
7.4.6 The EIA Report provides details that envisage turbine components being delivered to George V Dock in Glasgow by sea and from there to the proposed site access by road, carried as abnormal loads along the M8 (then A74 (M) to the M6 where would turn north at junction 44 or 42, head along the A75 to unclassified road past Newton Stewart where would then join the A714 proceeding to site entrance at Wheeb Bridge. The port of Cairnryan is also a possibility for delivery of components – route would be A77, A751, A75 and then unclassified road past Newton Stewart to A714 and Wheeb Bridge. There are two access points to the site via two existing locations, the first access is close to Wheeb Bridge on the A714 south of Barrhill and the second is close to Bents Farm north of Barrhill. The majority (80%) of construction HGVs would use the access at Wheeb Bridge, with the access at Bents being used for the remaining 20% of HGVs and 80% of the light vehicle traffic.
7.4.7 The EIA Report assessment concludes that the transportation effects during the construction phase would not be significant following the implementation of good practice measures, which include: detailed Traffic Management Plan, Traffic Control system, provision of accurate directions to delivery drivers, maximising HGV loads and deploying adequate traffic management and banksmen for the movement of HGVs and abnormal loads.
7.4.8 Ayrshire Roads Alliance & Transport Scotland have been consulted on the proposed development and raised no objection subject to appropriate conditions being attached to the proposed development prior to construction.
Concluded Residential Amenity Assessment
7.4.9 It is considered that the impacts arising from the proposed Arecleoch Extension in relation to noise, shadow flicker and access, traffic and transport are generally acceptable, subject to conditions. However, it is recommended that the Council objects to the proposal as it is considered that the proposed development would be overbearing in terms of residential amenity impact to the properties at Kilrenzie Farm and Wheeb Farm.
7.4.10 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development is not in accordance with Local Development Plan Wind Energy Criterion c) and is in conflict with elements of LDP Policy Sustainable Development whilst being in accordance with LDP Policy Air, Noise and Light Pollution (in local residential context) and LDP Policy Land Use and Transportation.
7.5 Criterion d: Natural Heritage
We will support proposals if: They do not have a significant detrimental effect on natural heritage features, including protected habitats and species, and taking into account the criteria in LDP policy : Natural heritage;
Additional LDP Policies LDP Policy Natural Heritage LDP Policy Sustainable Development LDP Policy Water Environment
Ecology
7.5.1 Descriptions of the baseline ecological conditions are provided in the EIA Report. This was informed by a combination of desk study of historical data and targeted surveys. This included the preparation of Phase 1 habitat and protected species survey. In 2015 and 2018 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) surveys were undertaken. The primary land uses of the site are commercial coniferous plantation woodland and recently felled coniferous woodland. The main habitat types are therefore conifer plantation (64%), felled areas (19%) wet modified bog (7%), marshy grassland (3%), bare ground (2%) and other habitats (5%).
7.5.2 The submitted EIA Report and Site Surveys confirm that the site contains a number of species protected by European legislation, with evidence of otter, water vole, badger, pine marten and red squirrel. Bats are present in sufficient numbers that the development is considered to pose a medium risk to these populations and that mitigation measures in the form of turbine stoppage in certain weather conditions and at certain times might be required. It is noted that SNH confirm that although there are natural heritage assets of international and national importance near the site, it is not considered that these will be adversely affected by the proposal. SNH offer no objection to the proposed development subject to various recommendations including proposed mitigation measures stated by SPR. This includes maintaining a 50m buffer from turbine blade tips and habitat features and that this 50m buffer should be maintained for all features of value to bats, including woodland edges and watercourses. Proposed mitigation measures in relation to bats reduces the residual effect to negligible and not significant. 7.5.3 It is noted that the RSPB offer no objection to the proposed development subject to the submission of a Habitat Management Plan focussed on peatland restoration. Likewise, Marine Scotland offers no objection and welcomes the proposed Fish Monitoring Plan (FMP) and Water Quality Monitoring Programme (WQMP). Whilst SEPA initially objected to the proposed development on the grounds of lack of information regarding water crossings, private water supplies, peat reuse, borrow pit restoration and forestry waste, it is noted that SEPA does not object in their latest consultation response following the submission of further information by the applicant. SEPA consider that previous matters of concern have been addressed and could be conditioned through the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and a Habitat Management Survey, providing appropriate mitigation. These issues are addressed further within section 7.8 of this report.
7.5.4 In considering the potential impacts of a proposed wind farm, it is likely that mitigation measures would be incorporated within a Habitats Management Plan (HMP). The advice and guidance of SNH is considered to be essential to provide guidance as to whether potential impacts are acceptable, or whether mitigation is possible to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts. In light of the SNH response and second SEPA response, it is considered that the Environmental Impact Assessment Report is adequate together with a condition in relation to Habitat Management Survey.
7.5.5 SNH acknowledges that some loss of peatland is inevitable and that the remaining losses of bog habitat should be compensated through habitat restoration delivered in the context of a HMP. SNH recommend that the position of turbine 9 should be confirmed and that siting the turbines in area with a peat depth of less than 1m is welcomed. SEPA state that surplus peat should not be placed inappropriately (e.g. excessive heights and widths of roadside verges) and that this should be addressed in the Construction Environment Management Plan.
Ornithology
7.5.6 A detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the development was undertaken through a combination of consultation with ornithological organisations, desk study and field survey. The assessments in the EIA Report conclude that there is no requirement for mitigation either during the construction or operational phase as it is stated within the report that effects are not predicted to be significant under the terms of the EIA Regulations.
7.5.7 Scottish Natural Heritage is the statutory consultee where matters of ornithology are concerned and state that it is likely that any adverse impacts of the proposal can be mitigated, through the provisions of a Habitat Management Plan. SNH do not consider that the proposal will have a negative impact on the ornithology notified feature of the nearby Glenapp and Galloway Moors SSSI. It is noted that Goshawk bred successfully within 100m of proposed turbine 11 in both 2017 and 2018 and SNH therefore recommend that the Bird Protection Plan (BPP) includes specific measures to protect the Goshawk nest throughout any felling, construction activities and operation of the windfarm. It is noted that the RSPB offer no objection to the proposed development subject to the submission of a Habitat Management Plan focussed on peatland restoration.
Concluded Natural Heritage Assessment
7.5.8 On balance, and reflecting the positions submitted by SNH, SEPA and Marine Scotland, it can be concluded that the proposed development is in accordance with LDP Policy Wind Energy Criterion d) and relevant elements of LDP Policy Natural Heritage, LDP Policy Sustainable Development and LDP Policy Water Environment subject to conditions in relation to submission of a CEMP, Habitat Management Survey and following the relevant guidance provided by SNH and SEPA.
7.6 Criterion e) Built and Cultural Heritage & Archaeology
We will support proposals if: They do not have a significant detrimental effect on the historic environment, taking into account the criteria in LDP policy: historic environment and LDP policy : archaeology;
Additional LDP Policies LDP Policy Sustainable development LDP Policy Historic environment LDP Policy Archaeology
7.6.1 The EIA Report contains an assessment of archaeological and cultural heritage assets. An inner study area and outer study area are identified, with the inner area relating to the application site (as defined at Scoping stage) and the existing Arecleoch Windfarm with a buffer of 250m and the outer study area selected in accordance with Scoping responses and identified potential long distance settings effects. There are no designated heritage assets within the proposed development area. Within the inner study area, there is a single Listed Building (Glenour, Category B - derelict). 20m beyond the edge of the inner study area is a Scheduled Monument, ‘Cairn Kenny’. The EIA Report concludes that the potential operational impacts on the setting of heritage assets are not considered to be significant. 7.6.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) do not object to the proposed development and are content that the assessment undertaken in the EIA Report provides adequate information to come to a view on the proposals. HES agree with the conclusion that none of the impacts on HES interests are likely to be significant, although do state that the assessment does not appear to follow the steps as set out in the methodology but that the assessment returned values ‘not significant’ regardless of which approach is taken.
7.6.3 In addition to the assessment of effects of the development on scheduled monuments, the EIA Report provides an assessment of likely effects on archaeological resources of regional and local importance. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) provides South Ayrshire Council with expert guidance on matters of local and regional archaeological and historic importance. WoSAS agree with the proposed mitigation suggested in the EIA Report which consists of fencing of recorded sites in proximity to construction activities to prevent accidental damage and watching briefs in sensitive areas yet to be defined. A requirement for a post felling walk over survey of all new roads, turbines, compounds etc. is also suggested.
Concluded Built and Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Assessment
7.6.4 On balance, and reflecting the positions submitted by Historic Environment Scotland and WoSAS, it can be concluded that the proposed development is in accordance with LDP Policy Wind Energy Criterion e), LDP Policy Historic Environment and LDP Policy Archaeology subject to a suitable condition. The condition suggested by WoSAS is as follows: No development shall take place within the development site as outlined in red on the approved plan until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.
7.7 Criterion f) Cumulative impacts
We will support proposals if: They do not adversely affect aviation, defence interests and broadcasting installation; and their cumulative impact in combination with other existing and approved wind energy development, and those for which applications for approval have already been submitted, is acceptable.
Secondary LDP Policy LDP policy Natural Heritage LDP policy Archaeology LDP policy Historic Environment LDP policy Air, Noise and Light Pollution LDP policy Protecting the Landscape LDP policy Sustainable Development LDP policy Spatial Strategy
Aviation and Defence
7.7.1 An assessment has been undertaken of the potential of the proposed development to interfere with systems associated with aviation and national defence, and the obstacle that the turbines could potentially cause low flying aircraft. The CAA requires that all obstacles at or above 150m above ground level are fitted with visible lighting and in the case of wind turbines these should be located on the nacelle. The CAA also requires that a secondary light is fitted for use only when the primary light fails and would not be lit concurrently. Current guidance (SG Wind Energy) requires developers to demonstrate agreement between the developer and airport operators that a technological or other mitigation solution is in place which demonstrates their development would not threaten the current operation of the airport or the expansion aspirations sought by the Council and Government.
Consultation responses from Glasgow Prestwick Airport, the MoD and NATS raise no objections subject to a requirement that the development should be fitted with MoD accredited aviation safety lighting. The turbines should be fitted with approved aviation safety lighting in accordance with the Civil Aviation Authority, Air Navigation Order 2016. This request will have impacts on the night time visibility of the development. Having considered this, with particular attention paid to the consultation response from SNH, it is considered that the requirement for aviation lighting at this location would introduce eye catching and prominent lights into an area important for its dark skies and in particular to a part of the view which contributes strongly to the dark sky experience.
It is considered that this could result in likely significant adverse impacts on views from the wild land area and core area of the dark sky park, as well as adverse impacts on the wild land qualities of the Merrick Wild Land Area. It is currently unclear as to whether the impacts outlined above can be mitigated. In a letter to the ECU dated 21 February 2020, the applicant states that they would welcome a discussion on aviation lighting mitigation with the ECU at the appropriate time and the EIA Report states that it is proposed to explore the use of ‘smart’ aviation lighting, whereby the lights would only be switched on when low altitude aircraft approach them. The ability to mitigate this issue is currently unclear, as referred to previously within this report in relation to adverse landscape impact as a result of lighting.
Communication and Broadcasting
7.7.2 A statement on interference to telecommunications links and television reception in the area is provided within the EIA Report and concludes that from the consultation responses received from BT and Joint Radio Company there would be no unacceptable impacts on communication and broadcasting. The proposed development is located in an area which is served by a digital transmitter and it is stated that digital signals are rarely affected. In the unlikely event that they are, mitigation measures would be considered by the applicant. This matter can be conditioned.
Cumulative Effects
7.7.3 Cumulative impacts will most frequently involve landscape and visual impacts but may also affect other aspects of consideration, including natural heritage designations, residential amenity and aviation interests. SNH guidance, “Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments, March 2012” recognises an assessment of cumulative impact requires the consideration of proposals which have permission and those which are subject to valid but undetermined applications when considered against the impact of the proposed development. This guidance also recognises that cumulative impacts can be mitigated by a planned approach based on the identification of search areas and an assessment of the capacity of the landscape to absorb future developments, both approaches which South Ayrshire Council have adopted.
7.7.4 With a large number of operational or consented wind farms within South Ayrshire or its borders, the assessment of the cumulative impact of proposals is increasingly relevant in determining the acceptability of future proposals. This is a key concern of a number of the representations made on this application. Cumulative landscape matters have been considered and incorporated in the advice of Carol Anderson, Landscape Architects. The proposed development would lie close to the consented Chirmorie wind farm and the proposed Stranoch 2 wind farm. The findings of the LVIA that cumulative effects with these consented and proposed windfarms would not be significant is considered to be appropriate, although it is considered that there would be some adverse effects where the larger turbines in this proposed development would contrast with the 145m high consented Chirmorie turbines in views from the A714.
Residential Amenity
7.7.5 The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) set out in the EIA Report Technical Appendix 7.2 highlights that 4 properties are located within 2km of the proposed development and that two of these, Kilrenzie Farm and Wheeb Farm are likely to experience significant adverse effects on visual amenity. Whilst the RVAA undertaken in the EIA Report appears sound, it is considered difficult to fully understand the judgements made as some of the text is missing. Although the operational Arecleoch wind farm is already visible from both of the aforementioned properties, the proposed development would introduce closer and much higher turbines to these views, to a degree that the Council considers overbearing.
7.7.6 Section 5.3 of Technical Appendix 13.1 presents the wind turbine emission data used in the noise prediction model. The data covers Arecleoch and the turbine types considered in the cumulative noise assessment. The wind farms which are considered are: Arecleoch, Kilgallioch, Chirmorie and Mark Hill, which have been considered due to their relative proximity to the proposed development. Predicted turbine noise for the proposed development, the proposed development plus Arecleoch wind turbines and for all turbines considered in the cumulative assessment are presented in tables 12 to 14 respectively of Technical Appendix 13.1. Paragraph 5.5.3 states that the predicted cumulative noise levels are unlikely to occur as sensitive receptors will not be downwind of all turbines at any time. The Council’s Noise Consultants, ACCON UK Limited, agree that the cumulative noise predictions are conservative and unlikely to occur in practice, i.e. noise levels will be lower than the predicted cumulative noise levels imply. ACCON also note that no mitigation is required for turbines at the proposed development based on the candidate turbine assumed in the noise predictions. In light of the aforementioned, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant effect in relation to cumulative noise impacts.
Concluded Cumulative Impacts Assessment
7.7.7 On balance, it is considered that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable cumulative impact and that the proposal can therefore be considered to be in accordance with LDP Policy Wind Energy Criterion d) and LDP policies Natural Heritage, Archaeology, Historic Environment and Spatial Strategy. However, it is considered that the proposed development is not in accordance with LDP polices Air, Noise or Light Pollution, Protecting the Landscape, and Sustainable Development for reasons stated elsewhere within this report and an objection is recommended on these matters.
7.8 Other Matters
Forestry
7.8.1 The Council has a strong presumption in favour of protecting South Ayrshire’s woodlands and this should be taken into account through initial site selection. The Scottish Government through its woodland removal policy seeks compensatory replacement of woodland losses should this be unavoidable. This is re-iterated within the Ayrshire & Arran Woodland Strategy. All the land within the development red line site is owned by the Scottish Ministers and managed on behalf of the nation by Forest and Land Scotland (FLS). Felling and replanting of the forest is regulated by Scottish Forestry (SF) and the forest is covered by two SF approved Forest Design Plans, Arecleoch and Kilgallioch, with consents covering the period to 31 March 2023. SF accept the proposed changes to the first phase of the felling plan (Technical Appendix 3.2, figure 2.3.6) and that the second and subsequent phases should be consented through a condition that requires a Land Management Plan (LMP) approval from SF.
The Forestry Technical Report calculates that the area of permanent woodland removal (the total area of felling required for the project), less the area that will be restocked through planting, as 60.1 hectares. Whilst SF accepts this figure as the overall woodland loss, SF contends that the loss of productive conifer woodland is greater (90.7 hectares) as a consequence of the greater proportion of restocking with broadleaves. SF propose that the compensatory planting includes a minimum of 60.1 hectares planted as productive forest and state that they should be consulted on the conditioning of the compensatory planting. Conditions should be attached in relation to Scottish Forestry being consulted on the compensatory planting and that the compensatory planting be agreed with Scottish Forestry to ensure that UKFS and the Forestry (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 are complied with.
Peat
7.8.2 The ground conditions at the proposed turbine bases is generally of thin peat ranging from 0.47m to 0.92m, with one proposed turbine position not recording any peat deposits (12).
The application site has been assessed for potential hazards in relation to peat instability. Peat slide hazard (Table 5.5 Technical Appendix 10.1) was assessed under four categories – negligible, low, medium and high. All turbine locations are located in areas assessed as negligible or low. Those areas that have been identified as being at medium risk of instability but do not impact the site layout have not been considered in a hazard impact assessment. The stability risk assessment results are presented in table 5.11 of the TA, with this table highlighting the calculated hazard ranking associated with every location where there is a stability risk of medium or above, at or close to windfarm infrastructure. Proposed mitigation measures and actions already undertaken to reduce the risk of peat instability occurring is also identified. The mitigation measures are identified in section 6 of Technical Appendix 10.1. SEPA advise that the reuse of peat on site should not result in the inappropriate placing of any surplus peat – e.g. excessive heights and widths of roadside verges. Any excessive peat should be treated as waste and disposed of appropriately. SEPA further advises that issues in relation to peat can be addressed by a CEMP condition. SNH advise that a condition should be attached in relation to the submission of a Habitat Management Plan regarding restoration measures to compensate for the loss of peatland habitat.
Water Resources
7.8.3 Under the Water Framework Directive, planning authorities have a duty to safeguard and seek improvements to the water environment. As a consequence, the potential impact of a wind farm construction on local hydrology requires being assessed and protective and preventative strategies put in place to reduce potential risk. The proposed development is located in the catchments of the Water Tig and the Cross Water. Fisheries data has shown the presence of salmon, trout, eel and lamprey in these catchments downstream of the study area. Marine Scotland (MS), Fisheries Management Scotland and Ayrshire Rivers Trust offer no objection to the proposed development subject to following guidelines. MS welcomes the proposed Fish Monitoring Plan (FMP) and Water Quality Monitoring Programme (WQMP).
The following measures are proposed by the applicant to safeguard the local watercourses which discharge in to the aforementioned catchments:
- maintaining a standoff of at least 50m from any part of the proposed site infrastructure to watercourses
- establish a water quality monitoring programme to record water quality which can be used to assess trends in water quality during site construction and operation.
No direct discharge of water is proposed to watercourses.
Private Water Supplies (PWS) and Water Abstraction
7.8.4 A Private Water Risk Assessment was submitted as part of the application. The assessment shows that 35 properties were determined to be within 5km and potentially be downgradient of the proposed development and of these, 5 properties, which are connected to at four PWS sources have been assessed without mitigation or monitoring as potentially at risk of impact from the proposed development (Arnimean, Burnside, Laggish Farm, Barrhill Train Station and Ferngate Cottage). With the adoption of safeguards it has been assessed that no effects on PWSs near to and downstream of the proposed development are anticipated. Notwithstanding, a programme of water monitoring prior to and during construction of the windfarm is recommended. It is understood that SEPA’s objection on the lack of information in relation to private water supplies has now been removed following the applicant’s confirmation that the mapped PWS at Craigalbert does not exist. The Council’s Environmental Health Service has not objected subject to conditions in relation the submission of a site specific hydrogeological report (not desk top study) and submission of Emergency Action Plan which should detail who the emergency contacts would be 24/7, with contact telephone numbers and email addresses, to be provided to PWS users and South Ayrshire Council Planning Department.
Ground Water Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWTE)
7.8.5 GWTE are types of wetland specifically protected under the Water Framework Directive. The EIA Report states that as construction of proposed infrastructure is required through the buffers associated with GWTEs, there is potential to disrupt water contributions to these habitats. It has been shown that areas of potential GWTE are sustained by surface water rather than groundwater and that the construction of the proposed development would have no long term effect on any GWTE habitat. SEPA and SNH have not objected in this regard, subject to conditions in relation to all works being carried out in accordance with SEPA guidelines.
Flood Risk
7.8.6 The assessment of flood risk found the risk to be negligible. The drainage design would ensure management of any increase in runoff volumes for a 1 in 200 year return period at the detailed design stage. During the construction phase, good practice measures would be in place to prevent materials entering watercourses and to ensure that man-made drains and blockages do not lead to bank erosion of localised flooding and this would be subject to suitable conditions. This is consistent with the Council’s guidance (SG - Wind Energy). The Council’s Environmental Health Service has offered no objections in this regard, subject to conditions in relation to the submission of a water management plan (covering water control and the means of drainage from all hard surfaces and structures within the site).
Borrow Pits
7.8.7 The applicant has identified six potential borrow pits on site that would supply 183,800m3 of aggregate. Borrow pits 1, 3 and 6 would provide around 63% of this requirement.
The Scottish Government included within Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 243) a new approach to the use of Borrow Pits for wind farm construction. Borrow pits can be extensive areas within the site of a windfarm and are commonly used for the extraction of sand and aggregates used in the associated developments such as crane pads, access routes etc. The policy advice is to limit their use and only to permit them on site if there are significant environmental or economic benefits compared to obtaining material from local quarries. SEPA has not objected to the use of borrow pits in the development proposal, subject to a condition in relation to submission of a CEMP. SEPA state that borrow pits need to be reinstated according to their guidelines and that this should be addressed in the CEMP. SEPA advise that borrow pits should have a maximum of 2m depth of peat for restoration and must be hydrologically connected to the surrounding peatland. Any peat that cannot be reused would be classed as waste and would need to be disposed of to a licensed site.
Other Significant Policy Considerations:
8. Benefits of the Proposed Scheme
8.1 The proposed development would contribute to the Scottish Government’s uncapped target of generating the equivalent of 100% of electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020. This equates to an installed capacity of some 16 gigawatts. This proposal would contribute 0.45% or 72.8MW (approximately) to this target.
8.2 The EIA Report estimates that during the construction phase there would be up to 120 jobs on site. Long term direct employment is more modest, between 10-14 FTE jobs in maintenance and management. The use of local contractors and localised spending is further anticipated to benefit the local economy. If consented, a Community Benefit Fund would be made available to communities in the region of the site. However, it should be noted that this latter issue is not a matter which can be considered in the assessment of the acceptability of the proposal.
9. Other Material Considerations
9.1 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is generally supportive of wind energy development where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can satisfactorily be addressed but this is qualified by the need to ensure the environmental impacts are satisfactory. It suggests criteria for the consideration of proposals which are similar in content to those of the South Ayrshire Local Development Plan and its supplementary Guidance document.
9.2 SPP seeks to ensure that in taking decisions on development proposals, Planning Authorities should ensure that potential effects, including cumulative effects of incremental development are considered. SPP states that valid planning applications should be taken into account when considering the cumulative impact of turbine/wind farm proposals with weight being afforded according to their position in the planning application process.
9.3 SPP states that areas identified for windfarms should be suitable for use in perpetuity. Consents may be time limited but wind farms should nevertheless be sited and designed to ensure impacts are minimised and to protect an acceptable level of amenity for adjacent communities. The applicant seeks planning permission in perpetuity for the proposed development; however it is considered that the locale is not suitable for the siting of extremely large turbines, as reasoned within this report.
9.4 As with the assessment against the provisions of the LDP, it considered that the proposed development is therefore not fully in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy.
10. Conclusion
10.1 In conclusion, having considered the applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment Report and supporting documentation and notwithstanding the identified benefits of the scheme, together with the responses received and having balanced the developers’ interest against the wider community interest it is recommended that an objection be submitted to the Scottish Government as it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the guidance set out in the SALWCS in that turbines would be sited closer to the Duisk Valley and this, together with the very large size of the turbines, would result in significant adverse effects on character and on views from the Duisk Valley.
10.2 The proposal would also comprise turbines which are noticeably larger than those within the existing nearby wind farms of Kilgallioch, Mark Hill, Arecleoch and the consented Chirmorie wind farm and this will be appreciated in views from settlement and roads within the Duisk Valley, creating an unacceptable impact.
10.3 It is considered that the proposed development would have a significant and overbearing adverse impact on the residential amenity of two properties located to the north, namely Wheeb Farm and Kilrenzie Farm.
10.4 There would also be significant adverse effects on the character of Glen Tig as turbine 4 lies very close to this scenic small scale LCT, although it is recognised that this impact could potentially be mitigated through relocation or removal of this turbine.
10.5 Aviation lighting would introduce eye catching and prominent lights into an area important for its dark skies and in particular to a part of the view which contributes strongly to the dark sky experience. It is considered that this would have significant adverse impacts on views from the wild land area and core area of the dark sky park. It is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that the lighting concern can be mitigated appropriately.
10.6 Should the applicant submit additional information which addresses the points of objection listed in 10.4 and 10.5 above, then it is requested that delegated powers be applied to withdraw the objection on these points only, subject to further consultation on mitigation measures and appropriate planning conditions.
11. Recommendation
It is recommended that South Ayrshire council submit an objection to the Scottish Government on the following grounds (a) and (b) below and it is recommended that comment (c) below is submitted to Scottish Government:
(a) Landscape and Visual
That the proposed development is contrary to South Ayrshire Local Development Plan policies 'Wind Energy – Criterion a), b) and c)', ‘Sustainable Development’ and 'Landscape Quality' and South Ayrshire Council Supplementary Guidance on Wind Energy and SALWCS by reason of its unacceptable visual impact on the character of Duisk Valley and Glen Tig due to the scale and positioning of the proposed turbines and unacceptable impact on views from the Duisk Valley and settlement of Barrhill. There is no reason to depart from South Ayrshire Local Development Plan policy or Supplementary Guidance on Wind Energy.
That the proposed development is contrary to South Ayrshire Local Development Plan policies 'Wind Energy – Criterion a) and b) and LDP Policy Air, Noise and Light Pollution by reason that the applicant has not demonstrated that aviation lighting would not introduce eye catching and prominent lights into an area important for its dark skies, thus adversely impacting upon views from the wild land and core area of the dark sky park. There is no reason to depart from South Ayrshire Local Development Plan policy or Supplementary Guidance on Wind Energy.
(b) Residential Amenity
That the proposed development is contrary to LDP Policy, Wind Energy Criterion c) and LDP policy Sustainable Development by reason that the proposed development would have a significant and overbearing impact on the residential amenity of nearby residential dwellings at Kilrenzie Farm and Wheeb Farm. There is no over-riding reason to depart from South Ayrshire Local Development Plan policy or Supplementary Guidance on Wind Energy.
It is recommended that South Ayrshire Council submit the following comment to Scottish Government
(c) Conditions
Should the Scottish Government be minded to grant this application, South Ayrshire Council requests that it be consulted on proposed conditions prior to the grant of permission.
Background Papers:
1. Application form, plans and supporting documentation including Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Addendum. 2. Consultation responses to the ECU 3. Representations to the ECU 4. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 5. Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement 6. Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Setting 7. Planning Advice Note 2/2011 “Planning & Archaeology” 8. Adopted South Ayrshire Council Local Development Plan 9. Proposed South Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2 10. South Ayrshire Council Supplementary Guidance: Wind Energy 2015 11. South Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study 2018 12. SNH Guidance- Siting and Design of Windfarms 2017, V3 13. Residential Visual Amenity Assessment Technical Guidance Note 2/19 (Landscape Institute)
Person to Contact:
Alastair McGibbon, Supervisory Planner, Priority Projects - 01292 616177