PLANNING APPLICATIONS BOARD 30 MARCH 2021 COMHAIRLE 31 MARCH 2021
18/00216/PPDM – DRUIM LEATHANN WINDFARM, NORTH TOLSTA, ISLE OF LEWIS
Report by Head of Economic Development and Planning
PURPOSE
1.1 The Report is to seek the recommendation of the Board on the determination of a planning application for an EIA development categorised as Major development made under The Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 (The Act) , prior to a determination by the Comhairle.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The application seeks planning permission to construct a windfarm comprising 14 wind turbines (up to 140m to blade tip) and install associated infrastructure, including access tracks, crane hardstanding areas, a substation, form temporary construction compounds, laydown areas and borrow pits at Druim Leathann, North Tolsta, Isle of Lewis (the Proposed Development). A copy of the Planning Application documents, the EIA Non-Technical Summary, the EIA Report (EIAR), and the EIA Supplementary Information (SI) are available to view on the Planning ‘Public Access’ portal under reference 18/00216/PPDM. The application is assessed under the provisions of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2018 (OHLDP) and the Supplementary Guidance: Wind Energy Development, (2018) (SG). The application attracted 380 representations, some in support and some in objection, many raising duplicate issues and some matters non-material to a planning decision but ultimately an indicator of the interest and concerns around the proposal.
2.2 A windfarm, comprising 14 turbines of up to 126m in height, with associated ancillary infrastructure including tracks, substations and borrow pits on the same site was initially the subject of a Report to the Comhairle in November 2013. The siting of the windfarm, partially inside what was then a 1.5km spatial buffer, for community separation from windfarms, coupled with predicted impacts of major significance on visual amenity, led to an assessment of the development as being contrary to the Development Plan. However in making its determination, the Comhairle, placed weight upon other material considerations, and planning permission was granted in March 2014 upon completion of a Planning Agreement. Subsequent applications, made under Section 42 of The Act, to develop the windfarm subject to varied conditions led to the grant of further planning permissions; the most recent, (the Consented Development) was granted on 15 Feb 2018 for a period of five years and therefore, remains extant.
2.3 All turbines comprised of the Proposed Development, are located on the same site, and are in the same positions as those in the Consented Development, save for one, T12, repositioned to mitigate effects on ornithological interests. For the same reason, the substation has also been relocated to a new position now within 500m of the nearest houses in Lochside, Tolsta. The windfarm infrastructure now proposed would be sited wholly inside what is now set by the SG as a 2km spatial buffer for community separation from windfarms and has predicted impacts of major significance adverse effects on visual amenity from in and around Tolsta together with localised impacts on landscape character.
2.4 Consistent with the assessment of the initial application for a windfarm on this site in 2013, the assessment of the Proposed Development concludes that it would be contrary to the provisions of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan. As an initial stage in the assessment, a conclusion is drawn on the proposal in light of material considerations assuming no planning history or extant planning permission. The significant effects both positive and negative are weighed in a planning balance and in that scenario it is the judgement of officers that within the current planning policy context and decision making framework the significant negative effects would not outweigh the benefits of the Proposed Development.
2.5 However, the site has a Planning History and the existence of the live Planning Permission requires to be taken into account. A comparison has therefore been made of the effects both positive and negative that arise from the Proposed Development when compared with the Consented Development, in the context of policy changes, both local and national that have arisen since the Comhairle first considered the application for a windfarm on this site in 2013.
2.6 The decision to grant or refuse planning permission, is therefore based on a finely balanced judgement between the level of additional harm to localised visual amenity versus the benefits of increased power from the proposed windfarm (with predicted powering of circa 2000 additional homes with green energy). This decision is to be made in the context of national and local policy changes, since the Comhairle first made its decision in 2014, to grant planning permission for the now Consented Development.
2.7 There has been a rigorous examination, assessment and consideration of all planning issues. On balance, it is considered that when taken as a whole, the effects of the Proposed Development, would not be significantly more beneficial nor significantly more harmful than those that would arise from the Consented Development. That is, notwithstanding that the Consented Development (at the relevant time) and the Proposed Development have been assessed as being contrary to the Development Plan and further that the policy position has strengthened in certain matters since 2014 (both for and against the proposal).
2.8 Therefore, largely as a consequence of the weight afforded to the extant planning permission being in place (acknowledging that on balance, there is limited difference in the overall effects arising from the Proposed Development compared with the Consented Development), it is recommended that the planning application be approved, subject to management by way of conditions and the securing of other matters that are unable to be addressed by planning conditions within a Planning Obligations Agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 It is recommended that the Comhairle approve the planning application subject to:
(a) the application of planning conditions, based upon the draft set of conditions provided in Appendix 1 to this Report; their finalisation delegated to the Director for Communities.
(b) the completion of either a new or a variation to the existing S75 Planning Obligation Agreement with Druim Leathann Wind Farm Limited (DLWF Ltd)and other relevant land interests, such agreement to secure existing commitments with updated sums for the provisions for a Planning Conditions monitoring officer and to add measures to secure the implementation of the terms of the Agreement between DLWF Ltd and the met office re impact on the weather radar; the Chief Executive being granted delegated Authority, in consultation with the Director for Communities to complete such an Agreement and where appropriate, to discharge the Existing Agreement following an application from the Developer once the new agreement or variation has been registered.
(c) A Direction be made under Section 58 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 the effect of which would be to direct that subsection 58 (1) of the Act is not to apply as respects the permission and instead that the permission is to lapse on the expiration of a 5 year period from the date upon which it is granted.
Contact Officer: Morag Ferguson, Planning Manager (Development Management) Telephone: 01870 604990 Email: [email protected] Appendix 1: Schedule of Draft conditions Appendix 2: Plans: Site location and layout, Typical Wind Turbine Structure, Substation Appendix 3: Comparative viewpoints Appendix 4: Consultation responses Appendix 5: Existing Section 75 Planning Agreement Appendix 6: Traffic and transport assessment clarifications Appendix 6a: Traffic and transport Appendix 7: Appropriate Assessment Background Papers: None
IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The following implications are applicable in terms of the Report.
Resource Implications Implications/None Financial None Legal Requirement to update a Section 75 Planning Agreement Staffing Future resource implications for the pre-commencement discharge and construction phase monitoring of conditions Assets and Property None Strategic Implications Implications/None Risk None Equalities None Corporate Strategy None Environmental Impact None Consultation None
BACKGROUND
Site selection and planning history
5.1 Chapter 3 of the EIAR sets out the site identification and selection process that was undertaken by DLWL and the design considerations that informed the layout of the Consented Development, as well as the feasibility work undertaken in relation to the windfarm design which forms the subject of this EIA and planning application.
5.2 The EIAR does not set out consideration of alternative sites but rather cites that Scottish Planning Policy (2010) provided support for wind development in principle and encouraged local authorities to guide development towards appropriate locations. DLWL identified the Druim Leathann site as potentially suitable on the basis that Comhairle spatial strategy identified a potential area in this location and the site as selected was partly within this identified ‘area of search’ for large scale windfarms. It is the case that only a small part of the site, that closest to the western boundary and all in excess of 1.5km from the settlement was within ‘the area of search’ as illustrated by Figure 3.1.
5.3 Notwithstanding this, a site which is within 1km of the settlement edge was selected. The design iterations that took place in relation to layout, are set out in Chapter 3 of the EIAR; the initial design comprising 30 turbines, reducing to 14 turbines by the time of scoping and the initial planning application.
5.4 Planning permission Ref 13/00215/PPDM (the 2013 consent) was granted on 10 March 2014 for the development of a Windfarm comprising of 14 wind turbines (up to 126.5m to blade tip and 93 rotor diameter with a maximum combined output of 42MW) and to install associated infrastructure including access tracks and crane hardstanding areas, erect a permanent meteorological mast, a control building and substation, and to form temporary construction compounds, laydown areas and borrow pits on a site extending to approximately 261 hectares (ha), located on an area of moorland lying to the west of the crofting settlements of North Tolsta and New Tolsta.
5.5 The Windfarm as then proposed, being partially sited within a ‘1.5km buffer’1 around the settlement of Tolsta, was assessed to have significant impacts on the visual amenity of the residences and on the settlement of North Tolsta and having assessed the application and weighed up the planning issues, the officer recommendation was refusal.
5.6 The recommendation of officers was not accepted by either the Committee or subsequently by the Comhairle which determined, that subject to the conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement and application of appropriate conditions, that planning permission be granted on the following reasoning:
• the proposal is contrary to the Comhairle’s Development Plan;
• the amenity impacts would not be sufficiently adverse and in those circumstances the spatial strategy on location of Windfarms outwith the 1.5km buffer was not undermined;
• having given due regard to the relevant material planning considerations that significant weight should be given to the following:
➢ the partial screening effect provided by the intervening topography between the Windfarm and the villages of New Tolsta and North Tolsta;
➢ the general orientation of the dwellings in the villages – mostly facing a seaward direction;
➢ the level of community support stated as part of the planning process;
➢ that all turbines are beyond 1km from residential properties; and
➢ Scottish Government policy support and targets for renewables; wind energy in particular.
• These material considerations indicate that the Development Plan buffer of 1.5km from settlements should not be accorded priority on this occasion.
5.7 Following the grant of planning permission, an application Ref 14/00137/PPDM was subsequently made under Section 42 of the Act to vary Conditions 38, 39 and 41 (relating to noise levels and monitoring). This application was also recommended for refusal by officers but the officer recommendation was not accepted by the Committee and subsequently by the Comhairle, which determined that a further planning permission for the same development be granted subject to varied conditions. The 2014 consent was granted on 02 July 2014.
5.8 On 11 December 2015, a non-material variation to the Planning Permission (Ref 13/00215/PPDM), was approved, the variation to allow for an increase in the generating capacity from a maximum combined output of 42MW to 46.2MW; the increased output was deemed to not be material to planning and a further application was therefore not required.
1 At that time the spatial strategy for large scale windfarms including broad areas of search directed all large scale windfarms to be sited at least 1.5km from settlements. 5.9 A further application (Ref 17/00282/PPDM) made under Section 42 of the Act to vary two conditions on the back of a non-substantive change to the Consented Development, relating to the substations only was granted planning permission on 15 Feb 2018. In assessing an application made under Section 42 of the Act, consideration may only be given to the conditions subject to which the planning permission was previously granted. The principle of development is not revisited. This conditional planning permission remains extant (the Consented Development) and was also subject to a Section 75 agreement; the consent to expire after 5 years from the date on which it was granted unless development is begun. This consent remains extant until 14 February 2023.
BACKGROUND, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
6.1 On 08 June 2018 Druim Leathann Windfarm Ltd (DLWL), submitted a new planning application Reference 18/00216/PPDM (the current application), accompanied by a new Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) to construct a windfarm comprising 14 wind turbines (up to 140m to blade tip) and to install associated infrastructure, including access tracks, crane hardstanding areas, substations, form temporary construction compounds, laydown areas and borrow pits on a site subject to an extant planning permission and extending to approximately 261 hectares (ha), located on an area of moorland lying to the west of the crofting settlements of North Tolsta and New Tolsta. Supplementary Information (SI) to augment the information in the EIAR was received on 31 January 2020.
6.2 The developer is identified as BayWa r.e. UK Limited (formerly Forsa Energy and prior to that, 2020 Renewables).
6.3 The main components of the windfarm include:
• the installation of 14 wind turbines up to 140m tip height, with a maximum combined output of 48.3MW;
• construction of approximately 8km of new onsite access tracks and upgrading of 1.1km of existing track; a new access bellmouth would be formed immediately south of the entrance to the village and the access would pass under or require the HV electricity lines to be buried;
• construction of two watercourse crossings and upgrading of two existing watercourse crossings;
• construction of ancillary development comprising turbine foundations, transformers for each wind turbine, crane hardstanding and connecting cabling;
• erection of a single substation (initially two);
• creation of two temporary construction compounds;
• creation of a temporary laydown area;
• creation of two temporary borrow pits for the extraction of stone;
• felling of a cope of coniferous trees to accommodate turbine 13 and associated infrastructure.
6.4 The operational life of the windfarm will be 25 years. Up to 25 months are required for construction and, following the 25-year operational period, 10 months are required for decommissioning. Decommissioning will involve the removal of the turbines and all above ground components. An outline decommissioning strategy has been provided.
Context
6.5 The application site lies within a landscape of large scale, gently undulating peat moorlands, indented with numerous lochs and lochans. The site lies at approximately 100m AOD with some parts rising to 110m and descending to lower ground towards the boundaries of the site. The northern part of the site extends into an area of rocky moorland where there is a more irregular topography of rocky knolls interlocked with peaty moorland vegetation and occasional small lochans.
6.6 Within the immediate context of the site, the land to the north and west is an area of extensive uninhabited moorland designated as the Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site; the Special Protection Area (SPA) supporting internationally important breeding population of dunlin; nationally important populations of red-throated diver, black-throated diver, golden eagle, merlin and golden plover and a breeding population of greenshank which is considered of special importance in a British context and the qualifying features of the SAC including upland bog, heath habitat, standing open water habitats and otter.
6.7 The land lying immediately to the east of the windfarm site is not within the aforementioned natural heritage designations, but is of broadly similar character to the application site, save for more extensive agricultural tracks and historic peat-cuttings and a narrow strip of land along the western boundary of the village planted with semi mature coniferous trees. This bank of land forms a buffer of about 1km width between the windfarm site and the villages of North Tolsta and New Tolsta, a settlement comprised largely of crofts, residential housing, agricultural buildings and croft based enterprises.
6.8 The B895 Stornoway to New Tolsta road, runs broadly parallel to the application site and dissects the coastal crofting villages along a north south axis. To the west of the B895, properties tend to be orientated to afford views east, south-east towards the coast and the seascape and are generally situated within irregular shaped plots while to the east crofts exhibit strongly linear field patterns which run down to the coast. Further still, to the east, lie the Tràigh Mhòr and Tràigh Ghearadh beaches and elevated coastal edge, which frame the eastern boundary of the settlement.
6.9 To the south lies Gleann Tholastaidh, a wooded glen densely planted with mature lodgepole pine coniferous trees; these trees are noted to not have been well maintained and the plantation is overgrown with uprooted trees and as a woodland, considered generally to be in poor condition.
6.10 The pattern of settlement across the wider context area is characterised by a vast moorland interior that stretches from Tolsta, west across to Barvas and north to Ness, contained by crofting settlements along the coast; namely the settlements of Tong, Col, Back and Gress along the B895 on the south-east coast, the settlements of Barvas, Ballantrushal, Shadar, Borve, Galson and South Dell along the A857 on the northwest coast. Across Broad Bay, on the Eye Peninsula, the coastal settlements of Aignish, Knock, Garrabost, Shulishadar and Flesherin/Broker run alongside the A866.
6.11 There are no designated landscapes within the immediate study area. The South Lewis, Harris & North Uist National Scenic Area (NSA) lies over 35km to the south-west and the Harris and Uig Wild Land Area (WLA) is over 28km away.
Current application versus the Consented Development
6.12 The Consented Development comprises of 14 wind turbines (each up to 126.5m to blade tip and 93m rotor diameter designed to generate a combined electricity output of 42MW (later increased to 46.2MW by way of a non-material variation) with associated infrastructure including access tracks and crane hardstanding areas, erect a permanent meteorological mast, a single control building and substation, and to form temporary construction compounds, laydown areas and borrow pits. The candidate turbine adopted for the purposes of the EIA assessment was the Vestas V90 3MW turbine with a hub height of 80m, blade length of 44m and nacelle of 9.6m x 3.8m. The original 2013 application and subsequent consent included two onsite electrical substations; one for the windfarm itself and one operated by SSE-N, both located in the south-west of the site, adjacent to Turbine 13. These two were subsequently reduced to one under the S42 application submitted in 2017
6.13 By way of comparison, the current application, (reflecting the revisions that have arisen during the course of the determination process), proposes the construction of a windfarm comprising 14 wind turbines and to install associated infrastructure, including access tracks, crane hardstanding areas, a substation, formation of temporary construction compounds, laydown areas and borrow pits at Druim Leathann, North Tolsta, Isle of Lewis. 13 turbines and their crane pads and access track remain on the same footprint as the Consented Development. Turbine 12 and its associated foundation and crane hard-standing are repositioned 90m in a north-north-easterly (NNE) direction marginally closer to the settlement edge than previously (in order to reduce proximity to a white-tailed eagle nest site) with additional floating access track spur of 160m with a width of 5m. Each of the 14 turbines would have a tip height of 140m and a rotor diameter of up to 119m. The candidate turbine adopted for the purposes of the EIA assessment was the Vestas V117, a 3.45MW turbine with a hub height of 81.5m, blade length of 57.2m and nacelle of 13m x 4.0m. The current application initially sought consent for two substations, one windfarm substation (5.5m high) and one SSE-N substation (12m high). The latter was advised as no longer required, and the application now seeks consent for a single windfarm substation of increased footprint L-shaped with maximum dimensions of each ‘wing’ being 22 x 7 and 21 x 6.5 and height of 5.5 m to peak of a dual pitch roof, repositioned (on account of proximity to a white-tailed eagle nest site) from the area immediately north of the Gleann Tholastaidh plantation to a new position circa 500m west of the southern entrance to the settlement Tolsta in the south-eastern part of the site. The substation would be sited within a fenced compound of 45m x 50m.
6.14 The Consented Development was designed to generate a combined electricity output of 42MW, later increased through a Non-material variation to 46.2MW.
6.15 The proposal comprised in the current application is designed to generate a combined electricity output of 48.3MW (a total increase of 6.3MW from the 2013 application but only 2.1MW more than the Consented Development, as varied).
6.16 The larger more powerful turbines proposed by the current application (the Proposed Development), would see an increase in turbine blade tip from the consented 126.5m to 140m, an increase in tip height of 13.5m and the rotor diameter from the consented 93m to 117m, an increase in diameter of 26m with attendant increase in swept area.
6.17 The turbine foundation size would increase as would the associated excavations and the crane hardstanding constructed adjacent to each turbine foundation would increase from 42m x 27m to 62.5m x 30m, an increase in area for each hardstanding of 740 sq. m.
PLANNING PERMISSION – THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
7.1 The current application being a planning application for a windfarm development of less than 50MW in output, falls to be addressed and determined under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended and its subordinate legislation.
7.2 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the ‘Development Plan’ unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7.3 The development being a windfarm with an output in excess of 20MW is classed as a major development under the terms of the Planning Hierarchy and as such has been subject to a statutory pre-application consultation with the community.
The Habitats Regulations
7.4 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 – (as amended in Scotland) (The Habitats Regulations), implement the species protection requirements of the Habitats Directive in Scotland.
7.5 The Regulations set out the process and procedures for the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
7.6 There are a range of considerations, measures and assessments depending on the level of protection afforded.
7.7 The current application site borders a site within the Natura 2000 national site network, these designated sites afforded the highest level of protection, due to the internationally important interests. The effect of the Proposed Development either directly and/or indirectly, on the qualifying species or features of the designated site requires to be assessed in the form of an ‘Appropriate Assessment’. Before a consent for the development can be granted (with some specific exemptions), the conclusion of the assessment requires to be that, as a result of the development, there would be no ‘likely significant effect’ on site integrity.
The EIA Regulations
7.8 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (the 2017 Regulations), implement the EIA Directive in Scotland and remain in force post Brexit.
7.9 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process that ensures that the environmental effects of development proposals are investigated, understood and taken into account in development.
7.10 EIA is a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed development. The EIA process is intended to ensure that the authority granting consent (the ‘competent authority’) for a particular project makes its decision in full knowledge of any likely significant effects on the environment. The process helps to ensure that the importance of the predicted effects, and the scope for reducing any adverse effects, are properly understood by the public and the competent authority before it makes its decision.
7.11 The requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) falls to the developer who must employ competent experts in its preparation and include within the EIAR the information that may reasonably be required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the project on the environment, taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment. The EIAR must also include a description of the reasonable alternatives (development design, technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects.
7.12 The ‘Competent Authority’ has a statutory duty to consult the consultation bodies for their specialist input and advice, to publicise the receipt of an EIAR in order that the wider public has the opportunity to input to the process and to examine it with the benefit of consultee and public input.
7.13 The information in the EIAR must be summarised in a non-technical summary which is particularly important for ensuring that the public can identify the main findings of the EIA report in accessible plain English and aid their engagement and comment on the EIAR.
7.14 The ‘Competent Authority’ is responsible for examining the EIAR to ensure it addresses all of the relevant environmental issues and that the information is presented accurately, clearly and systematically. If it believes that key issues are not fully addressed, or not addressed at all, it must request further information. The authority has to ensure that it has in its possession all relevant environmental information about the likely significant environmental effects of the project before it makes its decision whether to grant permission.
7.15 Where a development will have an adverse impact on the environment, it does not automatically follow that planning permission must be refused. It remains the task of the planning authority to judge each planning application on its merits within the context of the Development Plan, taking account of all material considerations, including the environmental impacts.
7.16 The current application is EIA development and falls to be considered under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations).
Application Process
7.17 The current application seeking planning permission was submitted on the 15 June 2018, and initially comprised of the planning application, plans, planning statement, design and access statement, pre- application consultation report and the EIA Report (3 volumes and a Non-Technical summary). The EIA Report, as initially submitted was comprised of:
Volume 1: The Written Text and Figures
• Chapter 1: Introduction • Chapter 2: Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment • Chapter 3: Site Selection and Design Strategy • Chapter 4: Scheme Description • Chapter 5: Planning Policy Context • Chapter 6: Landscape and Visual Amenity; • Chapter 7: Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat; • Chapter 8: Ecology; • Chapter 9: Ornithology; • Chapter 10: Noise; • Chapter 11: Traffic and Transport; • Chapter 12: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; • Chapter 13: Socio-Economics, Recreation and Tourism; • Chapter 14: Other Issues. • Chapter 15: Climate Change, Major Accidents and Disasters and Human Health. • Chapter 16: Summary of Significant Effects
Volume 2: Appendices
Volume 3: LVIA Visualisations
The Non-Technical summary
7.18 The EIAR and planning application were advertised as available for comment in the public notices section of the Stornoway Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette in the publications dated 21 June 2018 and 22 June 2018 respectively. The EIA documentation was hosted on the Comhairle’s on-line planning portal and a paper copy was available for viewing at the Comhairle Offices and in Tolsta Community Shop.
7.19 Consultation requests were issued to the consultation bodies and internal consultees on 20 June 2018.
7.20 This initial round of consultation, publicity and examination led to a request for further information. That further information was subsequently submitted in the form of Supplementary Information (SI) on 31 January 2020 was comprised of:
• SI Chapter 1: Introduction (providing a brief introduction to the purpose of the SI and to the reasons for submitting SI) • SI Chapter 2: Approach to the SI. • SI Chapter 3: Site Selection and Design Strategy - considers any implications of the potential amendments to the application for the windfarm’s design strategy. • SI Chapter 4: Scheme Description includes further details of the proposed amendments to the windfarm layout. • SI Chapter 5: Planning and Legislative Context. • SI Chapter 6: Landscape and Visual Amenity considers any implications of the windfarm layout amendments for the assessment findings presented in the 2018 EIA Report, and presents three additional visualisations from the village of Tolsta, as requested by the Comhairle. • SI Chapter 7: Ornithology considers any implications and re-assesses the potential effects of the windfarm on white-tailed eagle in light of the change in breeding status of the species within the site boundary. Relevant SI Appendices are 7.1: Report on White-tailed Eagle Surveys August 2018 – August 2019 and 7.2: White-tailed Eagle Population Viability Analysis. • SI Chapter 8: Noise considers any implications of the amendments to the windfarm layout for the assessment findings formerly presented in the 2018 EIA Report and the implications this could have on the nearest noise sensitive receptors. • SI Chapter 9: Other Issues considers the implications that the movement of Turbine 12 will have on the previous shadow flicker results presented in Chapter 14: Other Issues of the 2018 EIA Report, and what this means for significance of effects and proposed mitigation. • SI Chapter 10: Summary of Significant Effects presents an updated and consolidated summary of all significant effects identified within the 2018 EIA Report and the SEI.
7.21 The SEI and advertised for public comment in the public notices section of the Stornoway Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette in the publications dated 13 February 2020 and 14 February 2020 respectively. The SEI documentation was hosted on the Comhairle’s on-line planning portal and a paper copy was available for viewing at the Comhairle Offices and in Tolsta Community Shop.
7.22 Consultation requests were issued to the consultation bodies and internal consultees on 07 February 2020.
7.23 As required by the EIA Regulations, The EIAR and the SEI has been subject to examination by the Comhairle as Competent Authority with regard had to the specialist advice of consultees and a commissioned Landscape Adviser. The findings of the examination are referenced within the planning policy assessment of the Report and as appropriate drawn upon in the discussion, conclusion and recommendation.
7.24 The Design and Access Statement and the Report on the pre-application consultation with communities have been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.
POLICY CONTEXT AND GUIDANCE
National Planning Framework
8.1 NPF3 is the spatial expression of the Government Economic Strategy, and of the Government’s plans for infrastructure investment. The Scottish Government’s central purpose is to create a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth. NPF3 encourages economic activity whilst seeking to protect natural and cultural assets.
8.2 NPF3 offers strong support for onshore wind farms and considers that onshore wind has a role in meeting the Scottish Government’s targets to achieve at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; Scotland’s renewable energy generation has grown such that by 2019 to such an it was able to meet the equivalent of 90.1% of the Nation’s gross electricity consumption. The NPF3 advises, in paragraph 3.24, that local and community ownership of renewable energy can build business and community resilience and that collectively the potential benefits are nationally significant. Paragraph 3.23 states: ‘Onshore wind will continue to make a significant contribution to diversification of energy supplies. We do not wish to see wind farm development in our National Parks and National Scenic Areas. Scottish Planning Policy sets out the required approach to spatial frameworks which will guide new wind energy development to appropriate locations, taking into account important features including wild land.’
8.3 Paragraph 4.7 states: ‘We have long sought to protect Scotland’s environment, recognising that it is a dynamic resource rather than a fixed asset. To better reflect this, more proactive and innovative environmental stewardship is required. The pressing challenge of climate change means that our action on the environment must continue to evolve, strengthening our longer-term resilience. A planned approach to development helps to strike the right balance between safeguarding assets which are irreplaceable, and facilitating change in a sustainable way. We must work with, not against, our environment to maintain and further strengthen its contribution to society.’
8.4 In late 2019 the Scottish Government’s targets for reduction in greenhouse gases were amended by The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. This sets targets to reduce Scotland's emissions of all greenhouse gases to net-zero by 2045 at the latest, with interim targets for reductions of at least 56% by 2020, 75% by 2030, 90% by 2040. It should be noted that these targets relate to de-carbonisation of heat and transportation in addition to the production of green energy.
8.5 NPF4 is in preparation, with a draft expected to be laid before Parliament in late 2021. NPF4 is anticipated to focus on: Net-Zero Emissions; a Wellbeing Economy; Resilient Communities; and Better, Greener Places. In ‘Protecting Scotland’s Future: the Government’s Programme for Scotland 2019-20’ (Scottish Government, 2019), the First Minister states: “This Programme for Government sets out some of the next steps on Scotland’s journey to net zero emissions and raises our ambition in light of the emergency we face. We are leading the world in setting challenging targets, but we must also redouble our efforts to meet them.” In the programme, one of the commitments is: “The fourth National Planning Framework will help to radically accelerate reduction of emissions”. “The global climate emergency means that the time is right for wide-ranging debate on more radical planning policy options.” The Government undertakes to “publish a draft National Planning Framework which sets out how and where development should take place across Scotland for the period up to 2050.”
Scottish Planning Policy and Advice
8.6 The Scottish Government’s key policy document on the operation of the planning system is the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), published in June 2014, partially revised in December 2020. This document provides a statement of the Scottish Government's policy on nationally important land use planning matters. The SPP (2020) introduces a presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’. The treatment of any large scale renewables application is guided by the framework set out in SPP.
8.7 Paragraph 29 of the SPP states that planning policies and decisions should support sustainable development and sets out principles to guide decision making, including amongst other matters:
• giving due weight to net economic benefit; • responding to economic issues, challenges and opportunities; • supporting the delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water; • supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation; • improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity; • having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy; • protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural and natural heritage, including the historic environment; • considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality.
8.8 NPF3 supports the diversification of the energy sector, to facilitate the transition to a low carbon economy. The SPP sets out how this should be delivered on the ground. SPP provides a positive framework to encourage the development of renewable energy technologies. It sets targets for the production of energy from renewable sources and the requirement for Planning Authorities to provide a spatial framework for onshore wind farms of over 20 megawatts generating capacity.
8.9 With specific reference to wind farm developments, paragraph 169 of the SPP identifies likely main considerations that will need to be taken into account in decision making and recommendations. These include considerations of: net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities; the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets; the effect on greenhouse gas emissions; cumulative impacts; impact on communities and individual dwellings; landscape and visual impacts; effects on natural heritage, including birds; impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator; public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes identified in the NPF; impacts on the historic environment; impacts on tourism and recreation; impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording; impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised; impacts on road traffic; impacts on adjacent trunk roads; effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk; the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments; opportunities for energy storage; and the need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration.
8.10 The SPP (paragraphs 20 and 21) also sets out how the NPF3 aim of building resilience and promoting the protection and sustainable use of our world-class environmental assets should be delivered on the ground, to help us to live within our environmental limits and to pass on healthy ecosystems to future generations.
8.11 SPP paragraph 203 states that planning permission should be refused where the nature or scale of proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. Direct or indirect effects on statutorily protected sites will be an important consideration, but designation does not impose an automatic prohibition on development.
8.12 The Scottish Government advice on wind farm development on peat land reflects paragraph 204 of the SPP and refers to the use of a carbon calculator, for the consideration of carbon savings from wind farm developments on peat lands. This compares the carbon costs of wind farm developments with the carbon (greenhouse gas emissions) savings attributable to the wind farm. The calculation is summarised as the length of time (in years) it will take the carbon savings to amount to the carbon costs; this is referred to as the payback period.
8.13 In paragraph 214, the SPP states that any impacts on protected species must be fully considered prior to the determination of an application. The SPP, in paragraph 218, also refers to the presumption in favour of protecting woodland. It states that removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. It also indicates that compensatory planting will generally be expected.
8.14 Paragraph 299 of the SPP indicates that development should not physically obstruct aerodrome operations, technical sites or existing transmitter/receiver facilities.
Other National Guidance
8.15 In November 2015, a Chief Planner Letter to All Heads of Planning confirmed that the Scottish Government’s policy continues to support new onshore renewable energy developments. It also confirms that, even where existing targets have been met, there is no cap on the support for such development.
8.16 The Scottish Government has also issued planning advice on ‘On-shore wind turbines’ and ‘Wind farm developments on peat land’ and in 2017 an ‘On-shore Wind Policy Statement’. The latter sets out the need for a strategic approach to new development that acknowledges the capacity that landscapes have to absorb development before landscape and visual impacts become unacceptable. It notes that onshore wind generation remains crucial in terms of goals for a decarbonised energy system. In Paragraphs 4 it states that Scotland will continue to need more onshore wind development and capacity, in locations where it can be accommodated by landscapes. The shift towards larger turbines is acknowledged. In paragraphs 25 the Scottish Government acknowledges the way in which wind turbine technology and design is evolving, and fully supports the delivery of large wind turbines in landscapes judged to be capable of accommodating them without significant adverse impacts
8.17 The guidance on onshore wind turbines provides suggested areas of focus for planning authorities and highlights opportunities for planning authorities within the various stages of the planning process. It also provides technical information and guidance on typical issues associated with such proposals, which reflect those included in paragraph 169 of the SPP.
8.18 The Scottish Government’s Scottish Energy Strategy: The future of energy in Scotland (2017) states: “Our energy and climate change goals mean that onshore wind must continue to play a vital role in Scotland’s future …”
Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2018 and Supplementary Guidance
8.19 Strategic land use policy is set out in the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, adopted in 2018 (OHLDP). It provides the spatial framework that guides land use planning decisions and facilitates sustainable economic growth within the Outer Hebrides. It sets out the vision to encourage and help build confident and resilient communities by providing planning policy that delivers long term benefits to the communities of the Outer Hebrides by ensuring development contributes to the creation of well-designed and attractive places, and that our natural, marine, and cultural resources are valued and utilised efficiently and sustainably. This vision aims to make our islands: a good place to live in and move to; a successful place for working in; an attractive place enjoyed by residents and visitors. The OHLDP identifies considerations within its policies relevant to renewable energy developments. The OHLDP policies of particular relevance are considered to be Policy DS1: Development Strategy and EI 8: Energy and Heat Resources.
8.20 There are a number of other policies which are also relevant, including Policies PD2: Car Parking and Roads Layout; PD6: Compatibility of Neighbouring Uses; ED1 Economic Development; ED5: Minerals; EI 1: Flooding; EI 2: Water and Waste Water; EI 3: Water Environment; EI 5: Soils; EI 7: Countryside and Coastal Access; EI 9: Transport Infrastructure; EI 11: Safeguarding; EI 12: Developer Contributions; NBH1: Landscape; NBH2: Natural Heritage; NBH3: Trees and Woodland; NBH4: Built Heritage; NBH5: Archaeology; and NBH6: Historic Areas.
8.21 The issues to be satisfied in respect of these other policies are also considered within the OHLDP Supplementary Guidance: Wind Energy Development, adopted November 2018 (SG). Broadly, the SG is informed and directed by paragraphs 161-174 of SPP and provides guidance on those issues that have been identified as relevant in paragraph 169 of the SPP. For consistency and to avoid repetition, the proposal will be considered within this Report in relation to the issues identified within the SG, together with any relevant policy of the OHLDP and any additional issues identified in the SPP. The SG has the same statutory basis as the OHLDP and should be used in conjunction with LDP policies when determining planning applications.
8.22 Planning Advice Notes (PAN) while dated, still provide some relevant advice through PAN 56 – Planning and Noise; PAN 58 – Environmental Impact Assessment; and PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage.
8.23 Relevant guidance and advice is also provided by NatureScot in terms of its guidance on Siting and Designing wind farms in the landscape (SNH, August 2017)
Relevant policy changes, since March 2014
8.24 Planning policy and strategy evolve over time in response to monitoring, changing knowledge and emerging issues. The ‘Consented Development’ was first approved by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar on 10 March 2014 and it is of relevance to highlight some of the key policy changes in the intervening period.
8.25 SPP was published in June 2014. It introduced a presumption ‘in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development’ and updated guidance on a range of matter related to wind energy, including a prohibition of developing windfarms within NSA’s, introduced wild land areas, guidance on developments on carbon rich soils, included principles that should be taken into account in ‘supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation’, updated guidance on the methodology for consideration of Noise impacts and introduced guidance that would allow local authorities to set a buffer not exceeding 2km between a settlement edge and windfarms for consideration of visual impact.
8.26 SPP was updated further in December 2020 to clarify and reinforce the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
8.27 In December 2017 the Scottish Government published its ‘Onshore Wind Policy Statement’ acknowledging changing market conditions; reinforced its support for on-shore wind changes, the adoption of new technology and the increased size of turbines, while at the same time re-stating its support for planning policy guidance as set out in SPP.
8.28 A further significant change in national strategy relevant on-shore wind farm development has been the declaration in May 2019 by the Scottish Government of a Climate Change Emergency and subsequent strengthening of its commitment to reduce Scotland's emissions of all greenhouse gases to net-zero by 2045 at the latest, with interim targets.
8.29 In response to the updated provisions of SPP (2014), the Comhairle updated its SG – Wind Energy Development in 2016 and re-adopted it with minor changes in November 2018. The current SG states that in terms of both Landscape and Visual Amenity and Community Amenity that windfarms should be located at least 2km from settlements and within the spatial framework maps a 2km community separation buffer in contrast to the previous SG that provided that windfarms should not be located within a 1.5km settlement buffer.
RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION
9.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultation by the Planning Authority are set out in Appendix 4. The following is a summary of the key advice of consultees as relevant to the determination of the application.
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)
9.2 SEPA advise that the windfarm will be subject to a construction site licence under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (As Amended) (CAR) which will control all water run-off and pollution prevention measures on the site. Four conditions are advised to counter an objection
• A 50m allowance for micro-siting to enable the applicant to avoid any sensitive environmental receptors that become apparent during construction and that the substation is not located on area containing peat greater than 3.5 m depth
• That works are carried out in accordance with the submitted Peat Management Plan.
• That all watercourse crossings are bottomless/arched culverts or bridges.
• A Decommissioning Plan must be submitted and agreed in writing with the planning authority and SEPA prior to the site ceasing operation.
9.3 SEPA further recommends that:
• a suspensive condition proposed to manage ornithological impacts associated with Turbine 13 and its associated infrastructure be specific in terms of including the full length of spur track should the turbine not be erected.
• consideration be given to a reconfiguration of the main spine track so that Turbine 12 is not on a spur.
NatureScot (formerly Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH))
9.4 The initial consultation response provided the undernoted advice save for an objection pending one year’s vantage point surveys of a white tailed eagle breeding pair to the south of the site. Following receipt of that information the submitted SEI proposed a new location for the windfarm sub-station and the relocation of Turbine 12 to a position NNE east of its original position. Following further consultation their position can be summarised as follows.
Landscape and visual impacts
9.5 The proposal would generate major landscape and visual impacts in the vicinity of North Tolsta. These impacts would particularly affect the visual amenity of the settlement and its surroundings. Aspects of the local landscape and coastal character will also be acutely affected, when these are exposed to significant influence from the turbines on adjacent higher moorland. In particular, the rural character of North Tolsta's crofting landscapes and the intimacy, enclosure and perceived scale of coastal areas in the vicinity of the village will be adversely affected.
9.6 Wider impacts across Lewis are within the capacity of the landscape and visual resource.
9.7 Due to the open nature of the landscape in this part of Lewis and the high degree of inter-visibility between other operational and proposed wind farms there are likely to be some significant cumulative effects as a result of the Druim Leathann wind farm but apart from the significant cumulative effects with the Tolsta community turbine on account of the vast difference in scale, no additional significant cumulative effects with other wind turbines within the study area are expected.
9.8 NatureScot concurs with the conclusions that the LVIA has drawn and advise that the Druim Leathann wind farm will result in significant adverse localised landscape effects on the Boggy Moor 2 LCT; Rocky Moorland LCT; Crofting 2 LCT; and Crofting 1 LCT. In addition there will be significant adverse visual effects from Viewpoints 1, 3, 5, 6, and 11 which represent communities, recreational users and visitors to North West Lewis. It will be challenging to reduce these effects to the degree that they will no longer be significant through mitigation as they are a result of the location of this wind farm rather than its design.
9.9 The proposal would generate major landscape and visual impacts in the vicinity of North Tolsta, but would not impinge on landscape interests that are of national importance.
Natural Heritage
9.10 The proposal could affect nationally important natural heritage interests
Natura sites
9.11 There are natural heritage interests of international importance on the adjacent Lewis Peatlands Natura sites (referred to as the UK site network post Brexit), but in their view, these will not be adversely affected by the proposal. Lewis Peatlands SPA Species - The Consented Development had very little impact on the qualifying interests of the SPA, with the exception of red-throated divers, and the revised scheme does not alter this. Since the original EIAR assessment, the avoidance rate for red- throated diver has changed from 98% to 99.5%. This greatly lowers both the stand alone and cumulative risks to the SPA red-throated diver with the number of predicted collisions (0.123 birds /year) well below the levels considered to be a risk to the SPA population (c1 bird /year).
9.12 An appropriate assessment of the breeding bird interests was advised as required.
Lewis Peatlands SAC & Peat
9.13 Advises that habitat loss and peat disturbance would extend to an additional 10% of peat over the Consented Development and that this can best be addressed by development of Habitat Management Plan to address mitigation of impacts on peatland habitats.
Schedule 1 Species under The Wildlife and Countryside Act
9.14 Turbine 14 of the proposed layout is close to a golden eagle nest site and consistent with the advice on the Consented Development it was recommend that turbine 14 not be included in any consent issued in order to reduce the risk of disturbance.
9.15 Following consideration of 12 months vantage point monitoring of a white-tailed eagle breeding record next to the southern boundary of the wind farm site, and to avoid a disturbance offence to a Schedule 1 Species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, a condition is advised as being required to avoid an objection; the wording having been agreed with the applicant to the effect that Turbine 13 (T13) and
its associated infrastructure, shall not be constructed until it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority, in consultation with SNH, that no white-tailed eagle breeding attempts have been made within 500m of the T13 location (NGR 151534, 946280) for the five consecutive years immediately preceding the construction of this turbine, whereby the nest site is considered unused.
9.16 The undernoted measures were also further recommend to be secured in conditions to be attached to any consent to minimise the risk of disturbance to the breeding white tailed eagle pair arising from construction and operation of the turbines closest to the plantation:
• Turbines 11 and 12 plus associated infrastructure be constructed between 1 September and 31 January only.
• All construction activities affecting Turbines 11 and 12 plus associated infrastructure to start at least two hours after dawn and end at least two hours before dusk.
• All method statements for construction of the wind farm are agreed with the planning authority in advance, in consultation with SNH.
• Operation and maintenance of Turbines 11 and 12 plus associated infrastructure, and substation, must have method statements to minimise risk of disturbance agreed with the planning authority in advance, in consultation with SNH.
• Post-construction monitoring to assess impacts on White-tailed Eagle, methods to be agreed with the planning authority in advance, in consultation with SNH.
Natural Heritage Zones – 3 key species
9.17 Red-throated Diver: As for the SPA, the change in avoidance rate has greatly reduced the predicted collisions, both stand alone and cumulatively, to a level well below that where we would have concerns, around 0.348 birds/year currently (8-9/25years), well below the 25-30 birds/25years predicted previously.
9.18 Golden Eagle: The collision risk for golden eagle has increased only marginally from the consented scheme and is still not a concern. Cumulatively, there is a full assessment with a population model in Appendix 9.2 of the EIAR. As before it shows that the population would not put the NHZ population at risk and is based on 22 bird collisions/25 yrs.
9.19 White-tailed Eagle - Currently the cumulative collision risk is approximately 0.695/yr in NHZ32 or 17- 18 birds/25yrs. This is likely to be an underestimate given the increase in white-tailed eagles in SE Lewis since the assessment of the earlier Muaitheabhal schemes. The NHZ population is probably c30pairs currently and constitutes around 25% of the Scottish population (min 118 occupied territories in 2017), and being much smaller will not be able to take as much additional mortality as the national one. Information within the SEI demonstrates that there will not be any impact on the continued growth of the White-tailed Eagle population arising from collision risk mortality (CRM) at this windfarm. Collision risk would in practice be even lower than predicted, based on the implementation of the suspensive condition mitigation discussed above.
Historic Environment Scotland
9.20 Historic Environment Scotland noted that having reviewed the information provided in the EIA Report 2018 they are content that despite the increased height of the turbines in the current application, the
2 Natural Heritage Zones (NHZs) are an established biogeographical regional classification used by SNH. NHZ3 refers to the Natural Heritage Zone comprising Coll, Tiree and the Western Isles. Proposed Development will not have a significant impact on the integrity of the settings of the surrounding scheduled monuments. These number five sites and are Carn a’Mharc, chambered cairn NW of Gress Lodge (SM 1660); Caisteal a’Mhorair, dun (SM 5250); Dun Othail, fort and chapel (SM 5455); St Aula’s Church, Gress (SM 5343) & Gress Cemetery, souterrain (SM 5740); and Gress Lodge, souterrain (SM 5701).
9.21 Historic Environment Scotland noted that having reviewed the information provided in the SEI and the proposed relocation of turbine 12 approximately 90m NNE, they were of the view that it would not alter the impacts on their interests as previously assessed and had no more detailed comments to offer.
9.22 HES therefore does not object to the Proposed Development. The proposals would not have a significant impact on the integrity of the settings of the surrounding scheduled monuments and would not raise issues of national interest for their historic environment remit.
Scottish Water
9.23 The proposed windfarm infrastructure falls partly within a Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA) a protected catchment where a Scottish Water abstraction is located. It is essential that water quality and water quantity in the area are protected.
9.24 Scottish Water request that as part of the Peat Management Plan (PMP) that the impacts on water quality are considered
9.25 A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) to be required to include a risk assessment with expert opinion, regarding the potential release of colour and dissolved organic carbon during and following the development
9.26 Site documentation and staff briefing to include awareness of DWPA and a request for further information on what additional site specific mitigation will be put in place within the catchment to protect water quality and quantity.
9.27 A request that 6 months in advance of any works commencing on site, Scottish Water is notified at [email protected].
9.28 In summary Scottish Water raises No objection, subject to mitigation above and provided an independent Scottish Water Environmental Representative (SWER) is appointed to monitor works and have powers to stop works in the event of an incident that could affect the lochs forming part of the DWPA.
Scottish Water Assets
9.29 There is an asbestos cement raw water main running from Loch Ionadagro which runs through the area proposed for tree felling. This pipe also appears to be in close proximity to the location of turbine 13. Advice provided on identification and protection of assets.
Water and foul and surface water
9.30 No public infrastructure (water supply or sewer) to which a connection can be made within the site.
Back Community Council
9.31 Concerns re Implications from transportation of turbines, components and other materials through the Gearradih Ghuirm to Gress area given the vertical and horizontal alignment of the carriageway, topography and sub-standard footways. Implications for road safety and emergency vehicle access. Concern over repairs if roads damaged through abnormal loads and increased traffic.
Ministry of Defence (MOD)
9.32 MOD has no objection to the proposal subject to the perimeter Turbines namely T6, T7 and T14 be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point. MOD also advise of the following notification being required prior to commencement of construction;
• the date construction starts and ends;
• the maximum height of construction equipment;
• the latitude and longitude of every turbine.
Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL)
9.33 HIAL has no objection subject to turbine numbers T9, T11, T12 and T13 to be fitted with aviation warning lights the specification being a steady red omnidirectional light at a minimum of 32candela. HIAL advises that Infra-red lights are specifications for military aircraft only, and cannot be seen or detected by civil aircraft.
Met Office
9.34 Following an initial objection to both the initial and SEI consultation, the Met Office confirmed that a mitigation agreement was completed with Druim Leathann Windfarm Ltd on 24th April 2020, which ensures appropriate measures are agreed to mitigate the impact of the Proposed Development.
NATS
9.35 The Proposed Development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Telecommunications
9.36 Scottish Water Radio Networks – No objection
9.37 OFCOM – Joint Radio Company - No objection (Ticket WF476735).
9.38 Connected Communities Broadband – No response.
Comhairle Environmental Health Service
9.39 Do not object on grounds of Noise or Shadow Flicker based on mitigation solutions proposed. Recommend conditions to mitigate effects of construction noise, dust and noise and vibration from any blasting.
9.40 Shadow flicker - The assessment regarding shadow flicker seems to be thorough and the developer has suggested a proposed mitigation system for the properties likely to be affected. Environmental Health would recommend having a condition that requires the operator to implement the same mitigation measures, as detailed in Section 14.45 of the EIA, for any property (consented or in situ at the time of application) that is proven to be affected by shadow flicker to the same extent as that of 22 New Tolsta (0.6 hours per year or greater).
9.41 Noise - With regard to Noise produced by the operation of the windfarm, Environmental Health request a revised condition is based on the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) standard example noise condition and uses the noise limits from Chapter 10 of the submitted EIA.
Comhairle Archaeology Service
9.42 Do not object but on account of the scale of the project and nature of the landscape recommend that a condition to secure a limited program of archaeological works (including any new access roads) in order to inform any strategy of mitigation that may be necessary; this is required to identify any unknown archaeological features that may be present.
9.43 Note that the mitigation strategies presented in Section 12.54 -12.57 of the EIAR indicate that an Archaeological Clerk of Works (ACoW) will be appointed for the project prior to the construction of the wind farm. This mitigation to be secured by condition.
Comhairle Roads, Bridges and Street Lighting
9.44 Do no object but advise conditions regarding road junctions and require that a Traffic Management Plan should be submitted for approval showing the proposed movements of haulage and site traffic as stated in Chapter11 Traffic & Transport of the EIAR and the supporting information relating to traffic and transport.
Economic Development
9.45 Do not object and advise:
• Direct Construction impacts are 4.0 FTE (3.2 FTE in the local economy); Additional Indirect Construction impacts of 6.08 FTE – Total 9.28 FTE.
• Direct Operational impacts are 4.0 FTE (3.2 FTE in the local economy); Additional indirect Operational impacts of 5.44 – Total 8.64 FTE.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Assessment process
10.1 Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment of the proposal is made against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material planning considerations, prior to balancing overall the weight afforded to issues to inform a conclusion and recommendation as to the determination.
10.2 It is necessary to consider the current application on its merits and to consider it in the context of the Development Plan and other material planning considerations first on the basis that there is no consent in place. Once that conclusion is arrived at the next stage of assessment is to consider how the existence of an extant consent a significant material consideration is to be taken into account. Where appropriate, comment is made on extant consent in relation to each issue (for the purposes of bringing those comparative issues together collectively for later consideration). An overall consideration of the Proposed Development in comparison to the ‘fall-back’ position of the Consented Development is then set out within the conclusion and underpins the recommendation.
10.3 The Development Plan of the Comhairle is the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (2018) (OHLDP). Key to assessment against the Development Plan is the Development Strategy which sets out the overall spatial strategy to guide the location of development i.e., where development should and should not be located and the principles behind this. The Development Strategy is supported by 35 Development Policies, and further augmented by Supplementary Guidance for particular types of development.
10.4 The Comhairle has adopted Supplementary Guidance: Wind Energy Development (November 2018) (SG). The SG comprises a Spatial Strategy and Development Policies peculiar to windfarm development.
10.5 The current application for the Druim Leathann Windfarm is for a windfarm with an output of 48.3 Megawatts (MW), a large scale windfarm development, and therefore falls to be considered against the Development Plan of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar as Planning Authority, comprising the OHLDP and the Wind SG.
Location and principle of development
Policy context
10.6 OHLDP Policy DS1: Development Strategy sets out the overall spatial strategy to guide development (i.e. where development should and should not be located and the principles behind it). Seven area types have been identified for planning purposes including ‘Outwith Settlements’ and ‘Remote Areas’ and for Wind Energy Developments are augmented further by the SG ‘Spatial Strategy For Wind Farms’. The settlement of Tolsta has a fairly well defined settlement edge and the proposed windfarm and ancillary development is largely sited in an area defined as ‘Outwith Settlement’.
10.7 By way of context to the area type, ‘Outwith Settlement’ areas are areas that ‘act as a separation between settlements which helps to retain distinctiveness. They have some local and strategic resource functions, supporting a diverse range of development activities and largely non-residential uses, which include agriculture, recreation activities, mineral extraction, energy development and storage/waste depots. Generally these areas have dispersed development in a more open landscape, encompassing various landscape character types with machair, moorland and some upland. Development proposals are likely to be mainly resource or tourism based. There may be capacity for a limited amount of development where siting and design are critical to mitigate impacts on landscape’.
10.8 The principal policy objective for development in ‘Outwith Settlement’ areas is to direct appropriate resource based activity and ensure development has a quality of siting and design suitable to a more open and rural setting. Development proposals for non-residential uses on green field sites must demonstrate a clearly justified need for the proposed development in that location, unless directed by the Wind Energy spatial strategy.
Assessment
10.9 The current application is for a windfarm that is located on land that in terms of the OHLDP Spatial Strategy, is classed as ‘Outwith Settlement’.
10.10 In terms of the Spatial Strategy for Wind Farms the current application is located on land identified as an Areas of Constraint (where Wind Farms may be appropriate in some circumstances). These constraints have been determined by combining the Scottish Planning policy spatial framework requirement for windfarms with local area constraints and considerations and are mapped and/or tested via the Wind SG Development Policies.
10.11 In terms of the mapped constraints, the site is wholly within an area of carbon rich soils (Classes 1 and 2), it is identified as an area subject to a ‘Consented Development’ and it is located wholly inside a 2km buffer which has been identified from the settlement edge, for community separation for consideration of visual impact.
10.12 In terms of relationship to the ‘Consented Development’, the site location and boundary is identical to that of the consented development, as is the turbines layout, save for a change to the position of Turbine 12 and a now single windfarm substation, both repositioned to mitigate ornithological impacts which came to light during the course of determining this application. It should be noted that the ‘Consented Development’ was assessed under the previous plan and found to be contrary to its provisions.
10.13 In broad terms the Development strategy supports the principle of wind energy development, as a sustainable development of a natural resource, in an Outwith Settlement area subject to satisfying the Comhairle Spatial Strategy for windfarms and the related Development policies for windfarms designed to secure economic benefits, mitigate landscape and visual effects protect community amenity, protect historic resources, minimise environmental impacts, and avoid significant adverse effects on the area’s ecological attributes.
10.14 The Community Amenity and Landscape and Visual Impacts policies which inform the Spatial Strategy of the Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance state that ‘Wind farms should be located at a distance of at least 2km from settlements’ and for this wind farm the turbines are all located in an area which is 1 to 2km from the settlement edge and therefore within the 2km spatial buffer for community separation, contrary to policy. Other elements of the development are inside 1km of the settlement; to the north, the eastern borrow pit and main construction compound would be within 0.5km from the settlement edge nearest New Tolsta; while to the south and temporary laydown area and secondary construction compound, together with the permanent substation and its related compound would be within 0.5km of the settlement edge nearest Lochside.
10.15 However, the Spatial Strategy confirms a ‘Consented Development’; the principle of development of this site for a windfarm, having previously been considered by the Comhairle to be acceptable, notwithstanding the proposal having been assessed as contrary to the Development Strategy in place at the time. There is consequently an extant planning permission in place for a windfarm with turbines of defined parameter.
10.16 It is the case here that the location of the Proposed Development is contrary to the spatial strategy on account of it being sited wholly with the 2km community separation buffer and therefore contrary to OHLDP Policy DS1: Development Strategy ‘Outwith Settlement’ and the SG ‘Spatial Strategy For Wind Farms’.
10.17 Notwithstanding this, there is a ‘Consented Development’ for wind turbines of a defined parameter which are the subject of an extant planning permission on the site. These spatial policy provisions are not reconcilable. Further, despite that a change in SPP guidance on spatial frameworks and a strengthening of the Comhairle’s spatial strategy for windfarms, has occurred these do not alter the fact that the ‘principle of development’ of a windfarm on this site has already been established. That does not imply however that any scale of wind turbine is acceptable for any windfarm proposed on the site.
10.18 There follows an assessment of the Proposed Development in the context of all other relevant policies of the OHLDP and the SG ‘Development Policies for windfarms’.
Renewable energy targets and greenhouse gas emissions
Policy context
10.19 The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as amended by The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 sets a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2045, with an interim target of reducing emissions by at least 56% by 2020, 75% by 2030, 90% by 2040. Annual greenhouse gas emission targets are set in secondary legislation. Section 44 of the Act places a duty on every public body to act:
• in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of emissions targets in the Act; • in the way best calculated to help deliver the Scottish Government’s climate change adaptation programme; and • in a way that it considers is most sustainable.
10.20 In identifying policies and proposals for meeting these targets, the 'Climate Change Plan 2018’ recognises the continuing role for onshore wind. The Scottish Government’s ‘Onshore Wind Policy Statement’ 2017, confirms the importance of renewable energy to meeting climate change targets, with an important role for onshore wind identified. Support is encouraged for development in the right places, with an identified need for its contribution to continue to grow, in order that it plays its vital role in meeting Scotland’s energy needs and a material role in growing the economy.
10.21 Policy EI 8 – Energy and Heat Resources of the OHLDP states that the Comhairle will support proposals that contribute to meeting the targets and objectives of the National Planning Framework 3, the Climate Change Act, and the National Renewable Infrastructure Plan in relation to electricity grid reinforcement, infrastructure and renewable energy generation. It states that development proposals for all scales of onshore wind energy development will be assessed against the Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development and that the Comhairle will also consider Windfarm development in ‘Areas of Constraint, with potential in certain circumstances’ subject to a satisfactory assessment against other policies in the Development Plan and the Supplementary Guidance.
10.22 There is, as noted above, in Section 8 above, strong Government support for developments that will help achieve its ambitious net-zero emissions targets. By 2045 it is not expected that Scotland will have zero climate change emissions, rather that the low levels that are expected will require to be balanced out by mechanisms which absorb climate change emissions, e.g. tree planting or carbon capture and storage technology. There has been recognition by the Government that renewable energy technologies will play a key role in the delivery of the emission reduction targets, particularly onshore wind as advocated by the Onshore Wind Policy Statement of 2017.
EIAR
10.23 The EIAR sets out the scope of the effects of the windfarm on the following aspects of Climate Change.
10.24 In terms of negative contributions, these are direct CO2 and NOx emissions from vehicles and plant during construction and other carbon losses in the materials and systems which form temporary and permanent structures, arising as a result of the extraction and manufacture of materials, fabrication, transport to site, waste and the future demolition and potential for re-use.
10.25 The positive contribution that the windfarm will have to offsetting CO2 emissions once operational are also set out together with the ability of receptors, such as species and habitats to adapt to climate change (climate adaptation) during operation of the windfarm, and resilience of the overall windfarm to climate change i.e. through consideration of mitigation or design.
10.26 The Scottish Government promotes the use of a carbon calculator, for the consideration of carbon savings from wind farm developments on peat lands. Hosted by SEPA and supported by a Technical Note the calculator compares the carbon costs of wind farm developments with the carbon (greenhouse gas emissions) savings attributable to the wind farm. The calculation is summarised as the length of time (in years) it will take the carbon savings to amount to the carbon costs; this is referred to as the payback period.
10.27 Carbon Balance calculations undertaken in 2013 informed the Consented Development and were submitted as part of the EIA. The Carbon Balance assessment was not recalculated for the current application. The EIAR acknowledges as an assumption/limitation that the carbon balance calculations (2013) have not been updated to inform this assessment given that this was not specifically requested and notes that the information generated through the previous carbon balance assessment has been drawn upon as a guide as to the potential carbon savings of the windfarm, as now proposed.
10.28 It notes that for the purposes of the 2018 assessment, it is assumed that increased MW capacity and associated environmental benefit would approximately balance out the likely higher carbon emissions from increased peat disturbance and negative contributions from use of carbon in extraction and manufacture of materials, fabrication, and transportation of components to site, waste and the future demolition.
10.29 The impacts of Climate Change on the baseline conditions of each of the EIA topics was considered and noted as were the design measures that have climate change implications; namely Identification and avoidance where possible of areas where peat depths are anticipated to be 2.5m or deeper; to otherwise protect from physical damage and minimise potential soil carbon loss and the sourcing of stone from two borrow pits within the site reducing the theoretical volume of construction traffic and associated emissions.
10.30 The assessment of effects considered both construction and operational effects. While the former is noted to include carbon dioxide emissions during the life of a wind turbine include those that occur during production, transportation, erection, operation, dismantling and removal of turbines and foundations, the assessment is largely focused on the emissions from construction traffic. Estimates of vehicle movements are made, there is acknowledgement there would be a benefit in reducing HGV movements on the back of 98% of stone being sourced on site, but CO2 and NOx emissions have not been calculated for the construction vehicles associated with the windfarm. Nevertheless it is concluded and accepted that while a Traffic Management Plan will be implemented as good practice, the windfarm will, during construction, create more carbon emissions than it removes from the atmosphere i.e. it will be ‘carbon positive’, and in accordance with the assessment methodology, a negative effect of minor significance has been predicted.
10.31 In terms of operational effects it is noted that there will be considerable carbon saving from the operation of the windfarm but that there will nevertheless be some limited carbon losses, arising particularly from having to balance capacity from wind generated power with stabilisation of supply, within the National Grid, by conventional (non-green) generation facilities.
10.32 The EIAR predicts the windfarm has capability of decarbonising the national grid by an estimated 71,000 tonnes of CO2 per year and 1.76. Million tonnes of CO2 over the windfarm’s operational lifetime (assuming 25 years). It predicts that the ‘expected carbon payback time’ of CO2 emissions for the windfarm (defined as the length of time (in years) required for the windfarm to be considered a net avoider of emissions rather than a net emitter) is calculated to be in the region of 1.4 years (or 16.8 months). The EIAR concludes that this contribution, particularly in the context of climate change policy, can be considered to be a moderate (positive) effect.
10.33 The EIAR also notes that ‘The Renewable Electricity Output Calculator’ published by the Scottish Government in 2016 allows users to calculate the equivalent number of households powered by a particular capacity of site. In the case of the windfarm, it is estimated by the calculator that approximately 112,779 (mega-watt hours) MWh could be produced annually, which is enough to power the equivalent of 25,908 households in Scotland for a year”.
Assessment
10.34 The output and carbon offset will undoubtedly contribute to the Scottish Government’s target of 50% of gross energy to come from renewables by 2030, which are set out in several policy documents including the Scottish Annual Energy Statement.
10.35 The proposal is consistent with the aims of NPF3, the Climate Change Act and the NRIP in relation to renewable energy generation and it is accepted that a main benefit of the proposal would be the contribution that it would make to the provision of energy from renewable sources, and the associated reduction in greenhouse gasses this will achieve.
10.36 National policy on Climate change confirms strong support for onshore wind as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in turn tackling Climate Change and subject to a satisfactory assessment on other policy matters against the OHLDP and the SG, the proposal would contribute to meeting climate change targets.
Comparison to the Consented Development
10.37 In comparison to the Consented Development, there would be an increase in capacity from the 42 MW (subsequently varied to 46.2MW), to 48.3MW, as a consequence of increased turbine size and technological advances resulting in greater power output per turbine. While the Renewable Energy Output calculator was not available in 2013 prior to assessment of the now Consented Development, it is estimated that the Proposed Development would power the equivalent of 2000 more households than the Consented Development.
10.38 The carbon balance calculations upon which the 2013 assessment was predicated have not been updated; instead it is stated that whilst the additional renewable generation and output will lead to potential for an increase in carbon saving, the predicted peat extraction volumes will also increase (as a result of the need for larger turbine foundation excavations and hardstanding excavations, additional track requirements). It has been assumed that increased MW capacity and associated environmental benefit would approximately balance out the likely higher carbon emissions from increased peat extraction (additional peat probing data now available).
10.39 The EIAR therefore assumes the windfarm as now proposed to have the same potential as the Consented Development, namely the potential to decarbonise the national grid by an estimated 71,000 tonnes of CO2 per year and 1.76 million tonnes of CO2.
Economic impacts and benefits
Policy context
10.40 The NPF3 and SPP supports sustainable economic activity and growth, which is responsive to the economic environment of rural and island areas. Paragraph 75 of the SPP requires the planning system to encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality.
10.41 Paragraph 83 states that, amongst other matters, in remote rural areas decision making should generally encourage sustainable development that will provide employment, and support and sustain fragile and dispersed communities through provision for appropriate development, especially […] community-owned energy. The SPP, in paragraph 93, also identifies as one of three key principles for planning, the need to give due weight to net economic benefit of proposed development.
10.42 The first development policy of the Wind SG, Economic Impacts and Benefits requires that for all Windfarm developments, Developers must provide an assessment of net economic impacts. It goes on to state that Scottish Planning Policy recognises that Planning Authorities, in determining planning applications, will consider net economic impact, including ‘local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities.’ In line with SPP, the National Planning Framework, and the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan the Comhairle will seek to secure positive net economic impact accruing directly within the Outer Hebrides.
EIAR
10.43 The EIAR in Chapter 13 provides an assessment in terms of Socio-Economic impact, Recreation and Tourism. It details the existing land use of the site, the likely direct and indirect employment generation and the direct and indirect economic benefits of the Proposed Development. It also considers potential direct and indirect effects in relation to recreation and access, and indirect effects on tourism activity in the surrounding area.
10.44 The study area for the assessment comprises the site and immediate surrounding area in relation to potential direct effects on recreation and land use, and the wider Outer Hebrides area in relation to potential social and economic effects, including effects on tourism.
10.45 The effects assessed in full include:
• direct and indirect employment generation during construction and operation of the windfarm; • direct and indirect economic benefits from the windfarm (e.g. community benefit payments and opportunities for local supply businesses etc.); • direct and indirect effects on tourism in the wider area; • direct effects on existing recreational activities (including access) and indirect effects of noise, dust, and traffic movements on users of the site and surrounding area; and • cumulative employment and economic benefits, recreational and tourism effects of windfarm development in the Outer Hebrides.
10.46 The potential effect arising from construction of the windfarm in terms of direct employment, indirect and induced employment as assessed, predicts the creation of a total of 9.28 direct, indirect and induced full time equivalent jobs (FTEs), with the significance of the effect predicted to be minor (positive) significance for the local economy.
10.47 In terms of the potential effect arising from the operation of the windfarm on direct, indirect and induced employment, the EIAR predicts the creation of 8.64 FTEs over the 25 year period of the windfarm, with the significance of the effect predicted to be minor (positive).
10.48 Additional predicted positive economic benefits are outlined in the EIAR which states that it is likely that there will be some local employment generated indirectly as a result of the construction of the Proposed Development. This could include supply chain spin-offs for local businesses and sub- contracted work relating to the transportation of construction workers and materials. Any construction workers not living locally may choose to reside in local accommodation which will further benefit the local economy through spending in local hotels, B&BS, shops and restaurants.
10.49 The EIAR points out that supply chain spin-offs and sub-contractor work will depend upon local capacity. In terms of increasing local skills, it is considered feasible that during the construction process there will be opportunities for ‘up-skilling’ of local people either directly or indirectly employed in relation to the windfarm. Those employed may develop skills that will be of benefit to the local economy in the longer term, such as project management and/or construction skills which are transferrable to other potential renewable energy developments.
10.50 In terms of Tourism impacts the EIAR notes that it is possible that the construction of the windfarm could lead to a decrease in the availability of tourist accommodation within the area surrounding the site, as construction workers from outside the area will require accommodation for the duration of the construction phase. However, as tourism to the area is likely to be largely seasonal and there are numerous accommodation options, particularly in and around Stornoway, a significant effect on the availability of tourism accommodation is not anticipated. In addition, it is considered that any reduction in accommodation and related spend in the community will be compensated for by revenue generated by the (non-seasonal) accommodation of site workers.
10.51 In terms of recreational benefits the EIAR highlights the provision of surfaced access tracks (8km) may facilitate further use of the site for informal recreation in the long term (for both residents and tourists), resulting in an effect of minor positive significance.
10.52 The EIAR concludes that the magnitude of positive effects has increased in relation to employment during construction and operation, with the significance of effects remaining the same as predicted in the 2013 EIAR. The significance of positive effects in relation to employment and wider economic benefit cumulatively has increased from moderate to major.
Assessment
10.53 The predicted creation of the equivalent of 3.2 FTE direct and 6.08 FTE indirect induced totalling 9.28 FTE jobs during the construction phase and 8.64 FTE direct/indirect/induced FTEs from the 25 year operational life of the development, has been reviewed by colleagues in economic development and is accepted as a fair prediction of the socio economic benefits. These benefits of ‘minor positive significance’ for the local economy and are planning considerations that lend weight in favour of the development.
10.54 The potential impacts on tourism are harder to quantify and predict as while the EIAR notes that considerable research has been carried out on the potential effects of windfarms on tourism and it concludes that there is no evidence that windfarm development has a negative effect on tourist numbers, it is a more subjective matter and may vary from context to context.
10.55 The EIA references the Biggar report 2016; this was revised in 2017. The research report by Biggar Economics on Wind Farms and Tourism Trends in Scotland published in October 2017 was undertaken to find empirical evidence of a relationship between the development of onshore wind farms and the tourism sector in Scotland. In order to do this the changes in employment in the sustainable tourism sector between 2009 and 2015 were considered along with the growth in the onshore wind sector during this time period.
10.56 While there were claims of lack of independence in the findings, the analysis found that there was no relationship between the growth in the number of wind turbines and the level of tourism employment at the local authority level.
10.57 It would be reasonable to expect that any impacts associated with a wind farm development are most likely to be felt strongest in the immediate vicinity of the development. An analysis of the levels of employment in the sustainable tourism sector in the immediate vicinity of onshore wind farm developments did not find any evidence of these areas being adversely affected. On the contrary it was found that the tourism sector in the majority of areas surrounding wind farms grew faster than in the local authorities where they were situated. Although this study does not suggest that there is any direct relationship between tourism sector growth and wind farm development, it does indicate that wind farms do not cause a decrease in tourism employment either at a local or a national level.
10.58 Overall, the conclusion of this study is that published national statistics on employment in sustainable tourism demonstrates that there is no relationship between the development of onshore wind farms and tourism employment at the level of the Scottish economy, at [mainland] local authority level nor in the area immediately surrounding wind farm development. (Biggar Economics 2017).
10.59 Tourism effects are inter-related with the visual effect of the windfarms on the site. In the context of Druim Leathann, the EIAR at Chapter 6 Landscape and Visual Amenity, assessment of Operational Effects on Views and Visual Amenity, the effect on Routes (Tolsta to Ness Heritage Trail (Core Path) and the Tolsta Head Path) are assessed to be moderate (significant), long term, but reversible (on removal of the turbines) while in Chapter 13 Socio-Economics, Operational Effects of the windfarm are assessed as having a minor positive effect on Public Access and recreation.
10.60 These effects are negative versus positive as they predict that the additional windfarm tracks are likely to encourage tourism and recreational use; but on the other hand the visual impact of the development from the heritage trail, which follows the coast between Tolsta and Lionel, running northwards from Tràigh Ghearadha beach trail will experience a moderate (significant) negative impact with the consequence that this may result in less recreational use (but more possibly a less wild and natural experience for users). The mitigation, ‘embedded in the design of the windfarm’ does not alter the residual and the potential Cumulative Effects.
10.61 The impacts of the Proposed Development on Tourism and Tourism development are more amorphous and unpredictable given the lack of experience of large scale wind farms on the islands, which in terms of the tourism product are marketed as unspoilt, pristine with a high quality natural environment. The effects are most likely to be local to Tolsta and New Tolsta. There is no strong evidence either way to suggest people would be dissuaded from staying in tourist accommodation in the area, or new and existing Tourism businesses having adverse trading effects. Tourism experience will also be inextricably linked to how people experience, positively or negatively, the effect on important views and landscape. At a local level these will be significantly impacted by the windfarm, and whether or not the presence of the new paths created by the windfarm will encourage more users through access to new paths for walking, running, cycling or horse-riding or dissuade users from enjoying the experience of using the existing Heritage Trail is not certain. On balance once the windfarm is established the overall effect is likely to be neutral and would not lend weight either way to the overall planning balance.
Conclusion of Assessment
10.62 In conclusion, the creation of 9.28 FTE direct, indirect and induced jobs during construction and 8.64 FTE direct, indirect and induced jobs from the 25 year operational life of the development is accepted as a fair prediction and these benefits of minor positive significance for the local economy are planning considerations that lend weight in favour of the development.
10.63 The predicted effects on Tourism of negligible for both construction and operational effects seem reasonable given the justification and evidence presented in the assessment which recognises there is limited direct experience of large scale windfarms in an island context.
10.64 Public access and recreation during construction is predicted as a negligible effect (which may be slightly overstated) and minor positive over the lifetime of the windfarm which is considered fair.
10.65 In line with the Comhairle’s policy objective on economic impacts and benefits, the development would accrue a minor positive net economic impact directly within the Outer Hebrides and as such be in accordance with the Development Policy on Net Economic benefit.
Non-material matters
10.66 The EIAR also predicts additional FTE’s arising from a community benefit fund. However while noted, these additional FTE’s cannot be reflected in the balance of planning matters. The ‘Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy developments’ (2019) states ‘Community benefits schemes are a well-established, integral part of renewable energy developments, and often represent a positive relationship between renewable energy businesses and communities… They are voluntary arrangements offered by renewable energy businesses to communities located near developments, and are not a material consideration in a planning application’. Community benefit payments have been offered by the developer at an indicated rate of £7,000 per MW of installed capacity per annum for the first 13 years, then £10,000 for the remaining twelve years. The advice of colleagues in economic development is that ‘It is generally accepted that every £10 million of Community Benefit will result in the creation of 63 FTE (Direct, Indirect and Induced) jobs and this means that there is scope for the creation of 44 FTE jobs through Community Benefit in this case. However, the benefitting Community Trust will not be geared solely to the generation of employment so a 50% factor is applied, resulting in the projected creation of 22 FTE jobs through Community Benefit’. These benefits are acknowledged as very positive, but are not benefits that can be reflected in the taking of a planning decision on this application.
Comparison to the Consented Development
10.67 The windfarm is predicted to have an effect of the creation of 9.28 direct indirect and induced FTEs during construction the creation of 8.64 FTEs over the 25 year period of operation of the windfarm, a total of 17.92 FTE jobs (direct, indirect and induced) over the lifetime of the windfarm
10.68 While, this is a slight increase from the Consented Development, the differences are primarily related to an improved methodology in how economic benefits from windfarms are now calculated.
10.69 As predicted for the Consented Development, the proposed windfarm, during construction, is also predicted to have negligible effects on tourism, negligible effects on recreation and access and minor effects on land use.
10.70 As predicted for the Consented Development, the operational effects of the proposed windfarm over its 25 year period of operation on tourism, public access and recreation and land use are predicted again to be minor positive effects.
10.71 Cumulative employment and wider economic benefit effects associated with the Consented Development were predicted to be moderate (positive) in the 2013 EIAR and would remain as now predicted for the Proposed Development (with community benefit excluded, as required).
Landscape and Visual Impact
Policy Context
10.72 The Scottish Government guidance on Onshore Wind Turbines (the OWT guidance) identifies that wind farm proposals can have a varied impact on the landscape, due to their number, size or layout, their siting, design and colour, land form change, access tracks and ancillary components. The ability of the landscape to absorb development often depends largely on features of landscape character, such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys and vegetation. This can also be influenced by careful siting and design.
10.73 OHLDP Policy NBH1 requires development proposals to relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. It also requires the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) to be taken into account in determining applications. Development proposals should not have an unacceptable significant landscape or visual impact.
10.74 SG Development policy Landscape and Visual Impact states that in line with the provisions of Policy NBH1 Landscape of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (LDP), developers are expected to demonstrate that wind farm proposals and associated infrastructure (including access tracks, grid connection, control equipment) will not have an unacceptable significant visual or landscape impact on the character of the Outer Hebrides (including cumulative) and that good siting and design has been utilised to ensure impacts are limited.
10.75 The SG states that on the grounds of Landscape and visual impacts, wind farms should be located at a distance of at least 2km from settlements. In relation to spatial frameworks, the SPP indicates that areas of significant protection (where wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances) includes those areas identified in respect of community separation for consideration of visual impact. These areas should not exceed 2km around settlements identified on the local development plan with an identified settlement envelope or edge. The OWT guidance confirms that this 2km distance referred to in the SPP is a guide and not a rule and decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography.
10.76 The SG also indicates that power lines connecting individual turbines to the substation should be undergrounded, with those from the sub-station to the electricity distribution system requiring sensitive treatment.
10.77 Comhairle policy states that proposals are to be assessed for their likely impact on:
• areas of Low Landscape Capacity • key characteristics of the landscape character types • settlements • views from popular public viewpoints, transport routes, the core path network and recognised visitor locations • the site and setting of SAMs; Listed Buildings; Conservation Areas; and other historic sites as agreed with the Comhairle.
10.78 The windfarm is not located with a National Scenic Area and nor is the site or the immediate area classified as ‘Wild Land’.
10.79 Consideration of the site and setting of SAMs; Listed Buildings; Conservation Areas; and other historic sites is addressed separately under a separate section within this Report titled Historic Resources.
EIAR
10.80 The EIAR 2018 includes at Chapter 6 the findings of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which includes a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTC) to show where the windfarm may be seen from, and a full set of visualisations including wireline diagrams prepared to national recognised landscape assessment guidance standards, supported by a viewpoint analysis. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) was modelled to 40km for turbine tips and turbine hubs arising from turbines of this size in accordance with SNH Guidance. The ZTV represents the outermost study area considered for potential landscape and visual effects per best practice, but the EIAR notes that landscape assessment was focused within 15km of the outermost turbines as significant effects are anticipated to occur within a much more focused area. Windfarm developments within the defined 40km radius study area, are considered within a cumulative assessment.
10.81 Twelve viewpoints were selected for the purposes of producing the LVIA for the Proposed Development, these being the same viewpoints used in the EIAR 2013. The 2013 visualisations are included for the purposes of a comparative assessment. These Viewpoints are:
• VP1 Tolsta Village Hall
• VP2 Traigh Mhor Beach, New Tolsta
• VP3 Heritage Trail, North Tolsta
• VP4 Col
• VP5 Tiumpan Head
• VP6 Tong
• VP7 A857, Stornoway-Barvas
• VP8 Lewis War Memorial
• VP9 Eoropie
• VP10 Arnol
• VP11 Muirneag (wirelines only)
• VP12 Plasterfield
10.82 Following submission of the EIAR 2018, three additional viewpoints were identified by the Comhairle as benefiting from visualisations. These were requested contained within the 2020 Supplementary Information Report produced by the applicant. These additional visualisations are useful in gaining a better appreciation of likely visual effects on the settlement of Tolsta.
10.83 These are:
• SI VP1 - New Tolsta junction of the B895 and South Road
• SI VP2 – New Street, Tolsta
• SI VP3 – B895 Glen Tolsta
10.84 In addition, arising from the need to reposition Turbine 12 approximately 90m NNE of the initially assessed location, a comparative assessment was carried out using wireline diagrams only; this approach was agreed as an acceptable one, given the small change in position and likelihood of limited change in potential landscape or visual effects.
10.85 The EIAR Chapter 6 sets out the layout and design considerations in relation to landscape and visual effects and notes the key principle adopted was to have been to maintain a balanced grouping of turbines in the landscape with a balance struck between size and number of turbines. Views from locations along the Eye Peninsula were identified as an important consideration in informing the design, with the objective of identifying an appropriate ‘fit’ with the landscape, and achieving a balanced composition of turbines which complement the horizontal and vertical scale of the landscape.
10.86 The EIAR assesses the potential impact of the proposed windfarm development on landscape character and resources caused by changes in the elements, characteristics, character and qualities of the landscape, during both construction and operation.
10.87 The construction of the windfarm will involve significant groundworks and civil engineering operations including the opening of two large borrow pits to the north of the site.
Construction effects – Landscape Character
10.88 The EIAR predicts that during construction there will be major (significant) effects on the application site and the immediate locality, a Boggy Moor landscape type (a landscape of remote and uninhabited character). These effects are predicted to be short term and reversible. Mitigation will include limiting land clearance and disturbance, whilst limiting the movement of vehicles outside of specified routes.
Construction effects –visual amenity
10.89 The EIAR predicts that construction effects on Views and Visual Amenity will vary from moderate to major. The local community of Tolsta adjacent to the site is likely to experience visual effects judged to be major (significant); walkers in the wider area moderate significant visual effects, Ceol na Mara, 18 New Tolsta (with views of the construction compound and borrow pit and near the northern site entrance) will experience construction phase visual effects judged to be major (significant); five properties at the northern end of Tolsta (14, 16, 17, 20 and 23 New Tolsta) will experience less direct views of the eastern borrow pit (as well as construction vehicle movements in and out of the northern site access) resulting in construction phase visual effects judged to be moderate (significant); and up to three properties at the southern end of Tolsta which will experience oblique views of the construction of the southern site access with visual effects judged to be minor (not significant). In EIA assessment terms these are classed as short-term and reversible as these effects will cease after the construction period ends and any remedial re-seeding and re-turfing works are carried out.
10.90 While mitigation includes redirecting HGV and abnormal loads via the southern access, once this access point and the main spine of the windfarm track are constructed, the residual effects remain as assessed above.
Operational effects – Landscape Character
10.91 The EIAR predicts that during the operational phase of the windfarm (arising largely from the 14 turbines but also the new tracks and accesses, and the substation) the effects on the six Landscape Character Types (LCT) that comprise the landscape of Tolsta will vary by type but also locally (within approximately 2km of the turbines) and across the LCT as a whole. While NatureScot in 2019 and therefore in the course of determining this application revisited the LCT’s nationally, redefining these with a reduced number; Those relevant are 332 Boggy Moorland – Outer Hebrides, Rocky Moorland Outer Hebrides, 317 Gently Sloping Crofting and 318 Linear Crofting , the assessment has retained reference to those existing at the time of application for simplicity.
10.92 Thirteen of the proposed fourteen turbines are located within the Boggy Moor 2 LCT sub-type with the landscape effect during operation judged to be Moderate (significant), occurring long-term during the life of the windfarm. One turbine, access tracks and two borrow pits will be located in the Rocky Moorland LCT and again the landscape effect during operation is judged to be Moderate (significant), occurring long-term during the life of the windfarm. The predominant LCT of Tolsta and New Tolsta village was Crofting 1 LCT (now Gently Sloping Crofting) and Crofting 2 LCT (now Linear Crofting) both classed as high sensitivity. The southern and northern accesses will pass through these, there will be varying visibility of the turbines and combined with the high sensitivity of the LCTs there will be Moderate (significant) effects. No parts of the windfarm will be sited within what was classed as the Boggy Moor 1 LCT or the Machair LCT landscape effects judged to be Negligible (not significant) and Minor (not significant) respectively.
10.93 While the EIAR note these to be to be long-term and reversible (on removal of the windfarm), the likelihood is that any developed windfarm site will be repowered and the impacts longer term than the life of any consent.
10.94 In terms of cumulative effects all of the existing and proposed wind energy developments, with the exception of the single turbine at Horshader, Shawbost (Crofting 1 LCT, gently sloping crofting), fall within the Boggy Moor LCT. The windfarm is of moderate size, larger than most of the other developments in the study area but smaller than the consented Stornoway Windfarm. The addition of windfarm to the Boggy Moorland landscape will result in a small additional change, affecting a small geographical extent of the wider LCT. Overall it is judged that the addition of the windfarm to the other wind energy developments within the extensive Boggy Moorland LCT will result in a low magnitude of cumulative change, resulting in a Minor (not significant) cumulative landscape effect.
Operational effects – visual amenity
10.95 The EIAR then considers the predicted operational effects of the proposed windfarm on visual amenity by setting out an assessment of each of the viewpoints presented in the LVIA in wireframe and visualisations. The EIAR judges that operational effects on views from viewpoints will vary.
10.96 Major (significant) effects on visual amenity are predicted upon views from Tolsta Village Hall, and from the Heritage Trail north of Tolsta. For each of these there is no predicted change in effect arising from the re-positioning of Turbine 12.
10.97 Moderate (significant) effects on visual amenity are predicted upon views from Tiumpan Head, Point; Tong; and Muirneag.
10.98 Those assessed to be negligible or minor (not significant) include Col, Plasterfield, Arnol, Lewis War Memorial, the A857 Stornoway to Barvas road, Eoropie and the Traigh Mhòr in Tolsta. For each of these there is no predicted change in effect arising from the re-positioning of Turbine 12.
10.99 Significant cumulative visual effects, in combination with other windfarms are predicted on views from Viewpoints at Tiumpan Head, Tong and Muirneag. For each of these there is no predicted change in effect arising from the re-positioning of Turbine 12.
10.100 Visualisations were sought by the Comhairle from three additional viewpoints. These were submitted as part of the 2020 SI and were sought to properly communicate the visual impacts likely to be experienced on approach to and from within the settlement of Tolsta and in turn inform an assessment and recommendation on visual impact.
10.101 The 2020 Supplementary Information states that the additional viewpoint visualisations are considered representative of the range of views described and assessed in the LVIA presented in the 2018 EIA Report, and supplement the visualisation materials which accompany the 2018 EIA Report LVIA. No detailed assessment was undertaken by the developer of effects on views from the three additional visualisations since it was accepted that the visualisations in the EIAR were representative of the ‘worst case scenario’. The views from two of these viewpoints New Street, and the B895 Glen Tolsta, support a prediction of major (significant) effect.
Operational effects - views from settlements
10.102 The predicted operational effect on views from settlements is also assessed. The assessment of effects on views and visual amenity from settlements focuses on views available from publically accessible areas of the settlements, including travelling to and from homes on public roads and using public areas, rather than individual properties. The assessment set out above considers these communities as a whole. A separate more detailed assessment is carried out in relation to the settlement of Tolsta and considered under the Section of this Report on Community Amenity (Residential Visual Amenity).
10.103 Of these effects on views from settlements, only those from within Tolsta and New Tolsta were assessed to be major (significant). The additional visualisations prepared and submitted as part of the SI would support this prediction.
10.104 Views from settlements on the Eye Peninsula - (Garrabost, Shulishader, Flesherin/Broker and Aird, Portnaguran, etc) are assessed as Moderate (significant) for the proposed windfarm, as well as when viewed in cumulation with other windfarm developments, (with the exception of the Tolsta community turbine).
Views from key routes
10.105 Potential visual effects of the windfarm both in isolation, and in the context of other existing, consented and proposed wind energy developments on key routes through the study area was also assessed. These include both key public roads routes and tracks or ways. Of those assessed significant visual effects are predicted to be experienced by users of the Heritage Trail (core path) and Tolsta Head Path including cumulatively with other windfarm developments.
10.106 In terms of mitigation the EIAR notes that all potential mitigation of landscape and visual effects has been embedded into the design of the proposed windfarm, with the EIAR stating that these have been minimised by ensuring the wind turbines form a compact and balanced group in the landscape.
Repositioning of Turbine 12
10.107 Wireline diagrams were prepared and submitted to illustrate the proposed amended layout (i.e. relocated T12), in accordance with current SNH Guidance and consistent with the methodology outlined in Appendix 6.3 of the 2018 EIAR. However, the additional Visualisations SI 2 and SI 3 from New Street and Glen Tolsta reflect the change in position. It was concluded that the relocation of Turbine 12 approximately 90m to the north east of its original position did not alter the conclusion of either the landscape or visual assessment.
Assessment
10.108 The assessment of Landscape and Visual impacts is informed by the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage (now NatureScot) and a Landscape Consultant employed by the Comhairle. The assessment considers the landscape and visual impacts including cumulative effects on the proposal for 14 turbines, 140m high to blade tip (including the removal of a 12m high sub-station and relocation of Turbine 12 by approximately 90m) on the same site subject to a Consented Development of 14 turbines, 126.5m high to blade tip, as well as a comparison between the effects of the respective development proposals.
10.109 In terms of Landscape and Visual impacts more generally NatureScot advise that ‘The proposal would generate major landscape and visual impacts in the vicinity of North Tolsta. These impacts would particularly affect the visual amenity of the settlement and its surroundings. Aspects of the local landscape and coastal character will also be acutely affected, when these are exposed to significant influence from the turbines on adjacent higher moorland. In particular, the rural character of North Tolsta's crofting landscapes and the intimacy, enclosure and perceived scale of coastal areas in the vicinity of the village will be adversely affected……Wider impacts across Lewis are within the capacity of the landscape and visual resource. The proposal does not impinge on landscape interests that are nationally significant or scarce and, therefore, we do not consider that this proposal raises landscape issues of national interest’.
Landscape effects
10.110 The development site largely lies within the Boggy Moor 2 Landscape Character Type (LCT) with a small part (1 of the 14 turbines) to the north, lying within the Rocky Moorland LCT.
10.111 The Boggy Moorland 2 LCT is now renamed as Landscape Character Type 322 (Boggy Moorland – Outer Hebrides) and Rocky Moorland LCT as Landscape Character Type 323 Rocky Moorland – Outer Hebrides.
10.112 The Boggy Moorland LCT has characteristics which reduce sensitivity to large scale wind turbines including a gently undulating simple landform and land cover and a generally expansive scale. The proposal will however, at the detailed level of the site and its immediate surrounds, dominate the scale and conflict with the pattern of small lochs that are feature of this landscape. There would be significant adverse effects on the character of parts of the Boggy Moor and the Rocky Moorland LCTs.
10.113 The development site lies close to the smaller scale Crofting 1 (317 Gently Sloping Crofting) and 2 (318 Linear Crofting) LCTs and visibility extends across these Crofting LCT’s and some parts of the Machair LCT along the coastal fringe. These landscapes are highly sensitive to a development of this size and effects on the character of these LCTs would be significant and adverse in the Tolsta area due to the close proximity of very large turbines. This proposal will significantly and adversely affect the appreciation of this isolated crofting landscape, dominating the scale of small buildings, gardens and semi-enclosed crofting land.
10.114 SNH concur with the conclusions that the LVIA has drawn and advise that the Druim Leathann wind farm will result in significant adverse localised landscape effects on Boggy Moorland 2 LCT, Rocky Moorland LCT, Crofting 2 LCT and Crofting 1 LCT.
10.115 Therefore in terms of Landscape character, our assessment would concur with SNH and the landscape consultant in terms of the conclusions that the LVIA has drawn, namely that there will be significant effects on:
• Boggy Moorland 2 LCT (322 Boggy Moorland Outer Hebrides); • Rocky Moorland LCT (323 Rocky Moorland Outer Hebrides); • Crofting 2 LCT (318 Linear Crofting LCT); • Crofting 1 LCT (317 Gently Sloping Crofting (localised effects).
Effects on visual amenity
10.116 The proposal would have an extensive visibility across northern Lewis due to the openness of the landscape although the relatively sparse settlement (and limited transport routes) reduces visual sensitivity to some degree. Visibility of the proposal (blade tip ZTV Figure 6.2) is very extensive within 5km of the proposal due to the low lying nature of the landform across this part of Lewis. The proposal will result in significant adverse effects on:
• Views experienced on the approach to Tolsta - Viewpoint 3 in the Supplementary Information Report illustrates the dominant and overwhelming effect of turbines sited very close to the B895. Effects on the experience of using this route would be adverse, major and significant particularly given the increasing sense of remoteness that can be perceived as settlement and agriculture becomes sparser and the coast more rugged. The LVIA judges the sensitivity of receptors using the B895 to be medium although this underplays the popularity of this route with visitors, who will include cyclists, and sensitivity would be more appropriately medium-high or high.
• Views in and around the settlement of Tolsta – The wind farm lies just over 1km from some of the nearest buildings within Tolsta. The proximity and height of the turbines will result in significant effects on many residential properties in Tolsta as set out in the LVIA and represented by Viewpoints 1, 2 and 3. Major adverse and significant effects would occur on views from residential properties, crofting land, gardens and from roads and tracks in the general surrounds of the settlement. Additional Viewpoint 2 included in the Supplementary Information report illustrates the dominant effect of large turbines on views.
• Coastal views close to Tolsta – Effects from the popular Traigh Mhòr Beach will not be significant due both to the turbines being visible only at lower tides and from the lower part of the beach, and to the turbines being visible only in views looking back to the dunes rather than out to sea or along the coastline where most visitors will be focussed. While there would be limited visibility from Traigh Mhòr beach, the wind farm would be seen from the quieter beach at Traigh Ghearadha and up onto the cliffs in views from the promoted walk around Tolsta Head. The wind farm would not interrupt spectacular coastal views from this walk but it would form a dominant feature in the backdrop seen behind the small-scale crofting landscape of Tolsta. The wind farm would also be a dominant feature in views from part of the Tolsta to Ness Heritage Trail, a remote 14km path on the north east coast of Lewis. EIAR Viewpoint 3, near Tolsta, illustrates how the wind farm would be seen above the low headland which contains the attractive small sandy beach of Traigh Ghearadha. This proposal would significantly detract from the scenic coastal setting and character of the Tolsta area when walking southwards from Ness towards the end of the trail. These will be localised but significant.
• Views from the Eye Peninsula where all turbines would be visible from parts of the A866 and from settlement on the north-western side of the Peninsula. EIAR Viewpoint 5 from Tiumpan Head is representative of these views. There are wide views westwards from the Eye Peninsula and a long and concentrated array of operational and consented wind turbines would also be visible in the Stornoway area. The Druim Leathann proposal would lie more than 16km from the nearest turbine of the consented Stornoway wind farm (the largest of these developments) and would introduce larger wind farm development into the less developed north Lewis area in these views. From these viewpoints the existing single community turbine at Tolsta (77m to blade tip), can be seen in the context of Muirneag, the only elevated landform at 248m, and is assessed to be one of appropriate scale. Given the low height of Muirneag the hill will appear dwarfed by the much larger proposal almost double the height of the community wind turbine.
10.117 In more distant views, the wind farm would comprise a more minor feature, for example from the Stornoway area and from the western side of Lewis, where landform will also provide some partial screening, and while views would be adversely affected, effects would not be significant.
Cumulative landscape and visual effects
10.118 The cumulative effect of operational and consented wind farms is considered in the 2018 LVIA. No application stage wind farms were identified at the cut-off date of 1st March 2018. Four applications have been submitted since 2018. These include Stornoway II, a variation of the consented Stornoway wind farm, the Bheinn Thulabaigh and Sandwick North Street (both single turbines) and the Sandwick East Community wind farm applications. Bheinn Thulabaigh, Sandwick North Street and the Sandwick East Community wind energy developments are on the same site as the consented Stornoway development and would not go ahead if the consented/variation Stornoway wind farm were constructed. The LVIA has not provided paired visualisations which allow each scheme to be appraised alongside the proposal, rather there are two ZTVs which have included all 7 schemes in addition to the proposal.
10.119 All these proposals lie over 16km from the Druim Leathann proposal and this reduces potential for inter-visibility to occur in key views. The Stornoway II application comprises larger turbines than the consented Stornoway wind farm. This proposal would be principally seen together with the Druim Leathann proposal in more distant views, from the A857 connecting Stornoway to Barvas and the A866 Eye Peninsula where differences in turbine height would have less of an effect than in closer views.
10.120 Cumulative effects with the single Tolsta Community Turbine (77m to tip) will be significant due to the vast difference in scale and number of turbines proposed. However it is agreed in line with the findings of the LVIA, that there will be no additional significant cumulative effects with other wind turbines within the study area.
Conclusion of assessment
10.121 In line with the provisions of Policy PD1, Placemaking and Design, and Policy NBH1 Landscape of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, “wind turbine developments (including access tracks, grid connection, control equipment) seek to ensure that wind turbines will not have an unacceptable significant visual or landscape impact on the character of the Outer Hebrides (including cumulative).”
10.122 In terms of Landscape effects, the Druim Leathann wind farm would result in significant adverse localised landscape effects on the Boggy Moor 2 LCT (322 Boggy Moorland Outer Hebrides); Rocky Moorland LCT (322 Rocky Moorland Outer Hebrides); Crofting 2 (318 Linear Crofting) LCT; and Crofting 1 (317 Gently Sloping Crofting) LCT such that there would be significant adverse localised landscape effects on Landscape character. It is also recognised that the proposal would not impinge on landscape interests that are of national importance.
10.123 It is concluded that the Druim Leathann wind farm would generate major landscape and visual impacts in the vicinity of North Tolsta, lesser but nevertheless significant impacts from viewpoints at the Tiumpan head lighthouse and when travelling north along the B895 towards Tolsta. More specifically there would be significant adverse visual effects from Viewpoints 1, Tolsta Village Hall, Viewpoint 3, Heritage Trail, SI VP2 – New Street, Tolsta, SI VP3 – B895 Glen Tolsta. There would also be, to a lesser, but nevertheless a significant effect from Viewpoints 5 Tiumpan Head, Viewpoint 6 Tong and Viewpoint 11 Muirneag. These viewpoints represent the visual effect of the windfarm on communities, recreational users and visitors to North West Lewis. In terms of visual effects the wind farm development lies very close to many residential properties, and it is a key concern that the significant adverse effects on visual amenity would principally affect a high percentage of the residences in Tolsta. Further, the Tolsta coastal area, is experienced by residents and visitors alike and the perception of the remoteness and naturalness of this coastal area is likely to be diminished by the development.
10.124 The effects of the proposal are significant major adverse and cannot be mitigated further as they are a result of the location of this wind farm rather than its design.
10.125 The effects are exacerbated on account of the windfarm’s close proximity to Tolsta with most residences in the settlement being within 1 to 2km from the nearest turbines, contrary to the spatial strategy which guides that wind farms should be located at a distance of at least 2km from settlements.
10.126 The issue of power lines connecting individual turbines to the substation to be undergrounded, and those from the sub-station to the electricity distribution system requiring sensitive treatment are matters that can so far as within the control of any consent be managed by condition.
10.127 Cumulative significant adverse effects would occur with the 77m to tip height, Tolsta Community turbine only.
10.128 From a Planning and EIA perspective the overall effects on Landscape and Visual amenity and residential visual amenity are judged to be major adverse and significant and weigh heavily against the objectives and requirements set out within the planning policy of the Comhairle in these respects.
10.129 Consistent with the Consented Development, the proposal would not be in accordance with OHLDP Policy NBH1 Landscape or the SG Development Policy on Landscape and Visual amenity as it would have an unacceptable significant landscape and visual impact and is sited within a 2km community separation buffer set around the settlement, contrary to the OHLDP, and is a matter that weighs against the proposal and to be taken into account in the overall planning balance.
Comparison of the landscape and visual effects of the Consented and the Proposed Developments
10.130 As explained in Section 5 of this Report, there is considerable planning history associated with the Druim Leathann wind farm development site. An application for 14 turbines 126.5m to blade tip was consented in 2013. A subsequent consent was granted in 2018 following an application made under Section 42 of the Act (to change the conditions). The 2018 consent remains extant.
10.131 The current application for 14 turbines, 140m to blade tip was submitted in May 2018. The developer has advised that this change is to take account of new technology that aims to maximise output in order to aid delivery of the project in changed market conditions. The developer has set out the climate change challenges and benefits and stated that ‘Wind turbine technology is continually evolving, with more productive and efficient designs becoming available on the market with ‘older’ technology being difficult if not impossible to procure. The 2018 tip height increase to 140m is in line with market reality and with site optimisation by retaining the principles of the original design strategy this strikes an appropriate balance between increasing the efficiency and energy generation of the windfarm and the buildability of the project in the future’.
10.132 While there will be an increase in the magnitude of visual effects arising from the proposal due to the increase in turbine height (13.5m higher than those in the Consented Development), comparison of visualisations from key viewpoints shows that the increase in turbine height of 13.5m would not be appreciable in more distant views. In closer views, in and around Tolsta, there would be some perceptible differences although these are unlikely to alter the magnitude of change gauged in an LVIA. However it should be noted that this is because the effects of the Consented Development were predicted as major adverse and significant (and therefore at the top band of severity) and would be experienced most acutely in and around the settlement of Tolsta.
10.133 Therefore in summary while the effects of the change arising from the new proposal, are predicted to be marginally perceptible from the Tolsta area, they are such that the magnitude of change and significance of effect of the new proposal, as assessed in the wider context, would be similar to those of the Consented Development, also a matter which should be taken into account in the overall planning balance.
Historic Resources
Policy Context
10.134 The SPP states, in paragraph 29, that planning decisions should protect, enhance and promote access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment. Paragraph 135 goes on to say that planning has an important role to play in maintaining and enhancing the distinctive and high-quality, irreplaceable historic places which enrich our lives, contribute to our sense of identity and are an important resource for our tourism and leisure industry.
10.135 Paragraph 137 of the SPP states that, amongst other matters, the planning system should:
• promote the care and protection of the designated and non-designated historic environment (including individual assets, related settings and the wider cultural landscape) and its contribution to sense of place, cultural identity, social well-being, economic growth, civic participation and lifelong learning; and
• enable positive change in the historic environment which is informed by a clear understanding of the importance of the heritage assets affected and ensure their future use. Change should be sensitively managed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the fabric and setting of the asset, and ensure that its special characteristics are protected, conserved or enhanced.
10.136 The Historic Environment Policy for Scotland 2019 Policy HEP1 states that decisions affecting any part of the historic environment should be informed by an inclusive understanding of its breadth and cultural significance. Policy HEP2 requires decisions affecting the historic environment to ensure that its understanding and enjoyment as well as its benefits are secured for present and future generations.
10.137 OHLDP Policy HEP4 - Built Heritage indicates that changes to specific assets and their context should be managed in a way that protects the historic environment. If detrimental impact on the historic environment is unavoidable, it should be minimised. Steps should be taken to demonstrate that alternatives have been explored, and mitigation measures should be put in place. Policy HEP5 states that decisions affecting the historic environment should contribute to the sustainable development of communities and places.
10.138 The OHLDP Policy NBH4 Built Heritage states that development which would have a substantial adverse impact on historic significance will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
a) All reasonable measures will be taken to mitigate any loss of this significance; and
b) Any loss of significance which cannot be mitigated is outweighed by the social, economic, environmental or safety benefits of the development.
10.139 OHLDP Policy NHB5 Archaeology supports development that would preserve, protect or enhance the archaeological significance of heritage assets, including their settings. Development proposals that will adversely impact upon scheduled archaeological remains or the integrity of their settings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, where there is no practical alternative site and where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI). The policy also identifies that archaeological assessment may be required for proposals likely to negatively affect any regionally or locally important archaeological remains, including investigation and mitigation.
10.140 Policy NBH6 Historic Areas requires all development to preserve or enhance the setting of Historic Areas, including Conservation Areas, and those sites as described in the Inventory of Garden and Designed Landscapes.
10.141 The Wind SG Development Policy Historic Resources explains that, in addition to the above policies, developers will be expected to demonstrate that wind farm proposals and associated infrastructure will have no unacceptable significant adverse impact on the site, context and setting of historic environment assets including designated and significant undesignated assets and areas.
10.142 Any assessment should adequately consider: direct and indirect physical impacts; potential for cumulative effects (including the impacts of any secondary developments such as power lines, met masts, borrow pits, access tracks or transmission stations); and opportunities for responsive siting and design.
10.143 Furthermore, the SG indicates that, if a wind energy proposal breaks the skyline at sensitive ridgelines when viewed from the component parts of the Calanais complex, it will only be supported if it can be demonstrated that the proposal will not have a significant negative impact on the setting of the Calanais complex.
10.144 The proposal will not directly affect any world heritage site, there are no listed buildings within the development site and no part of the project lies within a conservation area or inventory Garden and Designed Landscape. Due to intervening distance, the windfarm would not be perceptible when viewed from the component parts of the Calanais complex and therefore will not have a significant negative impact on the setting of the Calanais complex.
EIAR
10.145 The EIAR 2018 at Chapter 12: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage sets out the methodology of assessment and discusses the direct and indirect effects on archaeological and cultural resources recorded within the application site and up to 5km from the application boundary.
10.146 A walkover survey identified one heritage asset consisting of the footings of two small shieling huts on the West bank of the ‘Allt Ionadagro’, at NB 5184 4611 and NB 5184 4613. Within the inner study area these huts are more than 200m from proposed construction works and the 2018 EIA report advises that they will not be affected during construction. Due to the peat in the area there is potential for unknown archaeology within the application site, but the report states that this cannot be meaningfully assessed.
10.147 Within the middle study area (a 5km buffer beyond the perimeter of the development site), there are six scheduled monuments (SAMs) and three Listed Buildings (two Category B and one Category C). The EIAR concludes that there will be negligible or no effect on these designations as a result of the Proposed Development.
10.148 The EIAR 2018 states that the potential for currently undiscovered heritage assets within the site relates almost exclusively to prehistoric archaeological remains that pre-date the development of blanket peat, and may be deeply buried by peat growth. However, at present a lack of evidence makes this potential impossible to quantify.
10.149 Known assets will be avoided and construction effects on currently unknown archaeological remains will be mitigated by an agreed programme of works, reducing the significance of any residual effect to minor at most.
10.150 There are no known heritage assets that will be significantly affected by the development. The agreed programme of archaeological work will minimise the impact of the development on unknown archaeological assets. In conclusion there will be no significant effects in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage during construction or during the operational life of the wind farm.
10.151 Consultation advice was sought from Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and the Comhairle Archaeology Service.
10.152 HES considered the potential impacts on the setting of the six scheduled monuments in the vicinity of the proposal, concluded that the impacts on setting were not significant and raise no objection to the proposed development. HES concluded that the proposals would not have a significant impact on the integrity of the settings of the surrounding scheduled monuments and would not raise issues of national interest for their historic environment remit.
10.153 Comhairle Archaeology require that to ensure proper recording and protection of items of archaeological interest a condition is attached to any consent issued, necessitating that a written scheme of investigation is submitted by the applicant at least 14 days prior to the proposed commencement date and approved in writing by the Comhairle Archaeologist. The approved scheme of investigation shall be implemented subject to any variations agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Within the application site there are no nationally important monuments or archaeological sites. There is one non-designated heritage asset on the site, the remains of shieling huts at Allt Ionadagro. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have significant effects on nationally important remains or their settings.
10.154 The 2018 EIAR states that the potential construction effects are the same as those identified for the Consented Development, however, the wind farm will result in a larger area of peat removal (estimated at 9-10% [according to SNH calculations]) and this increases the probability of unknown archaeological material being disturbed. The 2018 EIAR states that known assets will be avoided and construction effects on currently unknown archaeological remains will be mitigated by an agreed programme of works, reducing the significance of any residual effect to minor at most. The condition to manage archaeological impact formerly imposed will be re-applied to any new consent.
10.155 The 2018 EIAR mentions that operational effects relate largely to effects on the setting of heritage assets and are primarily a result of visual intrusion. The EIAR predicts no significant effects of the windfarm affecting the setting of cultural features outwith the site including six scheduled Ancient Monuments and three Listed Buildings.
Assessment
10.156 Following consultation with Historic Environment Scotland and the Comhairle’s Archaeology Service and the examination of the EIA as set out above, it is considered that the potential impacts of the windfarm on the known archaeological heritage as assessed by the applicant are unlikely to be significant.
10.157 Subject to the inclusion of conditions detailed by the Comhairle Archaeologist, it is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the historic environment or heritage assets of the area. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with both Policy NBH4 Built Heritage and Policy NBH5: Archaeology of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2018 and the provisions of the Historic Resources policy as per the Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development.
Noise
Policy context
10.158 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (Final Report, Sept 1996, DTI), (ETSU-R-97) describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise. This gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise conditions.
10.159 The Institute of Acoustics (IOA) has published Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise (IOA GPG). The document provides significant support on technical issues to all users of the ETSU-R-97 method for rating and assessing wind turbine noise. The Scottish Government accepts that the guide represents current industry good practice.
10.160 Planning Advice Note 1/2011 provides advice on the role of the planning system in helping to prevent and limit the adverse effects of noise. There are two sources of noise from wind turbines - the mechanical noise from the turbines and the aerodynamic noise from the blades. Mechanical noise is related to engineering design. Aerodynamic noise varies with rotor design and wind speed, and is generally greatest at low speeds. Good acoustical design and siting of turbines is essential to minimise the potential to generate noise.
10.161 The SPP Paragraph 29 identifies the need to avoid over-development and to protect the amenity of new and existing development. Paragraph 75 states that the planning system should encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality.
10.162 The SG provides specific guidance on maximum noise limits, both for individual wind farms and cumulatively. Given the low levels of background noise within the area, the lower limits of ETSU-R-97 have been adopted. The SG also provides guidance on the type and amount of information required to assess proposals, including in relation to the construction phase of development proposals.
10.163 The Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development (adopted 2018) sets out allowed noise limits for renewable energy developments in the Outer Hebrides based on the same methodology as ETSU-R-97 but with lower (minimum) limits. Applicants must demonstrate that the noise generated from a proposed windfarm can comply with allowed limits.
10.164 This development policy Noise sets out the adopted maximum limits allowed for a specific development; and the adopted maximum limits set out for cumulative noise.
EIAR
10.165 Chapter 10 of the EIAR 2018 presents an assessment of the potential construction and operational noise effects of the Proposed Development.
10.166 The study area for the assessment extended out 2km from the proposed site, for construction and operational noise, including cumulative noise effects (i.e. the Druim Leathann Windfarm and the Tolsta Community Turbine combined). The assessment also considered residential dwellings along the construction traffic route in relation to construction traffic noise. The analysis of construction noise effects was undertaken in accordance with accepted industry guidance for predicting construction noise levels.
10.167 Windfarms may emit two types of noise: aerodynamic noise, which relates to the movement of the rotating blades through the air, and mechanical noise, which may emanate from components within the nacelle of a wind turbine, where the rotor blades meet the mechanical parts of the generator.
10.168 The EIAR notes that aerodynamic noise is usually only perceived when wind speeds are fairly low; in higher winds, it is generally masked by the normal background sound of the wind blowing and other related background noise e.g. bushes rustling or the roar of the ocean.
10.169 In terms of field survey to establish background noise levels, a total of four noise monitoring locations were determined as being representative of the background noise environment around the site in agreement with the Comhairle Environmental Health. The background noise monitoring exercise was conducted from 25 October 2012 to 15 November 2012, a period of over three weeks. A minimum of 14 to 21 days of concurrent noise and wind speed measurements were also obtained at each of the four survey locations during this period which was in excess of the minimum of one week required by ETSU-R-97. Although the baseline survey was undertaken in 2012, it is still considered to be representative of the area, in the absence of changes which would be likely to have significantly altered the background noise environment in the area. The survey methodology complies with the guidance subsequently set out in the IOA GPG.
10.170 The methodology adopted for assessing construction noise effects and its control is provided by British Standard BS 5228-1 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ (2009) Parts 1 and 2 as referenced in the Comhairle Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development.
10.171 The Methodology adopted for Assessing Windfarm Operational Noise Effects is in accordance with the methodology set out in ETSU-R-97, the accepted standard for such developments within the UK, and commended in wind energy planning policy
EIAR - Wind turbine noise
10.172 The EIAR sets out the existing baseline conditions for noise environment typically dominated by ‘natural’ noise sources such as wind disturbed vegetation and birdsong, and very occasional road traffic noise. The background levels at all four candidate locations typically varied, during quiet day-time periods, between 20 dB LA90, 10min at low wind speeds and 35–45 dB LA90, 10min at the highest wind speeds. For night-time periods, a similar range of levels was generally observed between low and high wind speeds. The resulting derived limits are set out in the EIAR in Tables.
10.173 Table 10.7 of the EIAR sets out the predicted Operational Effects L A90,T Windfarm Noise Immission Levels at Each of the Noise Assessment locations as a Function of Ten Metre Height Wind Speed for the Windfarm alone.
10.174 The assessment presented within Tables 15 and 16 of Appendix 10.1 Environmental Assessment – Noise and Vibration demonstrates that the derived noise limits (Tables 10.5 and 10.6 of the EIAR) are predicted to be achieved at all wind speeds and at all four assessment locations. In terms of mitigation the developer cites the selection of the final turbine and operating modes to be installed at the site will be made on the basis of enabling the relevant noise limits to be achieved at surrounding properties. That is through selection of best turbine design for the conditions and utilising software to limit noise in certain conditions. In terms of residual effects, based upon the assessment undertaken, predicted windfarm noise levels from the windfarm operating in an unconstrained mode do not exceed the derived operational noise criteria based on ETSU-R-97. The EIAR therefore concludes that the noise effects associated with the operation of the windfarm are considered to be acceptable and not significant.
10.175 The cumulative operational effects of the proposed windfarm and the consented Tolsta Community Turbine have been considered. Cumulative noise immission levels at the same assessment locations referenced previously varied between 29 dB (A) at low wind speeds and 38 dB(A) at high wind speeds.
10.176 Based on the Comhairle Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development, when considering the cumulative noise effects, the following limits determined to be applicable are a fixed daytime lower limit of 38 dB(A), or 5 dB above the prevailing background noise level,(whichever is the higher); and a fixed night time lower limit of 40 dB(A), or 5 dB above the prevailing background noise level, (whichever is the higher).
10.177 Tables 17 and 18 of Appendix 10.1 set out the figures that demonstrate that ETSU-R-97 noise limits appropriate to the cumulative noise situation are predicted to be achieved at all wind speeds at all of the assessment locations. No further mitigation measures are proposed. In terms of residual cumulative effects predicted, cumulative noise levels from the proposed windfarm and Tolsta Community Turbine operating in an unconstrained mode do not exceed the derived criteria based on ETSU-R-97. Therefore, the EIAR assessment concludes that the cumulative noise effects are considered to be acceptable and not significant.
EIAR – Construction noise
10.178 In terms of noise from construction plant and machinery and construction traffic the study area for the traffic and transport assessment has been defined as the public road network which will be used for access and transportation of windfarm components and materials to site, other than those that can be directly resourced from within the site area e.g. rock.
10.179 Noise will also be generated during the construction phase of the windfarm from the operation of a range of construction plant and machinery and construction traffic. This is noted to be temporary in nature, during the 25 month construction period.
10.180 The EIAR notes that during construction, wind turbine components will need to be transported on vehicles capable of carrying ‘abnormal loads’ (vehicles longer than 17m and/or wider than 4m). It is proposed that the turbine components will be landed at the pier at Arnish Point, transported along the private road to the junction with the A859 before travelling east along the A859 and onwards to the roundabout junction at Stornoway. From this roundabout it is proposed that the abnormal load transporters will then travel along the A857 north, until the junction with the B895, when this road will be followed north-east until reaching the southern site access junction south of Tolsta. This new access is to be constructed as part of the development.
10.181 All other vehicles bound for the site are expected to originate from the Stornoway area. Normal HGVs will access the site via the north access from the outset of the construction phase, and then use the south access once it has been constructed. Abnormal load vehicles will only use the southern access to avoid the settlement of Tolsta.
10.182 It has been assumed that 98% of the stone required for construction of the windfarm will be sourced from the onsite borrow pits, minimising the traffic generated from movement of material on the public road network.
10.183 The traffic assessment has determined that no significant effects are predicted upon traffic flow, road users and the wider community during the construction phase of the windfarm. In terms of management and mitigation the EIAR proposes the development of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and routing strategy to aim to safely coordinate the movement of construction vehicles during busy traffic periods.
EIAR – Operational noise traffic and sub-station
10.184 The EIAR states that once operational, windfarms typically generate very low levels of traffic so no significant effects from traffic noise are likely during operation. It also notes that no other developments are likely to be utilising the same access route as Druim Leathann windfarm during the construction period so there will be no likely cumulative effects from construction traffic noise.
10.185 In response to a query raised in relation to the risk of an increase in operational noise from the sub- station in its relocated position, the applicant has confirmed: Hoare Lea noise consultants have confirmed in the submitted Supplementary Information (SI) (2020) that the new location proposed for the windfarm substation is approximately 530m from the nearest residential property but it does not includes the large 132/33kv transformer as previously proposed but rather a smaller-scale 33kV transformer, with relatively low noise emission levels. Therefore the associated levels of operational noise have been assessed to be negligible and not significant. Noise limits will be managed by condition.
10.186 Further, in response to a query raised in relation to the risk of an increase in operational noise from the borrow pits, it was confirmed that predicted extraction quantities had not changed for the purposes of the EIA (worst case scenario) and the developer stated ‘Chapter 10 of the EIA Report (2018) Hoare Lea Acoustics Consultants have highlighted that the majority of construction activities, including borrow pit quarrying, will occur at sufficient distances from nearby residential properties, resulting in a maximum - case predicted levels of 40 to 59 dB LAeq,T and therefore noise impacts from these activities were concluded to be of negligible to minor significance.
10.187 The developer stated further ‘It should be noted that construction activities are expected to be audible at noise sensitive receptors at various times throughout the construction phase. Although the significance is assessed to be negligible to minor, to minimise the potential construction noise further various mitigation measures will be adhered to including; maintaining all equipment to ensure good working order and any blasting required will be in line with the relevant British Standards and PAN50’.
EIAR – Wind Turbine Cumulative Noise
10.188 Based on the assessment of operational noise from the wind turbines, the EIAR 2018 predicts that noise levels from the windfarm both separately, and cumulatively with the Tolsta Community wind turbine operating in an unconstrained mode do not exceed the derived operational noise criteria based on ETSU-R-97 and are considered to be acceptable and therefore not significant.
10.189 The EIAR assessment considers both the Windfarm’s construction and its operation and also the likely effects of its de-commissioning. Assessment of the operational noise effects accounts for the cumulative effect of the Windfarm as well as the Tolsta Community Turbine scheme located in the area. Other, more distant wind farms were not considered as their noise impact would be negligible due to the significant separation distances involved.
Assessment
10.190 Consultation advice was sought from the Comhairle Environmental Health Service which raised no objection, subject to the application of a condition based on the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) standard example noise condition which incorporates the noise limits set out by the developer in Chapter 10 of the submitted EIA. The condition is detailed and technical and in order to secure compliance with the Development policy on Noise within the Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development (2018) would be recommended for inclusion in any permission to be granted.
10.191 Consultation advice was sought from the Comhairle Environmental Health Service which is content with the assessment made by the developer with regard to construction noise.
10.192 The construction noise assessment (Appendix 10.1 of the EIAR – Environmental Assessment – Noise and Vibration) has determined that associated levels are expected to be audible at various times throughout the construction programme, but remain within acceptable limits. The impacts would be mitigated by construction adherence to maintaining all equipment to ensure good working order and any blasting required will be in line with the relevant British Standards and PAN50.
10.193 Having regard to the consultation response received from Environmental Health (EH), it is considered that the assessments undertaken within the EIAR are adequate and the conclusions are sufficiently robust. Taking this into account and subject to management by way of detailed condition recommended by EH in relation to operational noise (based on the Institute of Acoustics model standard condition adjusted for local levels), and securing a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and routing strategy by condition, it is considered that the noise impacts likely to result from the proposal would be able to be satisfactorily mitigated to an acceptable level. As such, the proposal is considered to accord with the relevant criteria of OHLDP Policy EI8 Energy and Heat Resources and the Wind SG Development Policy on Noise and Community Amenity (noise), in this regard.
Comparison with Consented Development
10.194 While there may be a minor variation to predicted noise imissions from the Consented Development, ultimately the developer requires to comply with the derived noise limits set out within Chapter 10 of the submitted EIA 2018 as updated by the SI (2020).
Natural Heritage
Policy context
10.195 Paragraph 193 of the SPP states that the natural environment forms the foundation of the spatial strategy set out in NPF3. Paragraph 194 goes on to say that the planning system should conserve and enhance protected sites and species, taking account of the need to maintain healthy ecosystems and work with the natural processes which provide important services to communities.
10.196 Paragraph 203 of the SPP states that planning permission should be refused where the nature or scale of a proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. Direct or indirect effects on statutorily protected sites will be an important consideration, but designation does not impose an automatic prohibition on development.
10.197 Paragraph 204 states that planning authorities should apply the precautionary principle where the impacts of a proposed development on nationally or internationally significant natural heritage resources are uncertain but there is sound evidence indicating that significant irreversible damage could occur, although this should not be used to impede development without justification.
10.198 Paragraph 216 indicates a presumption in favour of protecting woodland. Removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will generally be expected.
10.199 Planning authorities, and all public bodies, have a duty under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to further the conservation of biodiversity, which should be reflected in development management decisions. The Principles for Sustainable Land Use, as set out in Scotland’s Land Use Strategy, are also expected to be applied, when taking significant decisions affecting the use of land.
10.200 The potential impact of wind energy developments on natural heritage is assessed through Policy NBH2 Natural Heritage and Policy NBH3 Trees and Woodland of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan as well as the Natural Heritage development policy in the Supplementary Guidance on Wind Energy development. Issues related to peatland are covered under the provisions of OHLDP Policy EI 5: Soils.
10.201 Therefore Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 200 site, now part of the UK site network, and is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of that site will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment by the Comhairle, having regard also to processes or pathways by which a proposal lying out with a designated site may still influence the sites ‘qualifying interests’.
10.202 Developers require to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of international and national sites can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation.
10.203 Of relevance is that development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site (UK site network) will only be permitted where either:
• an Appropriate Assessment has demonstrated that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site; or
• there are no alternative solutions; and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature; and compensatory measures are provided to ensure that the overall coherence of the Natura network (UK site network) is protected.
10.204 Where there is good reason to suggest that a European Protected Species (EPS)* is present on site, or may be affected by a proposed development, the Comhairle will require any such presence to be established and, if necessary, a mitigation plan provided to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts on the species, prior to determining the application.
10.205 Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on an EPS unless the Comhairle is satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative; and the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; and the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of an EPS at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.
10.206 Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland) unless the development is required for preserving public health or public safety. For development affecting a species of bird protected under the 1981 Act there must also be no other satisfactory solution.
10.207 Development proposals should avoid having a significant adverse effect on, and where possible should enhance, biodiversity and ecological interests of the site. Developers are encouraged to assess the impacts of their proposed development on UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species. Developers should refer to the Scottish Biodiversity List for a full list of animals, plants and habitats considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland (this list includes all UK priority species).
10.208 The impacts of a windfarm on ornithological interests requires to be assessed in line with the extensive guidance of SNH (now NatureScot).
10.209 The EIAR 2018 includes Chapter 8 on Ecology and Chapter 9 on Ornithology, the latter of which was partially updated and superseded by revised Chapter 7 Ornithology and SI Appendices 7.1 and 7.2 of the Supplementary Information 2020, submitted to address concerns that had been raised by consultees and the RSPB re proximity of turbines to a newly established White-tailed Eagle breeding site.
EIAR - Ecology
10.210 Chapter 8 of the EIAR 2018 considers the potential effects of the windfarm on ecology, namely potential effects on habitats and faunal receptors, excluding birds which are dealt with In Chapter 9 and discussed separately below.
10.211 Following a scoping exercise the effects assessed in full were:
• potential effects on peatland habitats due to habitat loss and/or disturbance (including cumulatively); • direct and indirect potential effects on groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTE); • potential effects on locally important plant species; • potential effects on otters due to disturbance; • potential effects on bats; • potential indirect effects on freshwater fish due to changes in water quality.
10.212 The EIAR predicts no direct or indirect effects on the Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) subsumed within it including Loch Scarrasdale Valley Bog SSSI, as the windfarm site lies outside these designated areas and within a different peat mass from these designated areas, and with no hydrological connectivity with the SAC.
10.213 The study area for the purposes of the ecological appraisal of habitats comprised the windfarm site together with a buffer of 75 metres from the perimeter. While the site itself lies wholly outwith the Lewis Peatlands SAC, the buffer includes some of the relatively less disturbed ground within the Lewis Peatlands SAC to the west and some of the areas currently managed for peat cuttings to the east, closer to the village of Tolsta. Baseline field surveys were undertaken for the entire survey area.
10.214 For consideration of statutory nature conservation designations, an area extending to five kilometres beyond the site has been taken into account. The existing baseline ecological conditions are described in terms of designated sites; notable species from desk study sources; habitats (including Ground water dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs)); otter; fisheries and bats. Each of the designated areas within the 5km site buffers are described albeit the site does not fall directly within the boundaries of any. Notable species records from desk study sources and field surveys are described as are the habitats; considerable attention is given to ‘blanket bog vegetation’ and ‘blanket bog hydrology’ which together with some ‘wet heath’ account for the vast majority of the habitat within the site. Baseline conditions, for Otter and Bats both European Protected Species (EPS) and Fisheries are described as is the baseline position with climate change.
10.215 The majority of the site and wider study area is blanket bog habitat, with smaller areas of other wetland habitats also present. Much of the site area, 96% is accounted for in blanket bog and related habitats, wet heath, dry heath and acid flush. The bog habitat is noted from a hydrological point of view to be a single macrotope; a large and more or less continuous blanket of peat bounded in effect to the north by the track and that goes to Loch Diridean, and to the west and south by the system of lochs and interconnecting watercourses that eventually form Glen Tolsta The study notes discontinuity in the peat mass to the west, suggesting that the SAC boundary is a natural hydrological one at this point. Peat depth is typically around 2m.
10.216 A single otter shelter was confirmed in Glen Tolsta, however suitable habitat for otter was found throughout the site and wider study area. Fisheries surveys confirmed healthy brown trout populations within the lochs and watercourses within the study area, however no salmon or sea trout were present. No suitable roosting habitat for bats was found within the study area and limited bat activity was recorded.
10.217 THE EIAR notes that during the design process, the turbines and infrastructure were positioned to avoid being located within or immediately adjacent to the SAC. To minimise effects on brown trout, no infrastructure was located within a minimum of 25m of watercourses and the number of watercourse crossings was minimised. No infrastructure is located within 50m of the single identified otter holt.
10.218 A significant effect on blanket bog and related habitats is predicted due to its direct loss (excavation), indirect loss (through hydrological disruption) and temporary disturbance during construction.
10.219 The assessment predicts permanent direct loss effects of 13.57ha which is around 2.6% of the total blanket mire macrotope (estimated as being 520ha in extent). 7.74ha is predicted to be temporarily lost to temporary infrastructure. These losses are considered unavoidable due to the entire site comprising blanket bog and related habitats. A further 24.43ha is predicted to be lost indirectly through hydrological disruption and a likely conversion from blanket bog vegetation to modified bog vegetation, which in total would affect 4.7% of the macrotope.
10.220 No direct losses of Juniper plants are predicted and no significant effects are predicted on groundwater dependent wetland habitats.
10.221 THE EIAR states that there is no evidence that the area is important for migratory salmonids but that native trout populations are present throughout the loch systems which will be sensitive to silt deposition, which would reduce oxygen supply and possible death to fish eggs. Silt pollution will be managed through a Pollution Prevention Plan. No significant effects are predicted on freshwater fisheries, nor on bats or otter which are both EPS.
10.222 It is predicted that cumulatively, with other windfarm developments, less than 1% of the blanket bog habitats in Lewis and Harris will be lost which is not considered significant.
Assessment - Ecology
10.223 Chapter 4 Project Description of the EIAR 2018 states that amongst other objectives of the Design Strategy, the avoidance of the deepest areas of peat and the most sensitive vegetation, with tracks to be floated on areas of deeper peat was a key objective.
10.224 The Proposed Development will result in the need for bigger foundations and hard standing over the Consented Development and resultant displacement of additional peat. It will result in direct and irreversible effects on an area of carbon rich soils of national importance. According to the Carbon and peatland 2016 map the soils within the development site are mostly Class 1 these are ‘nationally important’ carbon-rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat. These areas are of very high conservation value.
10.225 Good practice construction measures for the protection of peatlands will be identified in the Construction and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan and final Peat Management Plan and an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will oversee construction to ensure that measures with regards to ecology are implemented. A survey for otter pre-commencement of tree felling in the vicinity of Glen Tolsta is recommended by condition.
10.226 An Appropriate Assessment was carried out and concluded that for Otter, a qualifying interest of the Lewis Peatlands SAC, there is a very low probability of disturbance as a result of construction activities. The low level of disturbance predicted would not result in an effect on the integrity of the otter population.
10.227 The likely effects of the proposal on ecology have been identified and assessed, mitigation and monitoring measures have been outlined, and residual impacts have been clearly set out. It is considered that on these matters the proposal would appear to accord with the relevant policies of the OHLDP in relation to the likely impact of the windfarm development on the natural environment.
10.228 The scheme includes embedded mitigation measures within its design to minimise impacts but nevertheless significant effects are likely to occur, to blanket bog and wet heath habitats. The application proposes careful control measures during the construction stages of the development, which can be secured by condition. These control measures while managing impacts on the high value bog habitats will also manage the risk of unacceptable impacts on other identified ecological features.
10.229 Having examined the findings of the EIAR and having regard to the comments of specialist consultees, SNH (NatureScot) and SEPA, the assessment within the EIAR is considered thorough and fair.
10.230 Therefore, in relation to ecology, subject to appropriate mitigation and monitoring, the impacts of the proposal are considered acceptable and to meet the requirements of OHLDP Policies NBH2: Natural Heritage and NBH3: Trees and Woodland in these regards.
Comparison with the Consented Development - Ecology
10.231 Losses assessed as permanent have increased from 12.4ha to 13.57ha, an increase from 2.4% to 2.6% of the overall blanket bog macrotope. These losses do not change the overall finding that a significant effect is predicted on blanket bog and related habitats.
10.232 Indirect losses are also predicted to increase, with an additional 1.63 ha affected compared to the Consented Development. This represents an effect covering 4.7% of the macrotope (compared to 4.4% with the Consented Development). As previously, this effect is also considered to be significant.
10.233 For all other receptors, the magnitude of the effect remains the same as the Consented Development, with all effects being not significant as presented within the 2013 EIAR.
EIAR and Assessment - Ornithology
10.234 Chapter 9 of the EIAR 2018 and Chapter 7 of the Supplementary information 2020 set out the impact assessments in relation to ornithology. Particular attention has been paid to species of high or moderate ornithological importance (target species). These include species with national or international protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, and later amendments) and the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).
10.235 Details of the initial ornithological surveys and collision risk calculations (Appendix 9.1) and Golden Eagle Population Modelling (Appendix 9.2) support the Chapter with Confidential data provided in Annexes which have restricted distribution on account of the information they contain. Following submission of the 2018 EIAR a newly established nest site for a breeding pair of white-tailed eagles was identified within the site boundary which required further monitoring, submission of a partial update to the Ornithology assessment, the findings of which ultimately led to a minor redesign of the layout (including a re-location of Turbine 12, its access track and hard-standing and re-location of the substation).
10.236 Chapter 7.2 of the SI assesses the potential effects arising from the amendments to the windfarm (re- located Turbine 12 and re-located substation) on bird species (with the exception of white-tailed eagle which are assessed below) and secondly re-assess the potential effects of windfarm (including the re- located Turbine 12 and re-located substation) on white-tailed eagle considering the change in breeding status of the species within the site boundary (additional information). All technical information presented in Appendices 9.1 and 9.2, the results shown in Figures 9.1 to 9.7 and Confidential Annexes 1 and 2 of the 2018 EIA Report remain valid and are supplemented by Chapter 7 of the SI, SI Appendix 7.1: Report on White-tailed Eagle Surveys August 2018 – August 2019 (a Confidential document) and SI Appendix 7.2: White-tailed Eagle Population Viability Analysis.
10.237 The EIAR confirms that the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA) is located to the north and west of the windfarm site of approximately 261 hectares (ha) and notes that much of the western boundary of the windfarm site is contiguous with the SPA boundary. The area designated as the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (SPA) is also designated an SAC and RAMSAR site.
10.238 The SPA is designated for supporting nationally important populations of five Annex 1 species identified as of special priority for conservation. These are red-throated diver (80 pairs, 9% of the British breeding population), black-throated diver (13 pairs, 8% of British) golden eagle (5 pairs, 1% of British), merlin (20 pairs, 2% of British) golden plover (1800 pairs, 8% of British). The SPA also supports an internationally important breeding population of dunlin (3,400 pairs, 37% of GB and 31% of the world population of the temperate schinzii race); and a breeding population of greenshank which is considered of special importance in a British context (140 pairs, 10% of British).
10.239 In terms of the potential effects of the proposed windfarm, assessment is required at the scale of the Lewis Peatlands SPA for breeding red-throated divers, black-throated divers, golden eagles, merlins, golden plover, dunlin and greenshank.
Study area and field survey
10.240 For all species of birds, assessment of the potential effects of the windfarm is required at the scale of the Western Isles Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ 3). NHZ 3 includes the whole of Lewis and Harris, the Uists, Benbecula, Barra together with the islands of Coll and Tiree.
10.241 Cumulative assessment of the potential effects of the windfarm is required at the scale of the Lewis Peatlands SPA for breeding red-throated divers, black-throated divers, golden eagles, merlins, golden plover, dunlin and greenshank. Cumulative assessment for all species of birds of the potential effects of the windfarm is required at the scale the Western Isles Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ 3).
10.242 A study area extending to approximately 2km from the site boundary was surveyed for all breeding birds.
10.243 Field surveys for breeding birds and Vantage Point observations of flight activity in the vicinity of the windfarm were undertaken to determine existing conditions over three breeding seasons (2011, 2012 and 2013) and two wintering seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013).
10.244 Breeding bird surveys in 2011 found five pairs of golden plover, and one pair of curlews within the site boundary. There were 26 pairs of golden plover, 23 pairs of dunlin, nine pairs of greenshank, three pairs of snipe, one pair of oystercatcher, one pair of curlew and 13 pairs of arctic skuas within the wider 2km study area.
10.245 Breeding bird surveys in 2012 found two pairs of golden plover, two pairs of curlews, one pair of greenshanks, two pairs of dunlins, two pairs of redshank, two pairs of common sandpipers and one pair of arctic skuas within the site boundary. There were 14 pairs of golden plover, 22 pairs of dunlin, three pairs of greenshank, four pairs of redshank, two pairs of buzzard, seven pairs of common sandpipers and eight pairs of arctic skuas within the wider 2km study area.
10.246 In 2013 breeding birds comprised two pairs of golden plover, one pair of curlews, three pairs of dunlins, and six pairs of common sandpipers within the site boundary. There were 19 pairs of golden plover, 29 pairs of dunlin, five pairs of greenshank, four pairs of redshank, two pairs of buzzard, nine pairs of common sandpipers and six pairs of arctic skuas outwith the site boundary but within the 2km study area.
10.247 In 2011, within the 2km study area, there were two pairs of breeding red-throated divers, six pairs in 2012 and seven pairs in 2013. One breeding pair was located in the SPA in 2011, three pairs in 2012 and four pairs in 2013.
10.248 In 2011, there were two pairs of breeding black-throated divers located outwith the site boundary but within the 2km study area. One breeding pair was located in the SPA in 2011 and one pair in 2012. There were no breeding pairs in 2013.
10.249 Finally there was, outwith the SPA and the site boundary but within the 2km study area one pair of breeding golden eagles and one pair of breeding merlins in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
10.250 Recorded flight activity included red-throated divers, golden eagles, white-tailed eagles, merlins, artic skuas, Canada geese, barnacle geese and pink footed geese. Most recorded flight activity did not pass within 200m of any proposed turbine location and was not at collision risk height.
10.251 The SI confirms that further fieldwork out was carried out between August 2018 and August 2019 to quantify the level of white-tailed eagle flight activity by breeding and foraging birds throughout the year; and, to monitor the status of a known white-tailed eagle breeding site located within the site boundary (details provided within Confidential SI Appendix 7.1).
10.252 White-tailed eagle was recorded regularly during the survey period. The active white-tailed eagle nest belonging to a resident pair was located, however these birds failed to breed in 2019. Whilst the nest was built up, cupped and lined, it is suspected that no eggs were laid. Full details of the survey results are presented in Confidential SI Appendix 7.1.
Wind farm layout design consideration
10.253 In relation to windfarm layout design considerations, the EIAR 2018 notes that one of the key objectives from the outset of the design process was to develop a layout which minimised the effects on birds including the qualifying species of the SPA. It states that throughout the design process, all turbines and associated infrastructure have been located at least 100m from the boundary of the SPA and that informed by the findings of the breeding bird surveys, the layout was reduced in turbine number to avoid proximity to a nesting Golden Eagle and nesting black and red throated divers. Further that Collision risk assessments were undertaken at all stages of design with a view to minimising potential collision mortality to all target species. In relation to micro-siting in relation to ornithological interests, the EIAR proposes that micro-siting of turbines or other infrastructure is unlikely to result in any effects significantly different to those described in the assessment and therefore there are no proposals to use micro-siting to further protect ornithological interests.
Assessment of effects
10.254 The EIAR sets out an assessment of effects on each of the SPA qualifying interest bird species, namely Red-Throated Divers, Black-Throated Divers, Golden Eagle, merlin and golden plover by reference to the following tests: Disturbance during Construction, (Effect on SPA and Effect on NHZ 3), Habitat Loss (Direct and Indirect due to Displacement), (Effect on SPA and Effect on NHZ 3) and Potential Collision Risk (Effect on SPA and Effect on NHZ 3) and using the same approach for Dunlin, Greenshank, Curlew, Arctic Skuas, White-Tailed Eagles (updated by the SI 2020), Pink-Footed Geese.
10.255 This is followed by a statement of the proposed mitigation measures which include that the working of borrow pit 2 and turbine 14 will be timed to be undertaken outwith the breeding season (February – September) for the two breeding seasons likely to coincide with construction and on that basis, concludes that no significant effects on golden eagle from disturbance during construction are predicted. Furthermore, no significant construction disturbance effects on other bird species are predicted. The site working area will be minimised and clearly demarcated on the ground. An Ecological Clerk of Works will be appointed and will monitor all construction works undertaken during the bird breeding season to ensure that disturbance to breeding birds is minimised by the implementation of specific mitigation measures such as the creation of temporary 'no-go' areas to protect ground nesting birds within the construction site.
10.256 No significant effects are predicted on birds due to construction disturbance, habitat loss or collision risk during the operational phase of the windfarm.
10.257 The potential cumulative effects on red throated divers and golden eagles across all consented windfarms in the Outer Hebrides are also assessed. Potential effects on other species are assessed by the EIAR as negligible and therefore as not warranting a cumulative assessment bearing in mind the large breeding populations present at the scale of the Natural Heritage Zone or the Lewis Peatlands SPA.
Golden Eagle
10.258 The population modelling exercise detailed in Appendix 9.2 indicates that the operation of all the operational and consented windfarms in the Outer Hebrides plus 14 turbines at Druim Leathann could potentially result in the cumulative loss of approximately 21-22 golden eagles over a period of 25 years (15.9 plus 5.1 plus 0.51).The EIAR contends that the potential loss of less than one golden eagle per annum will not adversely affect the stability/viability of the population which will retain favourable conservation status.
10.259 The Muaitheabhal Windfarms collectively predicted the loss of two golden eagle ranges in the vicinity of Feiriosbhal and Creag na Beirighe at Eisgein due to displacement induced habitat loss. No additional complete range losses are predicted for other consented or constructed windfarms in the Outer Hebrides.
10.260 The EIAR suggests that range abandonment by golden eagles at Tolsta is unlikely to result from direct losses of available habitat to windfarm development. However, a combination of displacement and potential disturbance may diminish the suitability of the breeding crag leading effectively to range abandonment. In the event that the golden eagles continue to breed at Tolsta then any effects are considered to be minor at the scale of the NHZ. However if the range is predicted to be abandoned then this loss will need to be added to the predicted loss of two ranges resulting from the consented Muaitheabhal Windfarms. In that instance the potential loss of three golden eagle ranges is considered to be of moderate significance at the scale of the NHZ.
10.261 There is a therefore potentially significant (moderate) effects for golden eagle in relation to the potential loss of 2-3 territories over 25 years cumulatively with other windfarms. Therefore, although these predicted effects could result in the loss of approximately one golden eagle per annum the population of golden eagles breeding in the Outer Hebrides should maintain favourable conservation status. The significance of the predicted effects is assessed as minor.
Red-throated divers
10.262 Cumulative effects arising from all windfarm developments in the Outer Hebrides are predicted to result in the loss of up to 8 red-throated divers through collision mortality. Up to 7 of these potential fatalities are predicted to effect the breeding population of red-throated divers within the Lewis Peatlands SPA. The EIAR contends that although these predicted effects are significant, the population of red-throated divers breeding in the Outer Hebrides and in the Lewis Peatlands SPA should maintain favourable conservation status.
Lewis Peatlands SPA – qualifying features
10.263 An appropriate assessment of the effects of the windfarm on the qualifying features of the Lewis Peatlands SPA has been carried out and is appended at Appendix 7.
10.264 Subject to mitigation, including the additional commitment in the 2020 SI (Paragraphs 7.14 and 7.15) of a Bird Protection Plan (Which will describe survey methods for the identification of sites used by protected birds and will detail protocols for the prevention, or minimisation, of disturbance to birds as a result of activities associated with the windfarm) and will form part of the monitoring by the ECoW, no disturbance effects are predicted for any of the qualifying species breeding within the SPA during construction.
10.265 In terms of Habitat loss (direct and indirect due to displacement): No residual effects on the qualifying interests of the SPA are predicted. The very small number of golden plover, dunlin and greenshank breeding within the site do not form part of the qualifying interest and any effects are negligible.
10.266 In terms of collision risk, no significant effects on golden eagles and red-throated divers are predicted.
10.267 No other adverse effect on the integrity of the Lewis Peatlands SPA is predicted.
White tailed eagle
10.268 The SI states, in summary, that the assessment of effects on white-tailed eagles, informed by the findings of the 12 months of focussed white-tailed eagle surveys, and reflecting the associated re- location of T12, the onsite substation and the recommend and agreed suspensive condition on T13, concludes no significant effects are predicted on white-tailed eagles due to disturbance or habitat loss during the construction and operation of the windfarm. Collision risk calculations show that there would be no significant effects for white-tailed eagle, for the windfarm in isolation and cumulatively with other relevant windfarms.
10.269 The proposed relocation of Turbine 12 and the relocation, reconfiguration of the onsite substation (and removal of the SSE-N substation) does not result in any changes to the significance of effect to other bird species and the findings of the 2018 EIA Report remain valid. On this basis, the potential cumulative loss of up to 3 Golden Eagle ranges to collision over 25 years in the context of the NHZ as predicted for the Consented Development remains as moderate significance for the Proposed Development. This remains the only significant effect predicted on ornithology.
Ongoing survey and monitoring
10.270 In terms of further survey and monitoring, the monitoring of breeding bird numbers and distribution in the vicinity of the windfarm and extending out to 5km, will be undertaken in years 1-5, 10 and 15 of the operational phase of the windfarm. Monitoring will also include detailed searches for, and reporting of, all collision casualties. A report detailing the monitoring work will be published on an annual basis and made publically available.
Comparative Assessment with Consented Development
10.271 With the exception of red-throated divers no effects are predicted for any species forming part of the interest of the Lewis Peatlands SPA. The Consented Development predicted the loss of two red- throated divers however the proposed windfarm predicts the potential loss of 0.5 Red-throated divers to collision over 25 years in the context of the Lewis Peatlands SPA. The significance of the effects remains as negligible and unchanged from the Consented Development.
10.272 In terms of construction no disruption to breeding was predicted for red-throated divers, black- throated divers, white-tailed eagles or merlins in the assessment of the Consented Development and this remains the same for the proposed windfarm. The significance of any residual effect remains as negligible for all these species.
10.273 For golden eagles possible disruption to one breeding pair for up to two seasons was predicted for the Consented Development and this remains the same for the proposed windfarm. With mitigation involving seasonal constraints on construction the EIAR predicted effect remains as negligible.
10.274 For golden plover, dunlin, greenshank and artic skua, possible temporary displacement of the same number of breeding pairs during construction was predicted for the Consented Development and the proposed windfarm. With mitigation involving seasonal constraints on construction the predicted effects remains as negligible.
10.275 In terms of displacement and habitat loss during windfarm operation, both the consented windfarm and the proposed windfarm predict the loss of approximately 5% of one golden eagle range, with the effect remaining as minor.
10.276 Windfarm operation may result in the possible permanent displacement of up to 4 breeding pairs of golden plovers, two breeding pairs of dunlin and one breeding pair of greenshank. For both the Consented and Proposed Developments the effects are assessed as negligible.
10.277 For golden eagles a loss of 0.46 eagles to collision over 25 years was predicted for the Consented Development, and 0.51 eagles to collision over 25 years for the Proposed Development. Both potential mortality figures are assessed as being of minor significance.
10.278 For red-throated divers a loss of 7.75 divers to collision was predicted for the Consented Development, and 2.2 divers to collision over 25 years for the Proposed Development. Both potential mortality figures are assessed as being of negligible significance.
10.279 For arctic skua both the Consented Development and the Proposed Development predict the potential loss of one arctic skua to collision over 25 years. The potential mortality is assessed as remaining as negligible significance.
10.280 For pink footed geese the Consented Development predicted loss of 2.5 geese to collision over 25 years. The EIAR for the Proposed Development predicts a loss of 2.8 geese to collision over 25 years. Both mortality figures are assessed as remaining as being of negligible significance.
10.281 In relation to cumulative effects, the potential cumulative loss of 17-22 red-throated divers to collision over 25 years was predicted for the Consented Development in the context of the Lewis Peatlands SPA, assessed as of minor significance. The EIAR for the Proposed Development predicts a cumulative loss of 6-7 red-throated divers to collision over 25 years and is also assessed as of minor significance.
10.282 The potential cumulative loss of 25-30 red-throated divers to collision was predicted for the Consented Development in the context of the NHZ and assessed as minor significance. The EIAR for the Proposed Development predicts a cumulative loss of 7-8 red-throated divers to collision over 25 years in the context of the NHZ and assessed as negligible significance.
10.283 The potential cumulative loss of 22 golden eagles to collision over 25 years in the context of the NHZ is predicted for both the Consented and Proposed Developments. The potential mortality figures are assessed as of minor significance.
10.284 The potential cumulative loss of up to 3 golden eagle ranges to displacement over 25 years in the context of the NHZ is predicted for both the Consented and Proposed Developments. The potential loss of ranges is assessed as moderate significance.
10.285 The EIAR 2018 concludes that, whilst the magnitude of effect associated with the proposed changes to the Consented Development does changes in relation to some effects/species, with the exception of red-throated diver collisions at the NHZ level, the significance of effects remains as predicted in the 2013 EIAR.
Trees and Woodlands
Policy Context
10.286 The third National Planning Framework 2014 reinforces that ‘Woodlands and forestry are an economic resource, as well as an environmental asset’.
10.287 Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (para 218, page 49) states that ‘Removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. Where woodland is removed in association with development, developers will generally be expected to provide Compensatory Planting. The criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal and further information on the implementation of the policy is explained in the control of woodland removal policy, and this should be taken into account when preparing development plans and determining planning applications.’
10.288 The Climate Change Plan 2018 (page 170) recognises the policy as part of the framework that ensure adherence to internationally recognised principles of sustainable forest management.
10.289 OHLDP Policy NBH3 Trees and Woodland states that there is a strong presumption against the removal of established individual trees and woodland of mixed native species which have a landscape and amenity value and/or contribute to nature conservation, unless removal would achieve significant additional economic, environmental or social benefits. The policy also seeks that in order to minimise any adverse impacts on amenity, biodiversity or landscape value, developers’ will be required to incorporate existing trees and woodland into developments through sensitive siting and design. Where loss is unavoidable, appropriate replacement planting should be sought through the use of planning conditions or through a legal agreement if appropriate.
10.290 The Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal provides for isolated instances where woodland removal, without a requirement for compensatory planting, is likely to be appropriate including instances where removal would contribute to enhancing priority habitats and their connectivity. Approval for woodland removal should be subject to achieving significant net public benefit, this taking account of the current and future benefits/disbenefits of the existing woodland.
10.291 New afforestation on peat is no longer permitted (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2015) due to Considerable loss of carbon that can be expected to have occurred during initial ground preparation and planting; ploughing and concomitant drainage, which typically exposed deep, anoxic (catotelm) peat to oxygen in plough ridges. Longer-term water table drawdown arising from water take up by trees will also have exposed a greater depth of peat to oxygen, leading to carbon loss
10.292 Peat is known to have a lower shear strength than mineral soils and wind-throw is more frequent and widespread in peatland plantations than those in mineral soils.
Assessment
10.293 There are 16.2 ha of plantation woodland in the south of the survey area of which 5.6ha are within the site.
10.294 Brief reference is made in EIAR Chapter 8 Ecology on the felling of Trees (assessed to be non-significant) while the Planning statement notes that with regards to trees and woodland, the construction of the windfarm will require the felling of 1.7ha of Lodgepole Pine trees to accommodate T13 and associated infrastructure. It notes that the quality of the woodland is low and it is not considered that it offers amenity value to the locality or contribute to nature conservation.
10.295 It notes that due to the current condition of the Lodgepole Pine within the area, it is estimated that <100 tonnes of timber would be extracted from the site, the majority of the smaller trees and brash would be mulched on site or chipped.
10.296 Given the peatland habitat underlying the woodland at this location, a habitat management plan is proposed, with the aim of restoring this area to blanket bog without replanting with conifers. The Planning Statement notes that it is considered that this meets the criteria of the Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal in relation to the change of land use associated with felling of woodland without compensatory planting.
10.297 There is now policy support for clear felling in cases where planting took place on deep peat and it is proposed through a Habitat Management Plan to reinstate peat-forming habitats, as is proposed here. However. Compensatory planting is a policy ambitions and following consultation with the developer a scheme of compensatory planting will be sought by condition to secure replanting of mixed species tress suitable to the habitat to compensate for those felled.
10.298 In terms of mitigation, a habitat management plan is proposed with the aim of restoring the felled area to blanket bog without replanting with conifers. Following removal of as much timber as is practicable, the habitat management measures would involve leaving stumps to decompose for up to three years. Following this period, the stumps would be ‘flipped’ and plough lines pulled in to form a more level surface. Any collector drains running through the area would then be blocked with peat dams at regular intervals as required by topography.
10.299 Subject to securing by condition a method statement on the tree felling plan, a compensatory planting scheme and a Habit Management Plan to include provision for the restoration of the area of felled trees to bog habitat the proposal is considered to accord with Policy NBH3 Trees and Woodland.
Soil Resources
Policy context
10.300 Paragraph 194 of the SPP states that the planning system should seek to protect soils from damage such as erosion or compaction. Paragraph 205 states that developments should aim to minimise the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere through the drainage or disturbance of peat.
10.301 The OHLDP Policy EI 5: Soils states that, for some large scale renewable energy proposals, development will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that unnecessary disturbance of carbon rich soils, such as peat and any associated vegetation, is avoided. A peat survey should demonstrate that areas of deepest peat have been avoided and the impacts on carbon-rich soils and associated habitats have been minimised. Where required, a peat management plan must also be submitted, which demonstrates best practice in the movement, storage, management and reinstatement of soils.
10.302 The application site is within an area classified as ‘Carbon Rich Soils’ (mostly Class 1 Peatland) defined in the Carbon and Peatland Map, SNH, 2016. The Wind SG states that, as set out in the SPP, areas of carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitats will be subject to significant protection. Wind farm proposals within these areas may be supported if it can be demonstrated that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation.
10.303 The SG goes on to state that, where appropriate, the utilisation of the carbon calculator will be required, to determine the net impacts or benefits of the Proposed Development. Developers will be required to undertake peat (depth) surveys for their development proposals, and subsequent mitigation and micrositing. The use of piled foundations on areas of deep pear or carbon rich soil is encouraged, in order to minimise disturbance and the generation of waste material.
EIAR
10.304 Peat probing works were carried out to investigate the peat depths across the study area in September 2012. Peat depths were measured on a 100m2 systematic grid. Peat coring was carried out at the 14 indicative turbine locations during the iterative design stage to inform identification of the general peat conditions present across the windfarm site. Additional ground investigation work included more detailed peat probing undertaken in 2015, together with some sampling of the characteristics of the peat. A summary of the results of this work is presented in A Draft Peat Management Plan (PMP).
10.305 Consultation undertaken with SEPA in March 2018 confirmed that the peat probing and habitat data was considered to remain valid to inform the 2018 EIAR assessment. The majority of the site is covered by peat with a depth of 1.5m to 2.5m, although there are isolated areas of deeper peat up to a depth of 5m.
10.306 The Draft Peat Management Plan proposes measures to be implemented such as:
• providing appropriate engineering solutions, such as floating tracks, displacement- or piling, where deeper peat cannot be avoided; • avoiding laying underground cables in virgin ground and aligning within track verges; • specifying best practice peat handling techniques to enable the successful re-establishment of existing plant communities; • identifying uses for excavated peat; • identifying the contingencies for the handling, safe storage and use of unsuitable material.
Assessment
10.307 According to the Carbon and Peatland 2016 map of Scotland, the soils within the development site are mostly Class 1. These are ‘nationally important’ carbon-rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat. These areas are of high conservation value. We therefore disagree with the EIAR with regard to their view on the importance of the peatlands.
10.308 The provision of peat survey information, a Draft Peat Management Plan (PMP), and Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA) to support the application accords with the OHLDP Policy EI 8: Energy and Heat Resources and the Wind SG policy requirement for Soil Resources. Chapter 4 Project Description of the EIAR 2018 states that amongst other objectives of the wind farm design strategy, the avoidance of the deepest areas of peat and the most sensitive vegetation, with tracks to be floated on areas of deeper peat was a key objective.
10.309 However, while the Proposed Development will result in the need for bigger foundations and hard standing over the Consented Development and will result in direct and irreversible effects on an area of carbon rich soils of national importance, the predicted arisings from 2018 updated draft PMP are 53,449m3. While this may initially appear as a reduction from that predicted in the 2013 Peat Management Plan (PMP) it is accounted for by a peat displacement volume having been included within the figure for peat excavations.
10.310 The draft 2018 Peat Management Plan states that informed by ground investigations and greater intelligence on the nature of peat on the site that revised construction techniques e.g. floating construction techniques for roads and the laydown area and most of the substation compound area (with the exception of the foundations) can be employed to ensure peat excavation and disturbance is minimised. Other contributory factors since the 2013 EIAR including rock displacement; supported Foundation Excavation Sides (rock donuts); piled foundation designs and good practice in handling peat soils, reduce the predicted volumes of peat likely to be excavated.
10.311 Notwithstanding that the Proposed Development will have a significant effect on peat and peatlands of national importance, we concur with SEPA that the impact on soils can be managed by condition. Further while recognising the 10% increase in area of peatland habitat disturbance, we concur with SNH that an appropriate Habitat Management Plan/ Peat Management Plan will aid mitigation of these effects. Most peat arisings are expected to be utilised in reinstatement of the borrow pits on site.
10.312 The Draft Peat Management Plan is stated as being a ‘live’ document and will be updated to incorporate any additional ground investigation information and observations made during construction and operation of the windfarm. The PMP will form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and inform the Contractors Method Statements. The EIAR 2018 states that to reduce the impact on the peatlands proposed mitigation will include employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), Drainage Design; and Construction Techniques.
10.313 Good practice construction measures for the protection of peatlands will be identified in the Construction and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (CDEMP) and Final Peat Management Plan and an Ecological Clerk of Works will oversee construction, to ensure that good practice and mitigation measures are implemented.
10.314 While the SEI provided for the repositioning of Turbine 12 and a spur track, the SHETL substation was deleted and the windfarm substation increased in floor area and relocated. While no new calculations were carried out on peat disturbance it was concluded and accepted that this was unlikely to result in any increase over predicted volumes.
10.315 Subject to the amended site layout plan within the SEI and the application of appropriate conditions, as offered by the EIAR and advised by SEPA and SNH it is considered that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the Proposed Development would minimise disturbance of peat and would avoid areas of deepest peat. In respect to the above, the proposal complies with Policy EI 5: Soils of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and the Wind SG Development Policy on Soil Resources.
Water resources
Policy context
10.316 The policy principles set out in paragraph 194 of the SPP include the need for the planning system to promote protection and improvement of the water environment, in a sustainable and co-ordinated way. Paragraph 202 requires developers to minimise adverse impacts through careful planning and design. All public bodies, including planning authorities, have a duty under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 to protect and improve Scotland’s water environment.
10.317 In terms of flood risk, paragraph 255 of the SPP sets out policy principles. These include taking a precautionary approach to flood risk from all sources, and the promotion of flood avoidance and flood reduction. Paragraph 256 states that development that would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding, or which would increase the probability of flooding elsewhere should be prevented.
10.318 OHLDP Policy EI1: Flooding encourages development proposals to avoid areas susceptible to flooding, promotes sustainable flood management and requires proposals to have regard to the probability of flooding from all sources. Policy EI2: Water and Waste Water requires new development to adopt the principles of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), including the use of permeable surfaces.
10.319 OHLDP Policy EI3: Water Environment requires development proposals to avoid adverse impacts on the water environment. Development within the water environment should be avoided, with a minimum buffer strip of 6m incorporated between the water body and the infrastructure of the Proposed Development. Habitats should be managed or enhanced, with no significant effect on water quality, and water quantity and natural flow patterns and sediment transport processes.
10.320 In addition, for major developments, where a site contains or is adjacent to a wetland or boggy area, the policy requires a Phase 1 habitat survey to be undertaken for the whole site and a 250m buffer around it. Where a ground water dependent terrestrial ecosystem (GWDTE) is identified, the site layout should avoid it and drainage should be designed to ensure that ground water flows to the habitat are maintained.
10.321 Proposals for wind farms (and associated infrastructure) will be required to accord with Local Development Plan Policies EI1 and EI2 relating to water quality for ground water, surface water (including water supply), groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems. It should be demonstrated that the proposal has been designed to minimise any detrimental impact on the water environment. Current best practice includes the use of 50m buffer strips to the water environment.
10.322 Electromagnetic fields have been shown to have the potential to affect the behaviour of migratory fish such as salmon, sea trout and European eels. In order to minimise this risk and avoid disturbance to water courses that may host migratory fish species, consideration should be given to locating turbine bases and power cabling away from water courses.
10.323 The carrying out of mitigating work may be the subject of a planning condition or agreement.
EIAR
10.324 Water resources are addressed in Chapter 7 of the EIAR, on Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Peat, with effects on ecology considered in Chapter 8 of the AI EIAR. Supporting information relevant to the assessment is identified as being a Stage 1 Peat Stability Assessment, Watercourse Crossings Register, Draft Peat Management Plan, Draft Pollution Prevention Plan and a Draft Construction and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan.
10.325 The EIAR indicates that the main potential water effects associated with the Proposed Development relate to the construction phase, which would involve excavation of borrow pits, the formation of access tracks, the excavation, dewatering and placement of turbine foundations, and the formation of two new and upgrading of two watercourse crossings with risks of pollution to the water environment from construction effects arising from surface water and groundwater quality, modifications to existing drainage patterns, erosion and sedimentation and peat displacement. Adopting the assumption that operational effects are likely to be lesser in magnitude than those during construction and that there are no effects which may occur during the operational phase that will not occur during the construction phase a number of operational effects were scoped out of the assessment, including pollution associated with storage of fuels and oils for machinery; erosion and sedimentation; drainage and surface water flows; hydrogeology and ground water flow; and public water supply.
Water Catchment
10.326 The windfarm site largely falls into two surface water catchment areas. The Allt na Muilne catchment is a catchment area of 4.2km2 being the area to the east and is the area within which turbines 2, 3, 6 and 12 and Borrow Pits 1 and 2 and the construction compound would be located.
10.327 The more extensive catchment is Glen Tolsta with a total catchment area of 10.3km2 is the catchment within which the remaining turbines, the more extensive length of tracks, the substation and main laydown areas would be located. The majority of the site drains to Glen Tolsta burn which flows south and discharges to Loch a Tuath. The catchment upstream of Glen Tolsta is characterised by a chain of lochs situated along the main channel which, from downstream to upstream are; Loch Ionadagro, Loch Gaineamhaich, Loch Lingeabhat Mòr, Loch na Cloich and Loch Diridean. Scottish Water operates a reservoir at Loch Ionadagro and therefore the Glen Tolsta Catchment is of a high sensitivity as it is designated a Drinking Water Protected Zone as it provides the raw water for a public water supply.
10.328 Scottish Water abstractions are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA) under Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. Loch Ionadagro supplies Back/Tolsta Water Treatment Works (WTW) and it is essential that water quality and water quantity in the area are protected
10.329 The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust carried out electrofishing surveys in August 2012 at two sites on the Glen Tolsta Burn downstream of the Scottish Water (SW) reservoir to assess the presence or absence of migratory fish species. Trout were identified at both locations. Salmon was not identified either during this survey or in a review of historical data relating to this river and others in the study area. The SW dam is considered impassable to migratory fish except during very heavy spates.
Mitigation measures
10.330 The EIAR notes that in terms of the windfarm design strategy a number of environmental design objectives were developed including minimising infrastructure within the Scottish Water public water supply catchment. During the design process, all turbines and infrastructure were located a minimum of 100m from the Scottish Water public water supply loch, 50m from all watercourses within the Scottish Water catchment area and 25m from all other watercourses and lochs. The track layout was designed to minimise the number of new watercourse crossings, therefore the final layout includes only four watercourse crossings, two new and two existing. The substations, borrow pits, temporary construction compounds and laydown areas were located outside the Scottish Water catchment.
10.331 Further, a number of ‘good practice’ measures are incorporated as part of the standard windfarm design and construction process and therefore are not considered mitigation measures. As such, the assessment has been undertaken assuming these are in place. The measures are taken in accordance with generic guidance and involve application of standard conditions that would be required by SEPA or measures that a designer or contractor would be expected to take based on current best practice. These are supported by measures such as Chemical and Hydrocarbon Pollution Control, Erosion and Sedimentation measures, Drainage and Surface Water Flows, Fluvial Flows and Peat Management. There is no intention to abstract water from within the site. There are specific measures related to the Public Water Supply devised following consultation with Scottish Water.
10.332 Prior to mitigation the EIAR predicts significant effects on the Public Water Supply and Associated Infrastructure from pollution and sedimentation of the water environment from construction activities. It notes that there is potential for the raw water main running from the Ionadagro reservoir to the Tolsta Water Treatment Plant to be damaged during construction and tree felling, interrupting the supply of raw water to the plant, resulting in a potential moderate effect causing disruption of public water supply.
10.333 The magnitude of the potential effects on the raw water main considered for assessment purposes as part of the Public Water Supply (PWS) is considered to be small resulting in an effect of moderate significance. Mitigation measures such as service location/tracing to confirm the water main’s location in the vicinity of the working area and implementation of a marked out exclusion zone to prevent construction plant from working near the water main will eliminate this risk. Water quality monitoring will be undertaken at specific locations in the waterbodies and watercourses of the catchment to check the implementation of good practice measures is effective in mitigating pollution and sedimentation of the water environment. Trigger levels will be identified to initiate remedial action.
10.334 With the adoption of additional mitigation measures to protect the public water supply and peatland hydrology through groundwater movement, no residual effects are predicted as significant. Following implementation of mitigation measures, the predicted residual significance of effect on: the Public Water Supply is considered to be minor; the Scottish Water Public Water Supply Catchment is considered to be negligible, ground water is considered to be negligible; peat is considered to be negligible.
10.335 A water quality monitoring programme will be undertaken prior to and during construction as part of the Pollution Prevention Plan to ensure that there is no harm to water quality in the lochs and water courses and to avoid any deterioration in the quality of the public drinking water supply. In the event of water quality degradation, appropriate remedial measures will be implemented and monitored, in consultation with SEPA and Scottish Water.
Assessment
10.336 Generally, the assessment undertaken in relation to water resources is considered to be thorough and, in the main, the conclusions reached appear suitably robust.
10.337 It is noted that a key factor in site selection has been to ensure that areas proposed for development are hydrologically separate from the Lewis Peatlands SAC. Watercourses and lochs flowing south along the site boundary separate the site from the SAC and Ramsar and site work conducted in 2011 concluded that the site is not hydrologically linked with the SAC. Further it is accepted that the windfarm site is not in hydraulic connection with the Loch na Cartach SSSI designated, in part, for its freshwater habitat (eutrophic loch) and Loch Scarrasdale Valley Bog SSSI designated for its blanket bog habitat.
10.338 The surface water hydrology of the surrounding area is protected by applying a riparian buffer to watercourses and bodies. The width of the buffer strip applied depends on the location of the receptor. A buffer of 100m was applied down the western extent of the site boundary to protect the public drinking water source. Buffer strips of 50m were applied to watercourses within the SW Catchment area and 25m buffer strips were applied to the remaining watercourses and water bodies within the study area. These buffers have an important role in intercepting sediments and other potential pollutants draining from the adjacent land.
10.339 It is noted that the buffer zones were taken as a key constraint during the design process with all turbines and infrastructure located outside these areas (with the exception of required watercourse crossings).
10.340 While Scottish Water remain concerned that windfarm construction activities, in particular the disturbance of peat resulting in sedimentation and increased dissolved organic compound (DOC) in surface runoff, could potentially affect the quality of the public water supply, and therefore Scottish Water’s ability to maintain a compliant drinking water supply for those which it serves, there is sufficient comfort that the mitigation measures proposed address these concerns sufficiently.
10.341 A Pollution Prevention Plan and good practice measures in relation to pollution control, sediment management and runoff rates and volumes will be adhered to during the construction and operation of the windfarm. The measures are in accordance with guidance ‘Good Practice During Windfarm Construction’(SNH 2019), SEPA guidance including the relevant Pollution Prevention Guidelines and the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR).
10.342 In addition to the implementation of the above, water quality monitoring (including visual inspections and sampling) will be undertaken at specific locations in the waterbodies and watercourses of the Scottish Water Public Water Supply Catchment to check the implementation of good practice measures is effective in mitigating and preventing pollution and sedimentation of the water environment. Sampling frequencies and locations will be detailed in the Construction and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (CDEMP).
10.343 Following the implementation of the above measures, it is accepted that it is unlikely that the windfarm will have any adverse effects on the Scottish Water Public Water Supply. Further since the proposal was initially consented large scale construction sites such as this are subject to a requirement to obtain a Construction Site Licence from SEPA under the Control of Authorised Activities. (CAR). The licence will scrutinise the construction phase activity and will aid pollution prevention controls.
10.344 Further, the Scottish Water requirement that all infrastructure and activities (turbine locations, crane hard standing areas, cable trenches, access tracks and temporary construction related activities such as borrow pits, plant stockpiled materials, cement batching, wheel washing and construction compound areas) should be located 100m from any watercourse where possible, and a minimum of 50m distant where 100m can be demonstrated to be undeliverable will also satisfy the need to protect fish and migratory fish in the freshwater lochs and burns.
10.345 It is noted that DLWL has committed to not micro-siting into the undernoted areas (as set out as a condition to the extant consent for the windfarm), unless agreed with the Comhairle in consultation with SNH, SEPA and Scottish Water:
• 100 metres of the western site boundary;
• 50 metres of all watercourses within the defined catchment designated DWPA;
• 25 metres of all other watercourses.
10.346 Infrastructure design (including maintaining up to a 50m buffer around watercourses) and the incorporation of good practice measures for site drainage (including SUDS principles) into the project design will limit any increases in flows and runoff rates to predevelopment levels. The site is outside the SEPA 1:200 year flood envelope and is not considered likely to increase flood risk downstream.
10.347 Two private water supplies one at Tolsta Community Shop and one at Hillcrest are sourced from the same well located over 1km from the site boundary and access tracks. It is accepted that these supplies are at a sufficient distance from the site not to be affected by the windfarm.
10.348 With regard to meeting the policy requirements of Policy EI 2: Water and Waste Water, the Windfarm substation building will require to comply with SUDS principles and the substation and construction compounds make provision for dealing with grey and foul water from the staff mess facilities (indicated as being to a contained tank the contents of which will be relayed for disposal to a licenced waste water site).
10.349 It is considered that the windfarm proposal complies with OHLDP Policy EI1: Flooding from all sources, and OHLDP Policy EI3: Water Environment; OHLDP Policy EI2: Water and Waste Water and is in line with the provisions of the Wind SG policy on Water Resources.
Aviation and defence, broadcasting and telecommunication
Policy context
10.350 Amongst other matters, paragraph 169 of the SPP requires proposals for energy infrastructure to take into account impacts on aviation and defence interests, and telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. In addition, paragraph 284 encourages planning authorities, airport operators and other stakeholders to work together to address planning issues relating to airports, such as safeguarding. Paragraph 292 of the SPP highlights the importance of digital infrastructure, in particular in island areas, and stresses that planning has an important role to play in strengthening digital communications capacity and coverage across Scotland.
10.351 The OHLDP Policy EI8 requires proposals for renewable energy projects to demonstrate, amongst other matters, that the Proposed Development would have no significant adverse impact (including cumulative) on aviation, defence and telecommunications transmitting and receiving systems. Policy EI10 recognises the importance of digital connectivity for social, economic and civil resilience. Policy EI11 confirms that, for all development proposals, account will be taken of the advice of relevant agencies for safeguarding, including the Civil Aviation Authority, Highlands and Islands Airports, NATS, Ministry of Defence, and Meteorological Technical Sites.
10.352 The SG, in relation to aviation and defence, confirms that any potential aviation and/ or defence constraints arising in relation to radar should be identified. In addition, any impacts on aviation and defence operations should be satisfactorily addressed and it should be demonstrated that aviation, defence and emergency services operations would not be comprised. This includes flight activity, navigation and surveillance systems, and other air safety, navigation, test or surveillance assets or systems.
10.353 Consideration is given below to the effects on Aviation while effects on broadcasting and telecommunications are discussed in the context of community amenity in the following section.
EIAR
10.354 In relation to Aviation and Defence, six of the fourteen turbines will breach the Stornoway Airport Outer Horizontal Surface (OHS). The assessment notes that no other obstacle limitation surfaces will be affected and that the infringement of the OHS will not affect any instrument approach procedures and will not constrain the ability of aircraft to safely manoeuvre visually in the vicinity of the airport. Further the assessment notes that the wind farm will have no effects on any of Stornoway Airport’s instrument approach procedures since it is located beyond the final approach areas for all such procedures and the proposed turbine height is not sufficient to require any raising of the minimum altitudes in these procedures.
10.355 Further the EIAR states that the windfarm’s effect on Stornoway Airport’s radio navigation aids will be not significant since it is beyond the safeguarding areas for all of these facilities.
10.356 Consideration is given to NATS En Route national air traffic instrumentation and technical sites and it is stated that the windfarm’s effect on the NERL Sandwick secondary surveillance radars will be not significant since it is beyond the area within which adverse effects may occur and similarly for the NERL Sandwick AGA radio transmitter/receiver since it is beyond the safeguarding area for these facilities.
10.357 Further the assessment sates that the windfarm’s effect on Met Office Druim a’ Starraig or An Campar Mòr weather radars will be not be significant.
Assessment
10.358 Broadcasting and telecommunications is discussed in the undernoted section in the context of community amenity.
10.359 In relation to navigation these are technical matters on which the advice of the relevant consultee must be relied.
10.360 HIAL who operate Stornoway Airport under licence from the CAA has withdrawn a holding objection and confirmed that subject to the fitting of obstacle lighting on four turbines (T9, 11, 12 and 13) it has no objection.
10.361 The MoD was consulted as required for any windfarm from a military perspective subject to the fitting of specified obstacle lighting on three turbines (T6, T7 and T14) raised no objection.
10.362 NATS En Route raise no objection re national air traffic control.
10.363 The Met office initially raised an objection regarding the potential effect on the Campar Mòr weather radar but following the conclusion of a mitigation agreement with the developer, the implementation of which may be secured by condition, withdrew its objection.
10.364 Subject to management of the HIAL, MoD and Met Office requirements by condition, the relevant aspects of OHLDP Policy EI8 on aviation and defence systems and Policy EI11 on safeguarding are therefore met.
Community amenity
Policy Context
10.365 The OHLDP Policy PD6 requires all development proposals to ensure that there would be no unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses. Where appropriate, proposals should include mitigation measures to reduce the impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses.
10.366 The SG requires development proposals to consider potential impacts on community amenity. In this respect, reference is made to a settlement buffer of 2km. The SPP also makes reference to a settlement buffer, in relation to visual impacts. It should be noted that the Comhairle SG has set its buffer for consideration of impact of windfarms on residential visual amenity as being 2km on account of the low lying nature of the landscape and the lack of large forestry plantations to introduce screening from topography or vegetation.
10.367 In addition, the SG refers to the need to consider shadow flicker, noise, electromagnetic interference, commissioning and decommissioning, phasing, ancillary developments and infrastructure, public access and the cumulative effects of the above. The SPP also includes a requirement to consider these issues.
10.368 Noise has been considered above and given their particular relevance to this case residential visual amenity and shadow flicker are considered first prior to consideration of electromagnetic interference, commissioning and decommissioning, phasing, ancillary developments and infrastructure, public access and the cumulative effects of the above
10.369 As noted in the Section x (Location and Principle of Development) the Proposed Development is located on a site where wind turbines of up to 140m in height would be sited on land within a buffer of 1 to 2km from the defined edge of the Tolsta settlement. Therefore while consideration is given to all relevant factors, the issue of residential visual amenity is that of greatest concern with most of the houses in the entire settlement of Tolsta and New Tolsta sited within 2km of at least one of 14 turbines.
EIAR – residential visual amenity
10.370 The effects on residential properties within the community of Tolsta have therefore been assessed with the assessment set out in Appendix 6.1 of the EIAR. It considers in detail the effect on residential amenity of individual properties taken within small groups.
10.371 The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) considers properties lying within 2.6 km of the proposed wind farm within New Tolsta, Tolsta and Glen Tolsta and has regard to a Zone of Theoretical Visibility of the windfarm for those properties. A total of 248 properties have been assessed by grouping properties and utilising representative properties within each group to assess effects. The test being applied is whether the predicted change in views and visual amenity has the potential to adversely affect residential visual amenity or ‘living conditions’ such that the property would become widely regarded as an unpleasant place to live. That test is acknowledged as set at a very ‘high bar’.
10.372 An overall judgement is made for each property or group of properties, considering the range of views that may be available from the property, its garden or curtilage and its driveway or approach road. For each property or group of properties, the evaluation includes a description of the likely effect on views and visual amenity resulting from the proposal, as well as other existing and proposed schemes included in the study area and likely to influence the decision making process. All people at their place of private residence are considered to be of high sensitivity/highly sensitive to changes in their views and visual amenity.
Assessment - Residential Visual Amenity (RVAA)
New Tolsta
10.373 New Tolsta - The first survey area or group includes 25 properties within New Tolsta. Four properties were selected as representative of the viewpoints for this group: 18, 20A, 1 and 8 New Tolsta (Representative Viewpoints (RV) 1 to 4). Of this group, 10 houses were assessed as having a high magnitude of change and a further 9, a medium magnitude of change, a fair conclusion. A high magnitude of change is more prevalent in houses positioned close to the main road and/or in more elevated positions. While the two most elevated properties will see 12 hubs and blades from all turbines, most of the properties will experience views of 1 to 3 hubs and blades of 6 to 8 turbines, at a distance of between 1km and 1.5km. It is accepted that once operational, impact of the windfarm on residential visual amenity would not have such an effect on ‘living conditions’ that it would render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
10.374 However, while the RVAA is focused on wind turbine visibility it is considered that during the construction phase of the works, No’s 16, 18, 20A, 7B and Taigh Ur, New Tolsta (Ref 1,2, 6, 5 and 14) will experience views of the eastern borrow pit and potentially the construction compound. When coupled with noise from construction traffic and excavation works at the borrow pit, these properties are very likely to experience some compromise on residential amenity during the construction phase (considered a short term impact in EIA terms).
Smeirton
10.375 Smeirton - The next group assessed comprises 5 houses in Smeirton with two representative viewpoints used (RV 5 and 6). The distance between nearest wind turbines and houses range from 1km to 1.3km. House No’s 50, 19 and 21A New Tolsta (ref 26,28 and 30) would have views of some hubs and all five houses some blade tips but visibility is limited by topography and house orientation. It is considered that the magnitude of change at 19 New Tolsta (Ref 30) would be High rather than Medium. Views of the borrow pit and construction compound are unlikely but again the proximity to the main road and eastern borrow pit means that there will be some compromise on residential visual amenity during construction stage (considered a short term impact). It is accepted that once operational, impact of the windfarm on residential visual amenity would not have such a harmful effect on ‘living conditions’ that it would render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Cnoc Glas
10.376 Cnoc Glas group is comprised of 13 houses (ref 31 to 43), largely set out on side roads leading east and west from the main road through the village. Two representative viewpoints used (RV 7 and 8). Houses are sited between 1km and 1.5km distance from the nearest turbines. Half the houses have extensive view of between 8 to 14 turbines hubs with a greater field of view occupied by turbines, for properties west of the main road together with Skenos and 100 North Tolsta which sit in elevated positions. 9 properties are predicted to have a high magnitude of change while the other 4 have medium magnitude of change. Turbines will be visible in a wide field of view for the properties sitting to the east of Cnoc Glas. Two properties in this area, No 46 and 48A North Tolsta have their main elevation facing west towards the windfarm with views of all 14 turbines at a distance of 1.4Km. Nevertheless it has been assessed and accepted that the principal views from most properties are to the north, south and east, that the topography helps screen the full height of the turbine towers and that while the magnitude in change is high, and that the impact of the windfarm on residential visual amenity would not have such a harmful effect on ‘living conditions’ that it would render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Post Office
10.377 Post Office group (ref 44 to 60) – this group comprises of 16 houses with two representative viewpoints used (RV 9 and 10). The houses west of the road have limited visibility of the wind turbines on account of topography; principally seeing only blade tips. While some of the houses east of the road will have sight of 5 hubs, and blade tips for other turbines, views of the turbines are contained within a narrow field of view. Distance from houses to the nearest turbines would be between 1.3 and 1.7km. It is accepted that once operational, impact of the windfarm on residential visual amenity would not have such a harmful effect on ‘living conditions’ that it would render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Crossroads
10.378 Crossroads group (ref 61 to 73) comprises 12 houses with representative views represented by three properties (RV 11, 12 &13). These houses are located 1.6km to 1.77km from the turbines and with the exception of two would experience a low or medium magnitude of change. It is accepted that once operational, impact of the windfarm on residential visual amenity would not have such a harmful effect on ‘living conditions’ that it would render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
School Road
10.379 School Road (Ref 74 to 98) is an elevated area of the settlement and includes 25 residential properties. Two viewpoints have been selected as representative of the potential change in view (RV 14 & 15). There is also a Visualisation from this location within the LVIA. Nine of the residential properties are assessed individually and the other 16 are assessed in six groups. Distance from the houses to the windfarm varies, but 22 houses are sited within 1.25 and 1.45km from the turbines. Horizontal field of view occupied by turbines is between 70 and 80 degrees with the views typically taking in on average 10 hubs and blades for all 14 turbines; 12 houses are assessed to experience a high magnitude of change and another 12 a medium magnitude of change. Despite the proximity and wide field of view, some semi mature trees to the west, coupled with the topography which rises to a ridge and then falls away towards the turbines to obscure the full height of the turbine towers would aid a reduction in their over-bearing effects. It is accepted that while there will be a sense of large scale turbines in relatively close proximity, that once operational, impact of the windfarm on residential visual amenity would not have such a harmful effect on ‘living conditions’ that it would render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Tom Sgaire
10.380 Tom Sgaire (Ref 99 – 118). This survey area includes 20 residential properties. Two viewpoints have been selected as representative of the potential change in view (RV 16 &17). Distance from the houses to the windfarm varies but 22 are sited within 1.25km and 1.45km from the turbines. 12 houses are predicted to experience a high magnitude of change and the remainder a medium magnitude of change. Four properties, Windyridge, 99 North Tolsta, Lathamur, and Hill House will view 13 or 14 turbine hubs and the blades from all turbines in a field of view of 91 degrees. A bank of semi mature trees to the west has been less successful in its establishment and provide less natural screening than at School Road. The scale of the turbines at the intervening distance is not under estimated. However most of the houses in this group face east towards the coast. It is therefore accepted that while there will be a sense of large scale turbines in relatively close proximity to the houses, that the likely impact on residential visual amenity would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Grosabhat
10.381 Grosabhat (Ref 99 – 132). This survey area includes 14 residential properties. Two viewpoints have been selected as representative of the potential change in view (RV 18 &19). Distance from the houses to the windfarm varies but 7 are sited within 1.25km and the remainder within 1.45km from the turbines. 7 houses are predicted to experience a high magnitude of change and the remainder a medium magnitude of change. Four properties, The Shieling, Glen Rannoch, Creagard and Crosabhat Cottage will view 14 turbine hubs and the blades from all turbines in a field of view of 88 to 91 degrees. The change in levels across the topography from the position of these houses to the moor and windfarm site is more gentle and as a result more of the turbines and the full sweep of the blades is in view (illustrated by RV18). The scale of the turbines at the intervening distance is not under estimated. However again most of the houses in this group face east towards the coast. It is therefore accepted that while there will be a sense of large scale turbines in relatively close proximity to the houses, that the likely impact on residential visual amenity would be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Lochside
10.382 Lochside (Ref 133 – 142). This survey area includes 10 residential properties. Two viewpoints have been selected as representative of the potential change in view (RV 20 and 21). Distance from the houses to the nearest wind turbines is between 1 km to 1.1 5km. Five houses are predicted to experience a high magnitude of change and the remainder a medium magnitude of change. Two properties, 8 and 64 Lochside will view 5 turbine hubs and the blades from all turbines in a field of view of 74 degrees. 7 Lochside is slightly elevated and will have views of nine towers and hubs and sets of blades from all 14 turbines. Bayview, noted as only medium magnitude of change, will view 8 hubs and some blades from all 14 turbines. This is likely to be more accurately predicted as a high magnitude of change. The levels here has dropped slightly when compared with Grosabhat and as a result less of the turbines towers, hubs and blades are in full view (illustrated by RV’s 20 and 21). The scale of the turbines at the intervening distance is not under estimated. However again with the exception of two traditional houses sited east of the main road and facing west, and one facing north all the other houses in this group face east towards the coast. It is therefore accepted that while there will be a sense of large scale turbines in relatively close proximity to the houses, that the likely impact on residential visual amenity would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
10.383 In addition to the above it is noted that Turbine 12 having been repositioned 90m NNE of its original position will be closer than predicted in the RVAA. Notwithstanding this it will not alter the conclusions of the assessment.
10.384 It should also be noted that the windfarm sub-station has been re-positioned from its original location at the head of the Glen Tolsta plantation to a position on the rise just 500m west of the houses at Lochside. This building will introduce a permanent change and while slightly elevated when compared with the houses its height is 5.5m (similar to a 1.5 storey house) and being L shaped should not appear over-scaled in the environment The substation will be sited inside a secure compound and its appearance could be mitigated by appropriate landscaping and tree planting.
10.385 In the longer term the likely impact on residential visual amenity would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Beinn Thearabeirt
10.386 Beinn Thearabeirt group (ref 143 to 155) comprises 13 houses with representative views represented by two properties (RV 22 & 23). These houses are located 1.5km to 1.63km from the turbines. 6 would experience a high magnitude of change with the remainder low or medium magnitude of change. Views and level of impact will be very similar to that experienced from the properties sitting to the east of Cnoc Glas. Some properties in this area, have their main elevation facing west towards the windfarm and at least 5 have views of all 14 turbines at a distance of 1.55Km within a field of view of 77 degrees. It is however accepted that at the distance impact on residential visual amenity would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Main Road
10.387 Main Road group (ref 156 to 158) comprises 4 houses with representative views represented by one property (RV 24). These houses are located 1.6km to 1.7km from the turbines. Two would experience a high magnitude of change and two a medium magnitude of change. There is likely to be a reduction in true visibility arising from intervening buildings and some established planting. Based on the distances and level of visibility it is accepted that impact on residential visual amenity would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Cnoc na Buaile
10.388 Cnoc na Buaile group (ref 160 to 190) comprises 31 houses with representative views represented by one property (RV 25). These houses are located 1.8 km to 2.05 km from the turbines and all would have visibility of 14 turbines and 14 sets of blades in a field of view of 62 to 67 degrees from some part of their house or garden and therefore experience a high magnitude of change. While some houses face west towards the windfarm site many have their gardens facing west. Nevertheless based on the intervening distance it is accepted that impact on residential visual amenity would not would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
New Street
10.389 New Street group (ref 191 to 209) comprises 19 houses with representative views represented by two properties (RV 26 and 27). These houses are located 1.7 km to 2km from the turbines and with the exception of 74 New Street assessed as high all others are assessed to experience a medium magnitude of change. All assessed as medium would have some visibility of 14 turbines and 14 sets of blades in a field of view of 64 to 72 degrees from some part of their house or garden. However houses on New Street are principally north or south facing and there will be some interruption of views from close proximity of built elements. Based on the intervening distance it is accepted that impact on residential visual amenity would not would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Camach Park
10.390 Camach Park group (ref 210 to 217) comprises 8 houses with representative views represented by one property (RV 28). These houses are located 2km to 2.2km from the turbines; all predicted to experience a high magnitude of change. Nevertheless based on the intervening distance it is accepted that impact on residential visual amenity would not would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Gearraidh a Stigh
10.391 Gearraidh a Stigh group (ref 218 to 233) comprises 16 houses with representative views represented by two properties (RV 29 and 30). These houses are located 2.2 km to 2.5km from the turbines and with the exception of one, 1B North Tolsta, all predicted to experience a high magnitude of change. Based on the intervening distance it is accepted that impact on residential visual amenity would not would not be so harmful to living conditions so as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Gearraidh a Muigh
10.392 Gearraidh a Muigh group (ref 234 to 244) comprises 11 houses with representative views represented by two properties (RV 31 &32). These houses are located 1.9 to 2.2 km from the turbines and all predicted to experience a high magnitude of change. Based on the intervening distance it is accepted that impact on residential visual amenity would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
Glen Tolsta
10.393 Glen Tolsta group (ref 245 to 248) comprises 4 houses with representative views represented by one property (RV 33). These houses are located 1.7km to 2km from the turbines. Two would experience a high magnitude of change and two a barely perceptible change. It is accepted that impact on residential visual amenity would not be so harmful to living conditions as to render any of these properties an unacceptable place to live.
RVAA - further comment
10.394 Some of the statements in the EIAR - RVAA merit comment upon.
10.395 Paragraph 6.1.83 concludes that the potential relationship between residential properties in proximity to the wind farm is not unusual when compared with other existing and consented wind farms in Scotland.
10.396 That is notwithstanding that significant visual effects are predicted to occur for the majority of properties considered in the RVAA study, (122 properties out of a total of the 248 properties assessed are predicted to experience a High magnitude of change in visual amenity from their property arising from the windfarm. A further 107 are predicted to experience a medium magnitude of change, 16 a low magnitude of change and 3 a barely perceptible change), the EIAR considers that the wind farm would not be considered to have a sufficiently overbearing effect such that any property would become an unpleasant place to live.
10.397 While a number of factors are noted in the RVAA as having been considered in arriving at the judgement that no property would become an unpleasant place to live, the orientation of properties to the east towards the coast, resulting in views of the wind farm being largely from rooms at the rear of a property and from its curtilage, appears to have been a key reason for determining this.
10.398 The Landscape Adviser appointed by the Comhairle was not able to review the RVAA in the field but would dispute some of the statements in the EIAR. She stated that in her experience of reviewing many wind farm applications across Scotland, the very close proximity of so many residential properties in Tolsta to the windfarm proposal is unusual, as wind farms are commonly located in upland areas lying at greater distances from an entire settlement. It was also noted that in the EIAR section headed ‘Context to the Assessment’ it appears selective in only citing appeal decisions where reporters concluded there would not be an overbearing effect on residential properties; there are other appeal decisions where reporters have concluded that an overbearing effect on a residential property would occur.
10.399 Notwithstanding these observations the RVAA (EIAR, Appendix 6.1) acknowledges that a large proportion of the properties within the settlement would experience a high or a medium magnitude of change in the view from certain locations within their property and/or from the associated outdoor areas. Properties lying on the western edges of settlement would generally be most affected in terms of their proximity to the windfarms; distances at New Tolsta and Lochview being around 1km and at 1.3 to 1.4 km for many properties in Tom Sgaire and Grosabhat. The houses in Lochview, Tom Sgaire and Grosabhat generally face east and the land rises and then falls gently towards the turbine bases which means the full height of the turbines would not be experienced. Nevertheless these houses have external spaces where amenity would be compromised, recognised by the conclusion that many houses will experience a high magnitude of change on account of visual amenity.
10.400 The houses in New Street and Cnoc na Buaile will experience similar views to those at Lochview, Tom Sgaire and Grosabhat but at a greater distance. The Turbines would diminish in scale with distance as is illustrated by comparing Representative Viewpoint 16 (Tom Sgaire) and 18 (Grosabhat) with Viewpoints 25 Cnoc na Buaile and Viewpoint 27 at New Street.
10.401 The RVAA has been carefully scrutinised in this assessment as set out in Paragraphs 10.378 to 10.406 above. While that scrutiny concurs with the conclusion that no house or group of houses would be compromised such that it would become an unpleasant place to live, that in itself does not take away from the fact that half the houses will experience a significant effect on account of the predicted change in views and visual amenity as experienced from homes and private gardens. This level of effect on so many properties is a material planning consideration and one that carries weight against the proposal.
EIAR – Shadow Flicker
10.402 Shadow flicker has been considered within Chapter 14 – Other issues of the EIAR 2018. It notes that shadow flicker has been assessed up to a distance of 1.17km from all turbines, which is equivalent to 10 rotor diameters of the candidate turbine.
10.403 Of the 14 turbines proposed, four are anticipated to be the source of potential shadow flicker occurrence on all receptors, these being turbine 2 (potentially 36.2 hours per year), turbine 3 (potentially 36.2 hours per year), turbine 12 (potentially 101.2 hours per year) and turbine 14 (potentially 26.1 hours per year). No shadow flicker was anticipated from the remaining turbines on residential receptors.
10.404 In the absence of mitigation and prior to the repositioning of Turbine 12, 24 properties were predicted to experience between 0.6 hours and 26.4 hours of shadow flicker per year. Chapter 9 of the submitted SI (2020) notes that the repositioning of Turbine 12 will result in three additional properties which could experience shadow flicker effects from the operation of the turbines as they would be within 1.17km. That would increase the potential for 27 properties to have shadow flicker effects from one of four turbines. As these are all residential properties, the potential for effects is considered to be unacceptable and significant.
10.405 In terms of mitigation the developer sets out its commitment to install a shadow flicker control system as part of the operation of the windfarm to reduce shadow flicker occurrence arising from the operation of turbines 2, 3, 12 and 14. The control system, a software solution fitted to the relevant turbines would involve shutting turbines down at specified daily times throughout the year when occurrence is likely, as identified by modelling.
10.406 The following wording is suggested in Chapter 9 of the submitted SI (2020) in relation to the shadow flicker effects:
10.407 “If, following the commencement of operation of the windfarm, and implementation of a shadow flicker control system, the council receives complaints of shadow flicker, from properties within 2km of the nearest turbine, assessed by the Applicant in the 2018 EIA Report or 2019 Supplementary Information or not assessed previously, the Applicant shall investigate these complaints, and through further assessment, should it be determined that such occurrences are caused by the windfarm, amend the control system in place to ensure the adequate protection of amenity. Any change to the mitigation in place shall be agreed with the council”.
Assessment – Shadow flicker
10.408 Environmental Health was consulted and stated that the assessment regarding shadow flicker seems to be thorough and they have a proposed mitigation system for the properties likely to be affected. Environmental Health recommend having a condition that requires the operator to implement the same mitigation measures, as detailed in 14.45 of the EIA, for any property (consented or in situ at the time of application) that is proven to be affected by shadow flicker to the same extent as that of 22 New Tolsta i.e. predicted to experience 0.6 hours per year.
10.409 It is proposed that the significant effects of shadow flicker can be mitigated and it is proposed that any consent be subject to the undernoted condition and reason.
10.410 Condition: Throughout the operational life of the windfarm, wind turbines 2, 3, 12 and 14 forming part of the development to which this planning permission relates, shall be fitted with a shadow flicker control system which shall be made operational and maintained as such throughout the operational life of the development. If, following the commencement of operation of the windfarm, and implementation of the shadow flicker control system, the Comhairle receives any reasonable complaints of shadow flicker, from any property within 2km of the nearest turbine, whether or not previously assessed, the developer shall fully investigate and carry out an assessment of the shadow flicker complaints. Should it be determined through such further assessment, that any wind turbine is causing shadow flicker effects the developer shall amend and/or extend the shadow flicker control system to mitigate against the undesirable effects. Any change to the mitigation system in place shall be agreed in writing with the Comhairle as planning authority. Reason: In order to mitigate shadow flicker effects and ensure the adequate protection of amenity of any properties within 2km of any turbine forming part of the windfarm.
10.411 In order to mitigate shadow flicker effects the developer requires to employ software. Such a solution was not required for the Consented Development; the height of turbines then proposed did not have blades of a lengths where shadow flicker effects were predicted from any turbine on any property. However the installation of protective software should ensure the adequate protection of amenity of any properties within 2km of any turbine forming part of the windfarm.
EIAR - Noise
10.412 The effects of Noise on amenity in general is addressed in the section above.
Assessment - Noise
10.413 For the reasons given, in response to the assessment on Noise impacts above it is considered that the proposal would not result in significant or unacceptable noise impacts, subject to the use of appropriate mitigation. Nevertheless it has to be noted that while considered a short term impact in EIA terms some houses in New Tolsta and Lochside in addition to some level of compromise on visual amenity during construction will also experience construction noise effects. This matter was raised in queries with the developer who confirmed as follows:
10.414 Chapter 10 of the EIA Report (2018) highlighted that the majority of construction activities, including borrow pit quarrying, will occur at sufficient distances from nearby residential properties, resulting in a maximum - case predicted levels of 40 to 59 dB LAeq,T and therefore noise impacts from these activities were concluded to be of negligible to minor significance.
10.415 It should be noted that construction activities are expected to be audible at noise sensitive receptors at various times throughout the construction phase. Although the significance is assessed to be negligible to minor, to minimise the potential construction noise further various mitigation measures will be adhered to including; maintaining all equipment to ensure good working order and any blasting required will be in line with the relevant British Standards and PAN50.
EIAR – Electromagnetic interference – Telecoms and Television
10.416 There is an existing telecommunications mast operated by EE located to the south of the site and a telecommunications mast located to the east of the site operated by O2. Five registered telecommunications links were identified within 4.5KM of the site.
10.417 The digital switchover took place in the Outer Hebrides in 2010. The site is located in the STV North TV region and television transmission for homes near the site is likely to be provided by the Eitshal transmitter.
Assessment – Electromagnetic interference – Telecoms and Television
10.418 The EIAR predicts no significant effects on any licenced links. No objections were received from any telecommunications consultee. While the assessment concludes no significant effects it is ultimately the responsibility of the windfarm developer to ensure that the windfarm does not compromise any OFCOM licenced links.
10.419 The Eitshal TV transmitter is located 26km south-west of the nearest turbine and therefore the windfarm is sited in a line of site between some of the houses in the village and the transmitter. The likelihood of interference is reduced with digital signals, compared to analogue. However Tolsta is located in an area where interference is possible. Given the potential risk of interference, a significant impact is predicted and a condition requiring the developer to propose a scheme of mitigation, to address any problems of reception and manage this potential impact is recommended on the grant of any consent. It is envisaged that this would require the developer to assess current television signals in advance of construction and to mitigate post-development problems with television reception attributable to it.
10.420 This would require the developer to meet the costs of investigation and to rectify effectively any problems should they arise, implementing solutions in a timely manner, to minimise any inconvenience to residents.
10.421 Potential mitigation measures for affected households could include the replacement or upgrade of receiving aerials, re-tuning television receivers, re-aligning aerials, or the provision of a bespoke solution, such as a new low-powered transmitter, a cable network, or a satellite receiver. It is anticipated that the implementation of these measures would fully mitigate any television reception issues arising as a result of the proposal
EIAR - Commissioning, decommissioning and phasing
10.422 The topic specific chapters within the EIAR and AI EIAR consider the Proposed Development in three main phases, in terms of its construction, operation and decommissioning. Within this report, each of the potential impacts has been assessed for the effects during each of those development stages.
EIAR - Ancillary developments and infrastructure
10.423 There are no specific aspects of ancillary development or infrastructure not already considered that would result in any significant effects.
EIAR and Assessment - public access
10.424 Although access for recreation is permitted over the application site, due to the terrain and land conditions, there is currently little public access and few walking routes. The EIAR indicates that the principal recreational activity undertaken on the site is angling. In addition, the Hebridean Way walking route passes through the centre of the application site and, in relation to the originally submitted scheme, at its closest point would be approximately 142m from the closest turbine.
10.425 During the construction phase of the development, the public ‘right to roam’ under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 legislation, within the application site would be restricted for health and safety reasons. Given the relatively low levels of public access within the site at present, the EIAR considers that the effect of this would not be significant. Once operational there would be a significant network of new paths to which unrestricted access would generally be available for walking and possibly for bike riding and horse riding to some degree. Whilst this extent of change is not considered to be significant in EIA terms, it would result in a new network of publicly accessible routes across the site
EIAR and Assessment – dust
10.426 Chapter 15 of the EIAR at Paragraph 15.124 identifies five properties within 200m of the northern access and five properties within 200m of the southern access which could potentially be affected by construction dust emissions. DLWL has committed to adopting good practice measures for dust management during construction focussing in particular on reducing emissions at properties within 200m of construction activities, thereby controlling and reducing any potential effects that dust generation may have on health. The effect is therefore considered to be not significant and will not change the health status of the likely receptors.
10.427 The control of dust will be subject to condition seeking that dust mitigation measures are complied with and to reduce the likelihood of any significant effect.
Cumulative effects on community amenity
10.428 While there are controls and measures in place there will nevertheless be some impact on the properties closest to the northern and southern access points. Noise is expected to arise from borrow pit excavation and traffic to and use of land to site a large construction compound (New Tolsta), and construction and use of the main turbine laydown area and sub-station (Lochside), noise and dust associated with excavation works associated with the construction of the windfarm accesses all sited inside 200m of these houses. Therefore, while mitigation will reduce the significance of effect, some properties at the extremities of the village are very likely to experience some compromise on residential amenity during the construction phase.
Comparison with the Consented Development
10.429 The Consented Development is for turbines of up to 126m tip height also sited between 1 and 2km from most of the residential properties in the settlement. The proposed development is for turbines of up to 140m on the same site and with the exception of turbine 12 (relocated 90m to the NNE of its original consented position), the turbine layout matches that of Consented Development and is contained within the same site as that originally consented. The only other change of note is that the substations are reduced from two to one and that the single sub-station now proposed, to be sited within 500m of Lochside, the southern part of the Tolsta settlement.
10.430 The difference in turbine height is largely accounted for by larger generators and longer blades since the hub-heights are just 1.5m higher than the Consented Development. The difference in hub-height will be imperceptible at 1km distance.
10.431 In terms of residential visual amenity it is noted that the belt of woodland which is close to the top of an intervening ridge and had the potential to filter and screen views of the proposed wind turbines for the houses closest to the windfarm boundary has not thrived and is therefore unlikely to materially alter the findings of the RVAA over time.
10.432 Contrary to the conclusion on the findings the difference in tip height is likely to be perceptible to some residences within 1 to 2km of the site, but the significance of effect (already the most severe), similar.
10.433 Under the current proposal 122 properties out of a total of the 248 properties assessed are predicted to experience a High magnitude of change in visual amenity from their property arising from the windfarm. While it is not possible to make a direct comparison with the 2013 assessment as more properties are included and the assessment more thorough the overall conclusion remains that no residential property will be affected to the extent that living conditions would be so harmed that it would render it an unacceptable place to live.
10.434 The 2013 EIAR considered the potential for the Proposed Development to cause shadow flicker for local residential occupiers. There were no residential properties located within 990m (10 rotor diameters) and therefore no predicted shadow flicker for local occupiers. That is no longer the case as 24 properties have been identified as potentially being susceptible to shadow flicker occurrence with a requirement for software to control shadow flicker effects. Such a system will mitigate these effects to not significant
10.435 Effects on telecommunications infrastructure as a result of the Consented Development was considered not significant in the 2013 ES. Updated consultation with the telecoms stakeholders confirms that there are no additional telecommunication links likely to be affected, therefore no significant effects are also predicted for the Proposed Development.
10.436 With regards to television effects, a high likelihood that nearby properties could experience interference to television reception from the operation of the windfarm was predicted for the Consented Development resulting in a significant effect and this remains the same for the Proposed Development.
Neighbouring developments
Policy context
10.437 All provisions of the Policy DS1 Development Strategy and Policy PD6 Compatibility of Neighbouring Uses apply in assessing the potential impact of wind farms on the neighbouring developments. In addition to assessing Cumulative Impact and Community Amenity, the Comhairle will assess the impact of any wind farm development application on neighbouring land and sensitive uses, including identified LDP Proposal Sites and extant consents in the area.
Assessment
10.438 The development site is predominately in an area classed as outwith settlement and a lesser part within a remote area. As the area is moorland and the only use aside from agriculture and recreation being as a catchment area for a drinking water supply (already assessed) and residential impacts (already assessed) there are no neighbouring uses the site does not have any sensitive neighbouring uses. The Tolsta turbine is less than 100m south of T12 and T13, a wind turbine with 14 years left of its operational consent The EIAR notes that once the development is operational, land uses such as grazing sheep and peat cutting will resume. Although, the site will not be accessible during the construction phase, countryside Access will resume during the operational phase. The Tolsta community turbine will not be adversely impacted upon by the operational phase of the Proposed Development. For the reasons above, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of LDP Policy PD6: Compatibility of Neighbouring Uses.
Borrow pits, roads and traffic
Policy context – Borrow pits
10.439 The SPP highlights, in paragraph 234, that minerals will be required as construction materials to support the ambition for diversification of the energy mix. In paragraph 243, it states that borrow pits should only be permitted if there are significant environmental or economic benefits compared to obtaining material from local quarries; they are time-limited; tied to a particular project and appropriate reclamation measures are in place.
10.440 The OHLDP Policy ED5 states that borrow pits will be supported to allow the extraction of minerals near to or on the site of associated development, provided it can be demonstrated that there are significant benefits compared to obtaining the materials from local quarries and that criteria in relation to potential impacts have been addressed. The policy also confirms that consents for borrow pits would be time-limited, tied to the proposal and must be accompanied by full restoration proposals and aftercare.
10.441 The criteria referred to above include requirements to address potential impacts from disturbance, disruption, pollution, on communities and the local economy, on natural and historic heritage, landscape, the water environment, air quality, on land including carbon rich soils, waste management, the road network, and cumulative impacts.
10.442 The SG indicates that any requirement for temporary borrow pits will be required to accord with the OHLDP Policy ED5 and sufficient information should be provided to demonstrate that the proposal would meet the requirements of the policy and those of paragraph 243 of the SPP. In addition, the details provided should include a map of all the proposed borrow pits and detailed plans of each pit, in accordance with specific information requirements. The impact of the pits should be assessed in accordance with the Planning Advice Note 50 Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings, in particular paragraphs 52 and 53.
EIAR – Borrow pits
10.443 Fill and stone requirements for the construction of the windfarm access tracks, hardstandings, turbine foundations etc. will be met through the extraction of material won from two onsite borrow pits. A total of approximately 130,000m3 of suitable crushed rock is proposed for extraction from the two borrow pits and processed on site.
10.444 The two areas from within which the borrow pits will be located were identified following a desk based geological assessment and verified with fieldwork by the project civil engineering team. Borrow pit selection involved consideration of a number of factors including borrow pit size, potential extraction volumes, quality of rock and proximity to location of the existing access track. The final location of the two borrow pits within these areas is to be confirmed following final investigation.
10.445 The potential quantities available from each of the borrow pits was estimated at:
• Borrow pit 1 = 94,000 m3 • Borrow pit 2 = 85,000 m3 (restricted operation, during Golden Eagle nesting season).
10.446 The EIAR (2018), identified that it the majority of aggregate material could be won from the proposed two borrow pits within the site. The final required stone quantity reported in the EIAR (2018) (130,000 m3) was an estimated figure which allowed some flexibility in the use of the borrow pits which could accommodated the changes to the development as shown in the SI (2020) submission. The 2020 SEI calculated that the changes to the required stone quantity were minimal based on the slight amendments to the design including, the removal of the 132/33kV transformer and the associated SSE-N substation building and the lengths of floated track required.
10.447 For the purposes of the EIA assessment, the full extracted amount was assumed (i.e. 179,000m3).but it is considered that the final sizes of the excavated borrow pits will be less than the potential extraction volumes indicated
10.448 Peat probing has been carried out for the borrow pits (Fig 3 Peat Probe and Core Locations) of the Stage 1 Peat Stability assessment May 2018. It is noted that the proposed borrow pits, are where exposed rock was observed and peat is likely to be relatively thin at these locations.
Assessment - Borrow pits
10.449 With regards to the borrow pits, the application includes the details required by planning policies, specifically Location, size, depths and dimensions of each borrow pit; Existing water table and volumes of all dewatering; proposed drainage and settlement traps, turf and overburden removal and storage areas; restoration profile, nature and volume of infill materials, and, if wetland features form part of the restoration, 25 year management proposals. The effects if blasting have also been taken into account in the wider assessment of environmental effects.
10.450 The borrow pits for the extraction of stone are in the same location and are the same size as per previous consent and were considered to be acceptable and consistent with LDP policy on Minerals. While a justification as to the use of borrow-pits over consented resources is absent it is accepted that there are significant environmental benefits associated with winning stone on site as opposed to bringing it by road from Stornoway; the latter would result in a significant increase in road traffic volumes and associated impacts.
10.451 Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of the management and restoration of borrow pits the proposal accords with Policy ED5 Minerals and with the provisions of the Borrow Pits Policy of the Outer Hebrides Wind Energy Development Supplementary Guidance.
Policy context – Roads and traffic
10.452 In relation to transport, the SPP paragraph 271 sets out the policy principle that plans and development management decisions should take account of the implications of development proposals on traffic, patterns of travel and road safety.
10.453 Paragraph 290 states that development proposals that have the potential to affect the performance or safety of the strategic transport network need to be fully assessed to determine their impact. Where existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate a development without adverse impacts on safety or unacceptable impacts on operational performance, further investment in the network is not likely to be required. Where such investment is required, the cost of the mitigation measures required to ensure the continued safe and effective operation of the network will have to be met by the developer.
10.454 Paragraph 291 goes on to indicate that consideration should be given to appropriate planning restrictions on construction and operation related transport modes when granting planning permission, especially where bulk material movements are expected, for example freight from extraction operations.
10.455 In addition, OHLDP Policy PD2 requires new roads to be safe and not compromise the existing road network. Road design and parking should be suited to the type, location, scale and circumstances of the development. Policy EI 9 highlights key priority areas for the upgrading and development of the transport infrastructure within and serving the Outer Hebrides, with criteria for new or improved traffic infrastructure or traffic management measures.
EIAR
10.456 EIAR Chapter 11 sets out the consideration of impacts arising from Traffic and Transport. The assessment considers the potential effects associated with the construction of the windfarm, notably the effects that may occur on users of the public road network and wider community as a result of increased traffic volumes along the proposed route being used to transport turbine components and construction materials. The assessment notes that Baseline conditions have been established through site visits, a desktop study, and consultation with the Comhairle.
10.457 The study area for the traffic and transport assessment has been defined as the public road network which will be used for access and transportation of windfarm components and materials to site, other than those that can be directly resourced from within the site area. It is assumed that 98% of the stone required for construction of the windfarm will be sourced from the onsite borrow pits, minimising the traffic generated from movement of material on the public road network.
10.458 During construction, wind turbine components will need to be transported on vehicles capable of carrying ‘abnormal loads’ (vehicles longer than 17m and/or wider than 4m). It is proposed that the turbine components will be landed at the pier at Arnish Point, transported along the private road to the junction with the A859 before travelling east along the A859 to the A858 and onwards to the roundabout junction at Stornoway. From this roundabout it is proposed that the abnormal load transporters will then travel along the A857 north, until the junction with the B895, when this road will be followed north-east until reaching the southern site access junction south of Tolsta.
10.459 All other vehicles bound for the site are expected to originate from the Stornoway area. Normal HGVs will access the site via the north access from the outset of the construction phase, and then the south access once it has been constructed. Abnormal load vehicles will only use the southern access to avoid disturbance and damage to the road through the settlement of Tolsta.
The traffic assessment determined that no significant effects are predicted upon traffic flow, road users and the wider community during the construction phase of the windfarm. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and routing strategy is to be implemented in agreement with the Comhairle to aim to safely coordinate the movement of construction vehicles during busy traffic periods.
Once operational, windfarms typically generate very low levels of traffic and therefore significant effects during operation are not likely. The assessment concludes that no other developments are likely to be utilising the same access route as Druim Leathann windfarm during the construction period so there will be no cumulative effects.
Assessment
10.460 Having regard to the comments made by Comhairle Roads, Chapter 11 is considered to demonstrate that the impact of the proposal on roads and traffic would be acceptable, subject to suitable mitigation.
10.461 The movement of large and abnormal loads would however require careful planning and will require some improvement to existing infrastructure. However, these are matters that could be secured by legal agreement or condition, including the requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which should be drawn up in consultation with Comhairle Roads.
10.462 Overall, it is concluded that, in relation to roads and traffic, the Proposed Development would meet the aims of the SPP and would be in accordance with the OHLDP Policies PD2 and EI 9 and the requirements of the SG.
Climate Change, Major Accidents and Disasters and Human Health
EIAR
10.463 Chapter 15 of the EIAR considers the effects of the Proposed Development on climate change, major accidents and disasters and on human health. These are new considerations that fall to be assessed and considered since the making of the 2017 Regulations. Climate change has previously been discussed within the context of Sections 10.19 to 10.39 above and the assessment of effects on each topic following. Within the EIAR Chapter 15 brings together the issues with a climate change focus.
Assessment
10.464 The construction effects are focused Carbon Losses (for peat loss and disturbance) and Direct CO2 and NOx Emissions from HGV/Personnel Vehicles. After application of mitigation, the significance of residual effect has been concluded as of minor negative effect. The only non- neutral operational effect is that of Carbon losses and Carbon Off-setting which have been predicted as being moderate (positive) arising from predicted carbon saving of approximately 71,000 tCO2 per year and 1,766,000 tCO2 over the windfarm’s operational lifetime but reflecting the need for non-green backup power generation to stabilise the variances of wind generated supply. This conclusion is considered fair.
10.465 Consideration has also been given to receptors potentially susceptible to a changing climate that may be affected by the introduction of the windfarm, more specifically whether the judgement of effects on Landscape, hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Peat and Ecology and Ornithology would vary and the ability of these receptors to adapt to climate change. There are no predicted significance of effect arising from the climate change effects of the proposed windfarm on these receptors. The impact of the windfarm on each of these topics has been considered above and the further assessment of climate change factors here is considered fair.
10.466 The assessment of the potential for major accidents has focussed upon construction traffic movements to result in road accidents, potential for windfarm operation to interfere with the safe operation of air traffic services and the potential for mechanical malfunctions or storms to result in turbine failure each with consequences for serious injury or loss of life. The assessment has concluded that with the mitigation measures proposed namely a Traffic Management Plan, Aviation conditions and modern control mechanism which shut turbines down in extreme weather conditions that there would be no significant of residual effect.
10.467 Extensive consideration has been given to the effects of the windfarm on human health with a focus upon health effects associated with risks to deterioration of water quality being supplied by public water source during construction, dust emissions during construction, particularly on receptors within 200m of the site, the generation of construction and operational noise on nearby receptors, with the occurrence of shadow flicker and access to recreational routes during construction and operation. Again, this conclusion is considered fair.
10.468 During construction, following application of mitigation of a Construction and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan, specific measures in a Pollution Prevention Plan and water quality monitoring, it has been concluded that there would be no residual effect of significance. A similar conclusion has been arrived at for construction dust emissions with good practice methods to control dust to be employed. Construction noise, assessed previously above has been assessed to not be significant on human health. While public access to the site would be restricted during construction, this would not, given alternative recreational routes, result in a significant effect.
10.469 During operation consideration has been given to the Health effects associated with operational noise from the proposed windfarm. Predicted operational noise levels (including cumulatively) at all the noise assessment locations will be controlled to be below the specific and acceptable daytime and night-time noise limits specified by the Comhairle which are below the acceptable noise limits sets by ETSU-R-97. Night-time noise limits are implemented to avoid sleep disturbance which can adversely affect health. Therefore operational noise effects on health are considered to be not significant.
10.470 Shadow flicker effects would necessitate the introduction of a shadow flicker control system but subject to the application of this mitigation there is no predicted significant effect on human health.
10.471 In terms of recreational access, once the windfarm is operational there will be unrestricted access to the site with the windfarm to add approximately 8km of new track within the site. These routes should be suitable for walking and cycling and add to available path networks, helping to promote outdoor physical activity, health and well-being opportunities in the local area. This would result in a positive but not significant effect.
10.472 The cumulative operational effects of noise from the proposed windfarm and the Tolsta community wind turbine are predicted to be not significant while the cumulative effect of increased access to recreational routes and opportunities to keep active is positive but not significant.
Cumulative impacts of the Proposed Development
EIAR
10.473 The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Development with other existing and proposed windfarms are assessed at the end of each topic chapter above, but considered here collectively.
Landscape and visual effects
10.474 The Cumulative landscape and visual effects (including combined, successive and sequential visual effects) are set out in detail in Chapter 6 of the EIAR. The assessment identifies those developments where a cumulative effect was possible and the reason for viewpoint selection. In terms of landscape character the addition of the Proposed Development to the other wind energy developments within the extensive Boggy Moor LCT was assessed to result in a low magnitude of cumulative change, resulting in a Minor (not significant) cumulative landscape effect.
10.475 Predicted Operational Effects on Visual Amenity at the Representative Viewpoints listed at Paragraph 10.82 above were considered for cumulative visual effects. At three of these viewpoints, VP 5 Tiumpanhead, VP 6 Tong and VP 11, Muirneag, the addition of Druim Leathann to a baseline containing the other existing and consented windfarms is predicted to result in a medium magnitude of cumulative change on views from these locations, equating to a Moderate (significant) cumulative visual effect on these views. These predictions were not altered by the re-positioning of Turbine 12.
10.476 Cumulative visual effect on views from a range of settlements including Tolsta was also considered and set out in Table 6.18: Effects on Views from Settlements. Of these it is predicted that the addition of the Proposed Development to a baseline containing the other existing and consented windfarms will result in a medium magnitude of cumulative change on views, and equate to a Moderate (significant) cumulative visual effect on views from Knock, Garrabost, Shulishader, Flesherin/Broker and Aird and Portnaguran, all villages on the Eye Peninsula. These predictions were not altered by the re-positioning of Turbine 12.
10.477 Predicted visual effects on views from key routes was also considered with Moderate (significant) cumulative effects predicted on views from the Tolsta to Ness Heritage Trail (Core Path) and from the Tolsta Head Path. These predictions were not altered by the re-positioning of Turbine 12.
Peatlands
10.478 On the basis of there being no planned developments within the study area for geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and peat and the Tolsta turbine being operational cumulative effects were not considered likely for these topics. However, the potential cumulative effects on peatland habitats due to habitat loss and/or disturbance was assessed. Consideration was given to the potential for losses of blanket bog and related habitats within the ‘supertope’ (a group of related formations of peat in a given region). In this case the relevant supertope has been taken as the Isle of Lewis. There are a number of operational, consented and proposed developments on the island, all of which will lead/have led to some loss of blanket bog and related habitats. This is considered to be a cumulative effect as a result of construction. After consideration of the potential disturbance of peatland versus the resource, and that many of these schemes will have peatland habitat management plans in place, no significant cumulative effects are predicted.
Ornithology
10.479 Cumulative effects on ornithology arising in combination with the operation of other windfarms were considered within Chapter 9 of the EIAR. Cumulative assessment of the potential effects of the windfarm is required at the scale of the Lewis Peatlands SPA for breeding red-throated divers, black- throated divers, golden eagles, merlins, golden plover, dunlin and greenshank. Cumulative assessment for all species of birds of the potential effects of the windfarm is required at the scale the Western Isles Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ 3).
10.480 The operation of all the operational and consented windfarms in the Outer Hebrides plus 14 turbines at Druim Leathann is predicted to potentially result in the cumulative loss of approximately 21-22 golden eagles over a period of 25 years, with the potential loss of less than one golden eagle per annum not expected to adversely affect the stability/viability of the population which will retain favourable conservation status. Consideration is also given to the risk of range abandonment and mitigation measures restricting operations within the sensitive part of the range are proposed. Further with a baseline of population increase likely since the 2015 census, the abandonment of this range were it to occur in conjunction with those two predicted at Muaitheabhal would not lead to a deterioration in the favourable conservation status for the species. There is no change to this prediction on account of the relocation of Turbine 12.
10.481 Cumulative assessment on red throated divers concludes a potential for the cumulative loss of approximately between 7 and 8 red-throated divers over a period of 25 years of which between 6 and 7 would form part of the SPA population. Both effects were considered of minor and negligible significance.
10.482 Overall collision risk calculations do not indicate any significant effects for any of the bird species, for the windfarm in isolation and cumulatively with other relevant windfarms, with the exception of the loss of 2-3 golden eagle ranges at the NHZ level resulting in a moderate effect. Further no adverse effects on the integrity of the Lewis Peatlands SPA are predicted. There is no change to this prediction on account of the relocation of Turbine 12.
10.483 Section 7 of the SI 2020 carried out an assessment of the effects on white tailed eagle following a period of survey, some details of which are contained in a confidential annexe. Collision risk calculations show that there would be no significant effects for white-tailed eagle, for the windfarm cumulatively with other relevant windfarms.
Noise
10.484 The cumulative effects of noise during operation with other nearby windfarms was assessed and focused on the effects in combination with the Tolsta community turbine. Tables 17 and 18 of Appendix 10.1 set out the cumulative noise predicted to be achieved at all wind speeds at each of the assessment locations (5 properties). The assessment state further, that the calculations of cumulative noise levels assume that all receptors are downwind of all wind turbines, which would only occur in what are described as ‘a limited set of conditions (westerly winds)’. No further mitigation is proposed with satisfactory control of cumulative noise immission levels stated as to be achieved through enforcement of the individual consent limits for each of the individual windfarms Cumulative noise effects are therefore assessed to be acceptable and not significant.
Traffic and Transport
10.485 On the basis that no there are no other proposed windfarms are likely to be under construction at the same time as Druim Leathann which are likely utilise the same public road routes no cumulative effects are predicted or assessed
Heritage
10.486 The windfarm will not result in any effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets, therefore no cumulative effects will occur.
Socio economics
10.487 While Chapter 13 of the EIAR states that the windfarm will contribute to the ‘needs case’ for the proposed interconnector, this is understood to not be the case. Further the cumulative assessment includes for predicted positive cumulative effects arising from a ‘community benefit’. Such benefits cannot be secured through planning, are not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account in this planning assessment.
Other
10.488 The EIAR and SI found no other predicted cumulative impacts of significance either positive or negative.
Assessment
10.489 Each of the predicted cumulative impacts assessed has followed consideration of the impacts on that topic or issue in isolation. The Proposed Development, consistent with the settlement of Tolsta, has a geographical separation from other populated areas in Lewis. Therefore having reviewed the findings of the EIAR and SI it is considered fair that the consideration of cumulative assessment is required in relation to the above topics only.
10.490 It should be noted that while the noise assessment considers that the cumulative predicted noise levels are unlikely to fully occur in practice for many conditions, it should be noted that a south westerly wind is the prevailing wind and at higher wind speeds there is a predicted noise imission level of 38.1 at the house East View, against the daytime limit of 38..As this is a single property and there will be a degree of margin in the assessment the overall prediction of no significant cumulative effect after application of mitigation is considered fair notwithstanding the statements made in the EIAR.
10.491 Of the cumulative effects, the only significant effect of the windfarm when the effects are considered in cumulation with other windfarms developments, after application of mitigation arises for visual impact as set out above.
Conclusion of Assessment against the Local Development Plan and Wind Energy Development SG
10.492 Having reviewed the provisions of the OHLDP and the SG as detailed in the above assessment the Proposed Development is considered to not be in accordance with the Comhairle’s adopted Local Development Plan in that it does not conform to Policy DS1: Development Strategy and Policy NBH1: Landscape, nor with the Development Policies for windfarms (Landscape and Visual impact and Community Amenity) nor with the allied spatial strategy for windfarms sited in ‘Areas of Constraint’.
10.493 This is on account of the proposed windfarm being sited on land within 1 and 2km of the Tolsta settlement edge contrary to these policies which seek that windfarms should be located at a distance of at least 2km from settlements and further on account of localised but significant impacts on landscape character, significant and adverse effects on visual amenity of views on approach to and from within the settlement of Tolsta, with major long term impacts that cannot be mitigated further being evidenced through a conclusion of:
• A significant adverse localised operational impact on the site itself, the Boggy Moorland landscape character type (LCT), the Rocky Moorland LCT, the Crofting 1 (Gently sloping crofting) and Crofting 2 (Linear crofting)LCT’s of Tolsta.
• A major long term operational impact (the top band of severity) on viewpoints including Tolsta Village Hall and from the Heritage Trail in New Tolsta as well as on views on approach to and from within the settlement of Tolsta as evidenced by additional visualisations submitted in support of SI (2020) from a viewpoint at New Street, and from the B895 road on approach to Tolsta Glen
• A high magnitude of change in the residential visual amenity of 122 residential properties (classed as sensitive receptors) resulting in significant visual effects for more than half the houses in Tolsta, New Tolsta and Glen Tolsta, but accepting that no house would experience such harm to ‘living conditions’ that it would become widely regarded as an unpleasant place to live. This tolerance is set at a very ‘high bar’ and it is not one that would be arrived at in all but exceptional circumstances e.g. houses that were almost under the turbines or where the turbines sat high on a ridge above them, but the large number of properties predicted to be affected is noteworthy.
MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy
11.1 Both NPF 3 and SPP 2014 predate the preparation of the OHLDP 2018 and SG 2018 and therefore informed the preparation of these policy documents. The terms of this national policy and guidance has therefore been referred to in the main planning policy assessment at Section 10 above. The issue that merits comment is the SPP guidance on Spatial Frameworks for windfarms. This guided that Planning authorities were to set out in the development plan a spatial framework identifying those areas that are likely to be most appropriate for onshore wind farms as a guide for developers and communities. For areas of significant protection that guidance was that on account of ‘community separation for consideration of visual impact an area not exceeding 2km around cities, towns and villages identified on the local development plan with an identified settlement envelope or edge. The extent of the area will be determined by the planning authority based on landform and other features which restrict views out from the settlement.
11.2 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar having considered the guidance for areas of significant protection (termed in the Comhairle SG as areas of Constraint (Wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances), adopted a 2km buffer for community separation from windfarms on account of the relatively low lying landscape and lack of screening from vegetation or topography. As noted within Section 10.17 there is however a ‘Consented Development’ for wind turbines of a defined parameter which are the subject of an extant planning permission on the site. This consent and the spatial policy provisions are not reconcilable. Therefore while the SPP guidance on spatial strategy for windfarms within 2km of settlements is a material consideration that weighs against this proposal it does not, as discussed in response to the development Plan, alter the fact that the ‘principle of development’ of a windfarm on this site has already been established. That however is not to say that any scale of wind turbine is acceptable for any windfarm proposed on the site and therefore there is a need for consideration of the Proposed Development on its own merits, but also in the context of the Planning History and a need for a comparison with the Consented Development.
Views of Statutory and other Consultees
11.3 The views of statutory consultees and other consultees are defined as a material consideration in Circular 3/2013 Development Management Procedures. The views of all consultees and in particular NatureScot, SEPA, HES, Scottish Water and aviation stakeholders have been considered and given due weight in the assessment of the planning application.
Public Representations
General
11.4 The contribution of the public to the scrutiny of development proposals is an important and valued part of the planning process, but there can be a mis-understanding that a volume of representations for or against are determinative factors. This is not the case. Planning decisions are made on the basis of an assessment against the policy provisions of the adopted Development Plan, followed by consideration and weight given to material planning considerations (which include matters raised in representation). When weight is given to material planning considerations, this may indicate that a decision be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan.
11.5 This planning application, EIA Report and the Supplementary Information were advertised, inviting public comment, as required by regulations. In response a total of 380 representations were received. While broadly 292 were in support and 87 raised opposition and one neutral, there were many, on both sides, who submitted a signed proforma ‘campaign’ letter that raised duplicate issues. Representations for and against a proposal may be founded on matters which are not material to planning and it is worth noting that it is the particular issues that are raised in representations, rather than the number for or against a proposal, that fall to be assessed for their planning merit.
Planning History
11.6 Representations in favour cite that the application seeks to make the best use of an already consented site with limited additional impact.
11.7 Comment: The planning history is set out at Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 above. The planning history of a site is a material consideration and in this case carries weight in favour of the development as there is an extant planning permission for a windfarm of defined parameters. Consideration is given at the end of this section of the report, considering material considerations, on the planning history, the extant consent and the difference in impacts arising from the Proposed Development when considered against the ‘fallback’ position of the Consented Development.
Location of Development
11.8 Representations against cite contravention of planning policy due to the proximity of the windfarm to the settlement and houses. Representations cite that the EIA document produced on behalf of FORSA: ‘16 Summary of Significant Effects’ identifies ‘significant effects on visual amenity’ (16.10). It also identifies significant visual effects (16.11). It is clear therefore the development is detrimental to villagers in terms of health, amenity, visual and environmental impacts. In addition, as stated in previous planning documentation, ‘most turbines are sited less than 1.5kms from households in breach of the council’s own guidelines. Latest Eilean Siar guideline indicates a minimum distance of 2.0kms. The application therefore has to be contrary to the Eilean Siar Development Plan.
11.9 Comment: paragraphs 10.6 to 10.16 above, address the issue of location of the development within 1km of the settlement while the considerations of residential amenity including residential visual amenity are set out in paragraphs 10.370 to 10.401. The location of the Proposed Development is a material consideration. Notwithstanding the acknowledgement that the proposed windfarm would be sited within 1km of the settlement, in conflict with the 2km policy position it is the case that the former decision by the Comhairle to grant planning permission for a similar windfarm on this site, means that the use of the site for a windfarm development has already been conceded. The Consented Development has planning permission and could be implemented.
Residential Visual Amenity Assessment
11.10 Representations against the development cite from the developers EIAR assessment of RVAA that ‘as a result of the proposed development, none of the residents (or receptors) would experience effects on the visual component of their residential amenity (or ‘living conditions’) which would be generally or widely considered as being ‘so overbearing and detrimental to living conditions that the property would become an unpleasant place to live.’ They state that this is a purely subjective opinion, and is in fact absurd under the circumstances. There is a sizeable elderly native population living in the village who would find the scheme overbearing and detrimental.
11.11 Comment: 122 properties out of a total of the 248 properties assessed are predicted to experience a High magnitude of change in visual amenity from their property arising from the windfarm. It is considered unusual to have so many homes requiring to be assessed for proximity to a windfarm of this scale. The Landscape Adviser appointed by the Comhairle was not able to review the RVAA in the field but advised that she would dispute some of the statements in the EIAR. She stated that in her experience of reviewing many wind farm applications across Scotland, the very close proximity of so many residential properties in Tolsta to the windfarm proposal is unusual, as wind farms are commonly located in upland areas lying at greater distances from an entire settlement. It was also noted that in the EIAR section headed ‘Context to the Assessment’ it appears selective in only citing appeal decisions where reporters concluded there would not be an overbearing effect on residential properties; there are other appeal decisions where reporters have concluded that an overbearing effect on a residential property would occur.
11.12 While the views expressed by laypersons are concerning, it is the case that the assessment of detriment to living conditions and the test applied of ultimate harm to living conditions as a result of a windfarm is subjective and is set as a very ‘high bar’ in decisions on similar cases nationally. The RVAA has been carefully scrutinised in this assessment as set out in paragraphs 10.375 to 10.401 above as this is a matter of understandable concern to residents. That scrutiny concurs with the conclusion that no house or group of houses would be compromised such that it would become an unpleasant place to live but that in itself does not take away from the fact that half the houses will on account of the predicted change in views and visual amenity as experienced from homes and private gardens experience a significant effect. This level of significant negative effect on so many properties is a material planning consideration and one that carries weight against the proposal.
Part of the case for the inter connector
11.13 Representation query whether this is an Inter-connector contributory project. ‘Why should Tolsta be used as a sacrifice for the laying of the interconnector, when 140m turbines are planned to be located little more than 1km from households’.
11.14 Comment: The Druim Leathann Windfarm is not a key project in making the business case for the Western Isles radial interconnector. The site has been chosen by a Developer and the Planning Authority is required to assess any competent application for development presented to it within the statutory and policy framework as set out in planning law. The issues related to 1km distance are discussed further in the comments on ‘Location of Development’ at paragraphs 11.8 and 11.9 above.
Climate change
11.15 Representations state ‘There is a need for more renewable energy; the development could power over 25,000 homes with renewable electricity’.
11.16 Comment: The climate change benefits of the proposal are discussed in paragraphs 10.23 to 10.36 above. These are a significant material consideration in favour of the Proposed Development.
Economic Impacts – Jobs
11.17 Representations have been made for and against the proposal in terms of job creation potential. Representations for the proposal state that the Outer Hebrides are in need of economic investment to boost the local economy and create employment opportunities while those against state that few if any jobs will be created in Tolsta as a direct result of this development being operational, other than possibly at the construction stage and to suggest otherwise is at best misleading. Those against the proposal go on to state that there is no proof that the farm will be of any economic asset to the island and certainly there will be no work for our future young people. In the previous application no mention was made of any training programme and future employment opportunities. Questions are asked as to what is the social benefit to Lewis?
11.18 Comment: An assessment of the economic effects presented in the EIAR is set out at paragraphs 10.43 to 10.65. That assessment is based on the advice of colleagues in economic development who have reviewed the proposal and confirmed that in their view, for the Construction stage Direct impacts are 4.0 FTE (3.2 FTE in the local economy); with additional Indirect Construction impacts of 6.08 FTE, a predicted total 9.28 FTE for construction phase and for Operational stage direct impacts are 4.0 FTE (3.2 FTE in the local economy); Additional indirect Operational impacts of 5.44 a predicted total of 8.64 FTE, a total of 17.92 jobs over both the construction and 25 year operation of the proposed windfarm.
11.19 This would result in a minor positive benefit and a material consideration in favour of the Proposed Development.
Economic – tourism
11.20 Representations cite that the proposed windfarm development will discourage tourists from visiting the island and that the projected benefits should be weighed against present income enjoyed by the Outer Hebrides of £65million pounds annually through tourism, much of it environmental tourism, and the [negative] impact that this and other potential and already consented windfarms will have on that tourist trade.
11.21 Comment: The impact on windfarms on Tourism is discussed in paragraphs 10.54 to 10.65. It is concluded that having regard to experience nationally and without the benefit of experience of large scale windfarms locally that the impacts on tourism are unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the economy overall and would most likely be a neutral effect.
Landscape and visual effects
11.22 Representations cite a range of concerns in relation to the Landscape and visual impacts of the development:
• Turbines out of scale with landscape; 3 times the size of the Butt Lighthouse and their huge bulk and number will have a detrimental visual effect on the landscape.
• The turbine tips and blades on a moor 100m above AOD will mean that windfarm with 140m turbines will envelop Muirneag Hill at 248m high.
• The beauty of the two beaches, Ghearadha and Traigh Mhor will not be enough to counteract the visually dominating sheath of such massive turbines. Having studied the projected photos the new larger blades certainly from an artist perspective come nowhere near perfect proportions and are inelegantly top heavy.
• From the Heritage Trail beyond Ghearadha Beach they are truly shocking.
• Tolsta is unique among Lewis villages as it features each definable landscape typologies across the islands concentrated in one area. This application will destroy that.
• The visualisations do not take account of the winter months when there is no foliage to screen the wind farm or the fact that the sun is low on the horizon.
11.23 Comment: Each of the points raised above have been considered in the response to the policy assessment on Landscape and visual effects at set out at paragraphs 10.80 to 10.129 above. It is acknowledged that the proposed turbines are out of scale with the proposed landscape and will have a significant adverse localised effect on each of the landscape typologies and overall on landscape character and significant impacts from Viewpoints 1, Tolsta Village Hall, Viewpoint 3, Heritage Trail, SI VP2 – New Street, Tolsta and SI VP3 – B895 Glen Tolsta. Given the scale of the turbines sitting above the landform summer foliage will do little to limit these significant effects. The landscape and visual effects of the proposal are a material consideration of significant effect that weighs against the application for the Proposed Development.
Turbine lighting
11.24 Representations cite that turbine lighting will create night pollution in the dark winter skies.
11.25 Comment: turbine numbers 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13 and 14 are to be fitted with obstacle warning lighting on account of aviation safety requirements as advised by HIAL and the MOD. While this is a material consideration and it is acknowledged that the wind turbines will introduce lighting into an otherwise dark sky it is unlikely to have such an impact that it could be classed as significant. Lighting conditions can be used to manage external lighting at the proposed sub-station to that which is necessary for health and safety purposes.
Borrow pits
11.26 Representations cite that the proposed Borrow pits would be insufficiently screened.
11.27 Comment: It is acknowledged that during construction there will be visibility of the borrow pits to a small number of houses in New Tolsta and the northern part of North Tolsta. This has been discussed in the section above on residential visual amenity. While these views will have an adverse effect on residential visual amenity, this will be for the construction period and the post construction site restoration which can be secured by condition, would ensure that the borrow pits be reinstated.
Transformer building
11.28 Representations cite concerns re the scale of the transformer buildings at 12 high and 30m long in scenic Glen Tolsta.
11.29 Comment: This transformer building, termed the SHETL sub-station has been deleted from the proposal. The remaining substation is of more domestic proportions being 5.5m high to the ridge and has been re-positioned 500m west of Lochside. A scheme of landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of it could be secured by condition.
Shadow flicker
11.30 Representations cite that the increased blade length would inevitably add to the ‘flicker’ effect and that a flicker will be generated at night from the blades rotating against the air safety lights.
11.31 Comment: It is accepted that on account of the increased blade length, the Proposed Development introduces the potential for shadow flicker effects that were not predicted for the Consented Development. However the developer has proposed a software solution, accepted as satisfactory form of mitigation, following the advice of colleagues in Environmental Health. The effects are therefore ‘neutralised’ by the mitigation. The blades passing the hub mounted lighting on seven of the fourteen turbines will create a nighttime visual effect but at the rotation speed of the blades, night-time flicker is unlikely and the concerns re undesirable effects, while noted, unlikely to be significant.
Noise
11.32 Representations cite large scale noise pollution and state that turbine blade noise from the existing 900kW turbine, can be heard clearly depending on the wind direction even outwith the 1.5 km distance guideline and therefore it can be expected that the cumulative noise levels resulting from the 14 x 140m turbines located not much more than 1km from households will be even greater. Concerns are raised around the expected cumulative noise from these 14 monster turbines with increased in blade length, not much more than a 1KM away from housing.
11.33 Comment: It is acknowledged that greater physical distance between the windfarm and the village would give residents more comfort on the risk of cumulative operational noise. Similarly with construction noise. However an assessment of Noise impacts both construction and operational has been carried out and set out within the EIAR. The findings have been examined by colleagues in Environmental Health and the assessment, which relies upon that advice has been set out in Paragraphs 10.189 to 10.193 above.
Lewis Peatlands RAMSAR site - bog habitat, hydrology and peat
11.34 Representations cite adverse effect on the adjacent SAC and Ramsar site - watercourses; draining peatlands constructing roads and infilling vast quantities of concrete; also that the proposed turbine bases will have to be slightly increased as a result of the extra heights proposed for the turbines and their blades [resulting in greater bog habitats loss and greater peat disturbance].
11.35 Comment: Consideration has been given to the effects of the development on the adjoining Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site and an Appropriate Assessment has been carried out. It has been concluded that there is no hydrological connectivity between the windfarm site and the Lewis Peatlands SAC and therefore there will be no adverse effect. Notwithstanding this it is acknowledged that the site is largely a bog habitat with a greater area loss of the habitat but with a slightly lesser volume of peat soil disturbed and lost on account of a different foundation design. NatureScot and SEPA have both been consulted and based on their advice it is concluded that the damage and disturbance can best be addressed through the works being carried out in accordance with a Peat Management Plan, restrictions on micro-siting to avoid adverse impacts on areas of deep peat and an appropriate Habitat Management Plan. This is a matter which is taken into account in the planning balance.
Trees
11.36 Representations raise concern around cutting down trees that have taken decades to mature to current height.
11.37 Comment: The assessment on trees and approach to mitigation for their loss is set out at paragraphs 10.293 to 10.299.
Road safety and transportation Impacts
11.38 Detailed representations have been submitted by both the Back Community Council and by third parties on the risk of traffic delays, emergency service delays, disruption and attendant life threatening risks, potential danger, noise and disturbance to residents in Tolsta, Gress, Back, Tong, Newmarket, and Stornoway from the volume and frequency of heavy good vehicles during construction, more specifically the logistics of moving the huge component parts of the turbines; abnormal loads amounting to a slow rolling road block, and too wide to allow another vehicle to pass.
11.39 There are specific concerns around the movement of traffic through the village with at least one mile particularly narrow, without a firm substructure, no extended support to retain the sides and not suited to volumes of traffic or construction traffic including Heavy Articulated Vehicles, Earth Moving Vehicles, Heavy Cranes, Tippers, Cement Mixers.
11.40 The representations cite that ‘From No 32 North Tolsta down to the Post Office it travels along the side of a very steep hill and the constant day long vibrations from these very heavy vehicles could seriously affect its stability. The large church at the top of the hill, opposite No 32, and indeed all the homes on the left side of the road can only exacerbate the situation. The homes on the right are so close and the hill so steep it would preclude support being added to that side. So if the road collapsed at some point, or even a vehicle ran off the road it could result in homes being demolished’.
11.41 Comment: The details of the representations were sent to the developer who responded with detailed responses, a copy of which is appended at Appendix 6 to this Report and a PowerPoint presentation illustrating how the same issues had been addressed in Dumfries and Galloway where the final stage of the Turbine components delivery route included a 6-kilometre section of unclassified single-track road. The average surfaced width of the road was 3.5 metres, which was widened to a minimum of 4.0 metres by the use of verge reinforcement, new bridge installed including road improvements with additional passing places and road widening and surfacing.
11.42 The concerns of the affected communities can be understood. It should be clarified that there is no intention to transport any of the windfarm components through the village of Tolsta. In summary it is considered that subject to the management of conditions and the terms of a legally binding planning agreement which requires for the developer to undertake and fund such works as are deemed necessary to accommodate the transportation of components and general construction related traffic, it is considered that the matter while a material consideration does not carry weight against the Proposed Development.
Ornithology
11.43 Representations cite that the Baseline Information and data to inform EIA was out of date; It is stated that there are concerns that there will be changes to the bird interest on site since field surveys were undertaken 2011-2013 and the data was over 5 years old contrary to SNH (NatureScot) guidance. Associated with this was concern around bird disturbance impacts during construction
11.44 Comment: It is accepted that notwithstanding the further monitoring for white tailed eagle breeding and use of the site that the baseline data is more than 5 years old. However following consultation by the developer with NatureScot (then SNH) this data was confirmed as acceptable to NatureScot (refer to table 2.1 in Section 2 of the EIAR) who are the statutory consultee on ornithological matters. It confirmed that subject to collision risk mortality including the latest avoidance rates for red-throated diver, reassessment of golden eagle range abandonment as T14 was consented and updating risk to increasing white-tailed eagle population, the baseline data was considered sufficient to arrive at a decision on impact and mitigation. Furthermore, arising from the SI 2020, mitigation is to include pre- construction preparation of a Bird Protection Plan (BPP), devised in consultation with SNH to be in place prior to the onset of construction activities. The BPP will describe survey methods for the identification of sites used by protected birds and will detail protocols for the prevention, or minimisation, of disturbance to birds as a result of activities associated with the windfarm. The BPP will be overseen by the Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW).
11.45 The BPP will describe surveys to locate the nests or other key sites (e.g. roosts) of birds listed in Schedules 1 and 1A of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, in advance of construction works progressing within the Site. In the event that an active nest or roost of a Schedule 1 or Schedule 1A species is discovered within distances given by Whitfield et al. (2008) (or within a 500 m radius of the nest for Schedule 1 species not listed), a disturbance risk assessment will be prepared under the BPP and any measures considered necessary to safeguard the breeding site or roost (e.g., exclusion zones or restrictions on timing of works), will be submitted to SNH for agreement before recommencing work.
11.46 Representations made by RSPB Scotland and others question the impact assessment/cumulative assessment for all species but in particular Golden Eagle; state that golden eagles are protected under Schedules 1A and A1 under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly harass these species at nesting and roost sites throughout the year; .that Turbine 14 is located within the advised 1000m disturbance free distance of a golden eagle nest site territory and raise concerns of potential territory range abandonment by Golden Eagles. .RSPB object and request that Turbine 14 is removed or moved to a distance greater than 1000m from the eagle nest site to minimise risk of territory abandonment.
11.47 Representations were also initially submitted on lack of data and risk of disturbance to a breeding pair of white tailed eagles. The SI 2020 included the subsequent survey and assessment and proposed mitigation to address the risks to that species.
11.48 Representations also raised concern around an alternative methodology predicting a lesser impact on red-throated diver than that predicted for the Consented Development (less effect due to a change in the % avoidance rate used for the collision risk calculations). Using the same avoidance rate as for the Consented Development (98% avoidance) predicts a loss of 8.8 (rather than 2.2) red-throated divers over 25 years from the current proposal compared to 7.75 for the Consented Development and a loss of approximately 2 red-throated divers from the Lewis Peatlands SPA population.
11.49 Comment: The assessment of the impacts on Golden Eagle, including mortality from collision events and from range abandonment have been considered and assessed in Chapter 9 of the EIAR. Following consultation with NatureScot and consideration of mitigation by condition given the extant consent for Turbine 14, comment is provided at paragraphs 10.258 to 10.261 and paragraphs 10.283 and 10.284 above which addresses this representation. Further, following submission of a year’s worth of vantage point and breeding season field survey by the developer as contained within the SI 2020, NatureScot was consulted and advised that the impact on the White tailed Eagle nest site can be satisfactorily addressed by recommended suspensive conditions (Turbine 13 and its associated infrastructure, shall not be constructed until it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority, in consultation with SNH, that no White-tailed Eagle breeding attempts have been made within 500m of the T13 location (NGR 151534, 946280) for the five consecutive years immediately preceding the construction of this turbine).;further conditions re timing and method statements regarding Turbines 11 and 12 and noting the removal of one substation and relocation of the remaining substation. With the application of these conditions and revisions to layout the risk of disturbance arising from construction and operation of the turbines will be minimised.
11.50 The comment on collision risk calculations for Red-throated Diver is noted but does not alter the conclusions of the assessment.
Water catchment
11.51 Representations cite that there is insufficient mitigation given the close proximity of the proposed development to a public water supply reservoir (Loch Ionadagro) and part of the catchment area for that reservoir.
11.52 Comment: The assessment of impact on water resources is set out in Paragraphs 10.335 to 10.348 of the report. It is considered that subject to mitigation in terms of a Habitat Management Plan, Pollution Prevention Plan and a CDEMP that there are adequate safeguards to protect the water catchment area.
Site reinstatement
11.53 The provisions for re-instatement of the site at the end of the operational life of the windfarm are too thin, lacking real means of enforcement. Bond required to be held on deposit.
11.54 Comment: The proposed conditions provide for site reinstatement but the bond required to ensure funds are in place to do this is secured through a section 75 planning obligations agreement.
Quality of life and health
11.55 Representations cite that the proposed development could have a detrimental effect on the well-being and quality of life of the residents and the whole Tolsta community. Representations state that this impact has been intensified by the Council decision to allow turbines well within its own 2km buffer zone and to weaken noise level requirements; that as a result, some homes will lie little more than one kilometre from turbines potentially more than 450ft high and concern that further detriment will result if the current application is approved.
11.56 Comment: The issues around the location of development are set out in paragraphs 10.9 to 10.18 and the impacts on residential amenity at paragraphs 10.370 to 10.428. It is acknowledged that the proposed turbines are larger and a comparison is made between the Consented and Proposed Developments below.
11.57 Representations cite the potential adverse health issues arising, from proximity to wind turbines, as reported in various European medical publications. These include the possible adverse health effects on people resulting from blade movement and noise e.g. sleep disturbance, raised blood pressure, increase in heart disease and problems with memory and concentration, thus impacting on the quality of life of people, and especially of children.
11.58 Comment: The assessment of effects of the windfarm on population and human health has been undertaken within Chapter 15 of the EIAR and are assessed at paragraphs 10.464 to 10.472 above.
Process
11.59 Lack of consultation /Accessibility of information to older people and less technical. Many in Tolsta are surprised at this revised application, and like myself, did not know about the original application.
11.60 Comment: The development being classed as a major development requires that at least 12 weeks prior to the making of an application that a developer carries out at least one public consultation event which requires to be advertised in the local press. The document titled ‘Pre-Application Consultation Report’ dated May 2018 sets out at Section 3 the historic community consultation and at Section 4 the consultation process adhered to for the current application which is in accordance with the statutory requirements. A Non-Technical Summary of the EIAR was made available on-line and was available on request from the developer. The statutory requirements are therefore met. Notwithstanding this it is acknowledged that there is a real challenge not just for older people but for lay people generally to find, absorb and consider the scale and complexity and have the time needed to consider the information presented to support major developments assessed through EIA. That is not peculiar to this project but a challenge to how to better increase public engagement in planning generally.
Determination route
11.61 Representations cite that the application should be determined by Scottish Government as since the initial application was lodged there have been a succession of amendments involving increased output or blade size. Representations state that ‘The most recent increase is an extension of 14 metres to each of 42 blades all to generate a miniscule 2 MW increase in output. That makes no economic sense. I suggest that the output projected in the current application is well under potential capacity and that there has been a strategic decision by the developer to declare an output below 50MW. This will allow the application to be decided by the local authority rather than Scottish Government. Output above 50MW would require referral to SG under Section 36 resulting in more demanding requirements, for example in relation to shared ownership and the protection of people and the environment. Once the turbines are operational the output can be increased without government scrutiny. This may increase over 50MW especially if a higher rated generator was fitted? By the time the increased output power was apparent, the Druim Leathann scheme would be up and running with the upgrade all done under the radar – i.e. another case of ‘A non-material variation to increase the generating capacity’?
11.62 Comment: The Determination route for large scale wind proposals is set by Government; it is the case that a large scale windfarm with an output prediction of less than 50MW falls to be determined by the Comhairle acting in its capacity of Planning Authority. The proposal has been subject to the scrutiny set out in planning law and regulation. It is for the Planning Authority to consider all the facts of the case within the statutory and policy planning framework.
Developer v Community
11.63 Representations against cite that the applicant is an American private equity fund and that the proposal should be one led by the community while those in favour point out that the Community would not have the borrowing power to take forward the development.
11.64 Comment: The planning authority is required to determine each application made to it for planning permission. Material planning considerations do not extend to who a developer is or what their motives are for advancing a development.
Other matters – non material
11.65 A range of matters were raised that are considered to be non-material to the making of a planning decision. These include the risk to a reduction in the value of property in the area, risk to the aggravation of livestock; the number of people in support versus the number of people opposed to the development; whether or not there is genuine community support; also community benefit payments/fund and the direct and induced employment arising from this (the reasoning addressed in Paragraph 10.66 above).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
12.1 With the exception of the Planning History of the site (discussed further below) each of the material planning considerations has been assessed and given due consideration. The material considerations do not counter the conclusion that the Proposed Development is contrary to the Development Plan. It is necessary to first conclude on the assessment of the Proposed Development (initially in the absence of the Planning History) and for that purpose an overall assessment is made of the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development, both positive and negative.
12.2 Thereafter, acknowledging that the site has a Planning History and an extant planning permission for the Consented Development, and the need to consider the degree of weight to be allocated to that, a comparison is made on the significant effects of the Consented development with the significant effects of the Proposed Development (as a means of narrowing down the differences to aid the giving of weight to the Planning History of the site. It is also relevant to consider the policy changes that have taken place since the development was initially consented in March 2014.
12.3 The Report concludes with a discussion on the overall planning balance, conclusion of the assessment and recommendation.
Overall assessment of likely significant effects
12.4 Consideration is first given to the positive, negative and neutral impacts of the development as now proposed in order to weigh up the relevant factors in a balance to consider the Proposed Development, ‘on its own merits’.
Positive impacts
12.5 The positive benefits of the Proposed Development are both global and local.
12.6 The climate change benefits of the windfarm contribute to the global and national targets. Following consideration of carbon losses and carbon offsetting the 14 turbine windfarm is predicted to result in a decarbonising of the national grid by an estimated 71,000 tonnes of CO2 per year and 1.76. Million tonnes of CO2 over the windfarm’s operational lifetime (assuming 25 years) resulting in a moderate (Positive) significant effect. It would also make a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which, together with the total carbon saving resulting from the proposal, are considered to be a main benefit of the proposal and per the EIAR accorded moderate weight in favour.
12.7 The net economic benefits of the proposal have been assessed for both the construction and operational phases of the windfarm. The creation of a total of 9.28 direct, indirect and induced full time equivalent jobs (FTEs) during construction and 8.64 FTEs over the 25 year operational period of the windfarm and totalling 18 FTE jobs is considered to be a minor positive effect per the EIAR and therefore also accorded moderate weight in favour.
Neutral effects
12.8 After application of mitigation, no significant effects are predicted in relation to: Noise; Shadow flicker, Television reception, Traffic and Transport; Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; Major Accidents and Disasters.
12.9 The development is considered unlikely to be significantly harmful to tourism and the costs and benefits result in a neutral effect. There would be no adverse effects on Human Health or Historic Resources.
Negative effects
12.10 The predominant aspect of significant effect is on visual amenity during the operation of the Proposed Development. There are moderate but significant impacts on visual amenity from viewpoints, from surrounding villages, from routes on the Eye Peninsula and from Tong and Muirneag Hill, but the major long term adverse significant effects are on view and visual amenity in and around the settlement of Tolsta, including two local walking routes. These effects are significant adverse against.
12.11 There will also be moderate but significant cumulative visual effects of the windfarm combined with other existing and planned windfarms on viewpoints at Tiumpan Head, Tong and Muirneag and on the small settlements along the Eye Peninsula. These effects are moderate significant against.
12.12 There will be localised but nevertheless significant impacts on the topographical, physical and perceived character of the site, and each of the four Landscape character types: Rocky Moorland 2, Boggy Moor 2, Crofting 1 and Crofting 2 LCT’s. These effects are moderate significant against.
12.13 An assessment was made of the impact of the windfarm on the residential visual amenity of the residential properties in Tolsta and while the ‘high bar’ test of ultimate harm to living conditions was not breached for any specific property, it requires to be noted that 122 properties, equivalent to half the properties in the village, are predicted to experience a high magnitude of change in visual amenity from their homes and private gardens. These effects are significant effects against.
12.14 A significant negative effect is predicted for the direct and indirect permanent losses from the proposed development’s impacts upon blanket bog habitat. These effects are significant effects against.
12.15 There are no significant effects predicted for impact on ornithological species other than the potential cumulative loss of up to 3 golden eagle ranges to displacement over 25 years in the context of the Natural Heritage Zone 3 is predicted for both the Consented and Proposed Developments. The potential loss of ranges is assessed as moderate significant moderate effect against.
Conclusion on Proposed Development (prior to consideration of the Planning History)
12.16 When consideration is given to the negative effects of the scheme and in particular the harm arising from the major long term adverse significant effects on views towards and from within the settlement of Tolsta, as evidenced from viewpoints, and the moderate but significant negative effect on views from surrounding villages, from routes on the Eye Peninsula and from Tong and Muirneag Hill, the localised Landscape impacts and the large number of homes with compromise to their residential visual amenity and these are weighed against the moderate economic benefits and the moderate carbon positive effects, these do not when weighed in the planning balance indicate that the proposed development should be granted planning permission. This is consistent with the November 2013 officer assessment of the proposal that now comprises the Consented Development.
12.17 Consideration and weight do however require to be given to the extant planning permission and the planning history together with the changes in the Policy context, since the proposal was initially assessed in November 2013. In order to consider the weight to be given to the planning history, a comparison is first made between the effects of the Proposed Development versus the effects of the Consented Development.
Changes to the policy context
12.18 In the intervening years, since the Consented Development was first approved Scottish Planning Policy has been updated, placing climate change and sustainable development at the heart of national policy guidance while also giving planning authorities the opportunity to set a buffer not exceeding 2km between a settlement edge and windfarms for consideration of visual impact on community amenity. The Scottish Government has strengthened its climate change targets and through its ‘Onshore Wind Policy Statement’ has lent weight to onshore wind as a technology crucial to decarbonising the energy system.
12.19 The ‘Onshore Wind Policy Statement’ sits alongside the national commitment to reduce Scotland's emissions of all greenhouse gases to net-zero by 2045 and lends support to measures to aid the sector in finding ‘routes to market’ including support for new more efficient and larger wind turbines machines to maximise the power output from any windfarm site. That policy support has underpinned this application for the proposed development on account of the candidate turbines for the Consented Developments becoming increasingly dated and likely to be a redundant technology before build dates for a windfarm on this site can be confirmed.
Planning History and comparison with the Consented Development
12.20 The Planning History of the site has been set out at Sections 5.1 to 5.6 above. Notwithstanding the conflict with the Comhairle’s Development Plan, the principle of constructing a windfarm on the application site requires to be accepted, on account of the former decision to grant planning permission. However, the extant planning permission has defined parameters and it does not override all other considerations. In order to aid the giving of weight to the Planning History of the site, it is helpful to compare the effects, both positive and negative, of the Proposed Development with those of the formerly Consented Development.
12.21 By way of context, it may be helpful, to first summarise the main differences between the windfarm components and the layouts of the Proposed and Consented Developments. The proposed candidate turbines have a tip height of 140m versus 126.5m; hub height 81.5m versus 80m; and rotor diameter of 117m versus 93m, resulting in the need for larger foundation and crane hard-standings. In terms of layout, one turbine T12 has been relocated 90m NNE of its original position and is marginally closer to village than in the consented layout. Two sub-stations were initially proposed in Tolsta Glen to the south of the site. The 12m high substation has been completely removed and a single sub-station building of larger foot-print but only 5.5m in height is repositioned to a new location within 500m of the settlement edge. Consideration is now given to the variance in environmental effect.
12.22 In terms of renewable energy output there would be an increase in capacity from the 42 MW (subsequently varied to 46.2MW), to 48.3MW. It is estimated that the Proposed Development would power the equivalent of 25,908 homes, the equivalent of 2000 more households than the Consented Development. This is a positive effect of the revised proposal.
12.23 In terms of carbon saving the windfarm as now proposed, the Proposed Development, is predicted to offer the same potential as the Consented Development, namely the potential to decarbonise the national grid by an estimated 71,000 tonnes of CO2 per year and 1.76 million tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime. This is a neutral effect.
12.24 The economic impacts and benefits are largely the same as the Consented Development. (It should be noted that benefits from any community benefit fund are excluded, as these are not material planning considerations). This is a neutral effect.
12.25 In terms of visual amenity effects a comparison of visualisations from key viewpoints shows that the increase in turbine height of 13.5m would not be appreciable in more distant views. However, in closer views in and around Tolsta, there would be some perceptible differences. The visual effects of the Consented Development on views from within and around the settlement (as evidenced by VP1: Tolsta Village Hall, VP3: Heritage Trail, New Tolsta and supplemented by two additional visualisations one from New Street, Tolsta and one on the approach to Glen Tolsta) were already predicted as major adverse and significant (and therefore already at the top band of severity). Appendix 3 includes a selection of visualisations from viewpoints in and around Tolsta to illustrate the difference in effects between the Proposed Development and the Consented Development. The changes arising from the Proposed Development are unlikely to alter the magnitude of change gauged in the LVIA as it was already at the ‘top band’ of severity. The intensification of adverse visual effect or the additional level of harm that would arise, is therefore ultimately a matter of subjective judgement, for the decision maker. This is a negative factor.
12.26 While the proposed changes will be notable in these close range views, they will however largely be more difficult to discern from more distant views and viewpoints. For two settlements, Coll and Sandwick, there would be Minor (not significant) visual effects. This is a minor change from the Consented Development for which Negligible/Minor (not significant) visual effects at these two settlements were predicted. This is considered a neutral factor.
12.27 In terms of the Landscape impacts, these are largely similar for both proposals, with effects on Boggy Moor 2 and Rocky Moorland 1, Crofting 2 LCT remaining as Moderate (significant) the same as predicted, for the Consented Development. However for the Crofting 1 LCT, locally, within approximately 2km of the turbines, there would be a Moderate (significant) landscape effect; formerly a Minor (not significant) landscape effect was predicted across the whole of the LCT. This is also considered a neutral factor.
12.28 In terms of geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and peat, focusing on permanent effects, land take of 11.21ha is now expected compared with 9.97 ha previously expected. These land take areas were not updated to reflect the 2020 changes but are predicted to be slightly less on account of one substation being removed. The additional land take within the drinking water catchment is 0.46% of the catchment. There is a marginal increase in the volume of peat excavation but overall no significant change in effect is predicted. This is considered a neutral factor.
12.29 Impacts on blanket bog habitat have increased in terms of area of permanent loss from 12.4ha to 13.57ha, an increase from 2.4% to 2.6% of the overall blanket bog macrotope but this does not change the overall finding with a significant effect predicted for both Consented and Proposed developments.. Indirect losses are also predicted to increase, with an additional 1.63ha affected compared to the Consented Development. This represents an effect covering 4.7% of the macrotope (compared to 4.4% with the Consented Development). As previously stated, this effect is considered to be significant. While there is no difference in effect between the consented and the proposed developments, it is also major significant and adverse and the change, albeit marginal, considered a negative factor.
12.30 There are some minor changes to the effects on the ornithological species but overall the proposed development does not result in any changes of effect of significance. Therefore, with the application of mitigation and ‘in the round’ there is no difference in effect on ornithological species, between the consented and the proposed developments. This is considered a neutral factor.
12.31 While noise and shadow flicker effects have potential to be greater before mitigation, the application of mitigation means that the residual impact would not be greater than predicted for the Consented Development. This is considered a neutral factor.
12.32 There is a slight variation in impacts predicted for aviation but subject to a legal agreement to manage impacts on the Met Office radar and management by conditions there would be no greater effect arising from the proposed development. This is considered a neutral factor.
12.33 The winning of rock from the working of borrow pits will result in same impacts and mitigation as the Consented Development as the maximum volume is predicted for excavation, for both the Consented and Proposed Developments. This is considered a neutral factor.
12.34 Traffic and transportation impacts will be greater as a result of the larger, longer and potentially heavier components associated with the proposed development but these impacts can be managed and mitigated using a Transport Management Plan and similar methods and controls to those imposed on the Consented Development. This is considered a neutral factor.
Planning balance and conclusion
12.35 It is very rarely that any developments is entirely without harm, or entirely without benefit. The role of planning is to identify the benefits and harms, within the context of the statutory decision making framework and weigh up the impacts in an overall planning balance.
12.36 The proposed development has been assessed against the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and found to be contrary to OHLDP Policies DS1: Development Strategy and Policy NBH1: Landscape, and also with the Development Policies for Windfarms (Landscape and Visual impact) and the allied spatial strategy for ‘Windfarms sited in Areas of Constraint’. The main conflicts arise from the proposed windfarm being located on land which lies between 1 to 2km from the settlement edge; contrary to the Comhairle policy recommending a separation distance of 2km, on the grounds of separation for visual impact and community amenity, the significant adverse effect on visual amenity and in particular from views in and around Tolsta, the localised but significant adverse effect on the site and Landscape Character and a negative effect from the loss of nationally important blanket bog habitat.
12.37 When these conflicts are weighed against the moderate positive benefits of carbon saving, contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction, the predicted minor positive effects from direct/indirect and induced jobs during construction and operation of the windfarm and minor benefits from additional tracks for leisure, recreation and tourism, it is difficult to argue that the benefits of a large scale windfarm on this site, would outweigh the negative effects.
12.38 However, the negative effects are largely localised and will be most acute in and around the site and the settlement of Tolsta while the benefits are global, national and local. Notwithstanding the change in policy context, in the absence of weight being given to the planning history of the site and the extant planning permission, the balance would in the officer’s judgement, fall against the granting of planning permission for the proposed development.
12.39 However, where there is an extant planning permission in place, that permission has to be considered as the ‘fall-back’ position and in that sense carries significant weight. A comparison has therefore been made of the change in effects both positive and negative between the Consented Development and the Proposed Development as set out in 12.19 to 12.33 above. The relevant considerations to be weighed in the balance allowing for the ‘fall back’ position of the Consented Development effectively amount to the positive benefits from a further reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with a predicted 2000 extra homes potentially powered by renewable energy on account of the higher output of the windfarm versus the additional level of harm or compromise on visual amenity as experienced, mainly in localised views from in and around Tolsta.
12.40 The decision on whether to grant or refuse planning permission for the proposed development is therefore very much in the balance. Consideration therefore requires to be given to the change in the Policy context in the intervening years since the Consented Development was first granted in March 2014. Those changes are set out at Paragraphs 12.17 to 12.18 above and while lending weight to the importance of on-shore wind as a technology and industry that will help achieve the Scottish Government’s net zero carbon targets, have strengthened the arm of Planning Authorities to set a buffer of up to 2km around settlements in recognition that the visual amenity of windfarms can be harmful to the affected communities. The Comhairle took a policy decision in 2016, to adopt an updated Supplementary Guidance, re-adopted in 2018 with the provision that on the grounds of both Landscape and Visual Impact and Community Amenity that Windfarms should be located at least 2km from Settlements. The Consented Development cannot be reconciled with that stronger policy position.
12.41 The decision to grant or refuse planning permission for the Proposed Development in 2021, is therefore based on a finely balanced judgement on the level of additional harm to localised visual amenity versus the benefits of powering a predicted 2000 homes with green energy, made in the context of Policy changes, both national and local since the Comhairle first made its decision to grant planning permission for the now Consented Development.
12.42 On balance, it is considered that when taken as a whole, the effects of the Proposed Development, would not be significantly more beneficial nor significantly more harmful than those that would arise from the Consented Development, notwithstanding that both the Proposed Development is, and at the time the Consented Development was, assessed as contrary to the Development Plan of the Comhairle and further that the policy position has strengthened in certain matters since 2014 (both for and against the proposal).
12.43 Therefore, largely as a consequence of the weight afforded to the extant planning permission being in place, (acknowledging that on balance, there is limited difference in the overall effects arising from the Proposed Development compared with the Consented Development), it is recommended that the planning application be approved, subject to management by way of conditions and the securing of other matters that are unable to be addressed by planning conditions within a Planning Obligations Agreement.
Recommendations
12.44 It is recommended that:
a) the planning application be APPROVED subject to:
i. the application of planning conditions, based upon the draft set of conditions provided in Appendix 1 to this Report; and
ii. the completion of a new or varied planning obligations Agreement under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (the Act), to address the matters contained in the original Agreement updated to reflect the Proposed Development and matters which merit change due to the passage of time
b) the Chief Executive be given delegated authority, in consultation with the Director of Development to conclude the Section 75 Agreement referred to in a) ii above within four months of the decision of the committee and where relevant to discharge the existing agreement following an application from the Developer once the new agreement has been registered.
c) A Direction be made under Section 58 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 the effect of which would be to direct that subsection 58 (1) of the Act is not to apply as respects the permission and instead that the permission is to lapse on the expiration of a 5 year period from the date upon which it is granted.