Argyll and Bute Council Planning and Regulatory Services
This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation regarding the proposed Upper Sonachan wind farm on Land at Land at Upper Sonachan Forest South East of Portsonachan Loch Awe (as amended by the submission of Further Environmental Information 12.09.16) ______
Our Reference No: 15/03175/S36
Applicant: Ecotricity
Proposal: Section 36 consultation relative to Upper Sonachan Wind Farm
Site Address: Land at Upper Sonachan Forest South East Of Portsonachan Loch Awe ______
(A) Section 36 application made up of the following elements:
• Erection of 18 wind turbines 136.5m high to blade tip (85m to hub, Rotor Diameter 103m) with an individual output of up to 3.4MW with a total installed capacity of 64.6MW. (Revised at Further Environmental Information (FEI) submission stage from initial proposal for 19 turbines); • Crane pad hard-standing areas adjacent to each turbine; • Formation of new onsite access tracks (approximately 5.5km) including 1.1km for the Forestry Link Road and approximately 10.3km of upgraded existing track together with formation of passing places and associated watercourse crossings; • On site control building underground cabling and an onsite grid connection sub-station (Revised substation location at FEI stage); • A permanent meteorological mast up to 85m in height and associated crane pad area; • Cable routes from turbines to the onsite substation; • Amended vehicular access off the A819. ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council as Planning Authority objects to this proposal for the reasons detailed below and that the Scottish Government be notified accordingly ______
(C) CONSULTATIONS:
Scottish Natural Heritage (Dated 9.3.16 and 25.10.16) - Objection. An consultation response dated 9.3.16 contained three reasons for objection founded around impacts upon golden eagles, carbon rich soils and landscape/visual considerations. However, following the submission of the FEI two of these reasons have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicants as set out below: Golden Eagles: The FEI July 2016 included the additional winter of bird survey work hence completing the overall survey and assessment. No additional eagle use of the wind farm area was recorded. Since March 2016 the proposed development of Balliemeanoch wind farm has been formally withdrawn. This removes the potential for cumulative impacts with that development. The FEI contained a revised PAT Model, an assessment of risks of impacts on the SPA and also answered the question over simultaneous view shed monitoring which may have impacted on collision risk modelling. Due to the above we are able to retract our objections made in section 2.2 and 2.3 of our previous response dated 9th March 2016. In addition we also advise that, in our view, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly of the Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required.
Carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat: We agree with the conclusion drawn in Ch.3 section 3.4.5 of the FEI July 2016 that the majority of the existing peatland resource will be tending towards a M19 habitat type (eg. disturbed from historical management). We advise that the measures cited in section 2.6 of our response dated 9th March 2016, which are refined further in FEI July 2016 appendix 5.1 page 9, should be implemented so as to achieve maximum mitigation in terms of reducing further disturbance and protecting residual pockets of M17 habitat.
The remaining reason for objection from SNH set out in their consultation response dated 25.10.16 is stated as being:
1. The proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of north Loch Awe, impacting on distinctive regional character and an important gateway into Mid Argyll and Lorn which contributes to national identity and sense of place.
2. SNH has not been able to identify any mitigation which will address this objection.
Scottish Natural Heritage have provided substantial expert commentary in respect of this proposal in their consultation responses dated 9 March 2016 (related to the proposal for 19 Turbines) and again on 25.10.16 in respect of the reduced proposal of 18 turbines submitted on 12.09.16 as part of the FEI. Members will be aware that it is the current policy of SNH not to deploy objections to wind farm developments other than in cases where development would lead to significantly adverse effects on the integrity of national designations, reserving their position in other cases of one of advice. Given that this proposal is not situated within a National Scenic Area and SNH have concluded that surrounding NSA’s would not be significantly prejudiced, it is therefore to be regarded as being exceptional for SNH to have been prompted to deploy a formal objection to this proposal, and careful particular attention should be given to the grounds upon which this objection has been founded.
Owing to the substantial and detailed nature of SNH’s response extracts are provided below which demonstrate the main issues and concerns raised:
The development mainly impacts on the north Loch Awe landscape. The SNH Landscapes of Scotland work and map shows that this area lies within the Regional Character Area (RCA) 44, “Mid Argyll and Lorn” http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/scotlands- landscapes/landscapes-varieties/. Key features of this landscape unit are the linear lochs, of which Loch Awe is the longest (being the longest freshwater loch in Scotland) and the diverse views with glimpses of the highlands; with Ben Cruachan a particular feature. It is considered this RCA makes a significant contribution to the distinctiveness and identity of Scotland’s landscape.
The proposed wind farm would be within, and viewed from, the regionally distinctive landscape of North Loch Awe, and would be prominent from popular mountain summits such as Ben Cruachan.
The wind farm is located within an Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) at the transitional edge area of the Craggy Upland Landscape Character Type 7 (LCT), and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c LCT. Such transitional areas of the Craggy Upland LCT are more sensitive to wind farm development, primarily because wind farms are tall structures that are likely to have an influence on adjoining landscape character types.
We advised at scoping that we considered that it would be extremely difficult to accommodate a wind farm at this site without significant effects that cannot be avoided, and that the proposal would result in adverse significant landscape visual and cumulative effects on a very sensitive landscape.
The proposal straddles the Craggy Upland LCT & and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c roughly equally (ES Figures 5.1a and 7.5a viewed together), with the turbines sited at the edge of the mapped Craggy Upland 7 LCT where it abuts the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c as shown in the LVIA figure 7.6a. The site location is contrary to the Capacity Study because the development would be prominent from open sections of Loch Awe, would be part of the immediate backdrop and setting of Loch Awe (LCT7) and would intrude into key views to and from the loch, its islands, historic features and panoramas of the mountains (LCT7c).
Having considered the landscape visual and cumulative effects of the proposal along with the Capacity Study guidance we consider that the proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the Capacity Study, both in terms of the Detailed Sensitivity Assessments (Chapter 5) and in the Summary of Findings and Conclusions (Chapter 8).
National Designations
The proposal has the potential to impact on the following national designations: Loch Lomond Trossachs National Park Ben Nevis and Glencoe National Scenic Area Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area
For Loch Lomond Trossachs National Park we advise that although the development would not affect the qualities for which it has been designated, it would however have an adverse effect from key elevated viewpoints within the Park, for example from VP9 Ben Lui, and also VP10 Ben Ime from which cumulative effects would be significant.
We consider that the development would not have a significant effect on the integrity of the Ben Nevis and Glencoe and the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Areas. Local Designations
The proposal is wholly within the North Argyll Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) and this local designation recognises the scenic value of the landscape. The APQ covers the head of Loch Awe and the mountains beyond, abutting National Designations and encompassing Wild Land Areas. We do not agree with the LVIA that significant effects on the North Loch Awe APQ would be limited to within 3km of the site, and we provide further advice on landscape character and also viewpoints that are within the APQ.
Wild Land Areas
We advise that the development has the potential to impact on Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area 9 and Ben Lui Wild Land Area 6. We do not consider that the LVIA has adequately assessed the potential effects on Wild Land Areas.
In addition we advise that the visual impact assessment from viewpoints within the Wild Land Areas understates the effects. We consider that there would be significant visual and cumulative effects from the Ben Cruachan area of the Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area, and significant cumulative effects from the Ben Lui Mountain group in the Ben Lui Wild Land Area. We provide more detailed advice on the impacts in our landscape, visual and cumulative advice below.
Given the assessment of effects from wild land area viewpoints in the LVIA we can understand why the LVIA wild land assessment finds effects to be moderate/minor on wild land areas as a whole. However we consider that the focus on the entire wild land area alone understates the effects of the development on Wild Land Areas 6 and 9. Whilst we agree with the LVIA that effects on the Wild Land Areas (6 and 9) as a whole are not likely to be significant we disagree with the assessments of effects on the those parts of the Wild Land Areas in closest proximity to the proposal.
Landscape Impacts
The Landscape character types referred to in our advice are those as published in the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012.
The wind farm is located at the transitional edge area between Landscape Character Types; the Craggy Upland 7, and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c, and in very close proximity to the Rocky Mosaic of North Loch Awe. At the head of Loch Awe further character types interlock to create a distinctive landscape including LCT2 High Tops and LCT4 Hidden and Mountain Glen.
We consider that the development will extend the influence of wind farms in the Craggy Upland LCT away from the interior of the Craggy upland into another transitional landscape area.
We advise that the predicted operational impacts of the proposal on landscape character would result in a significant landscape effect at and close to the site for Craggy Upland (LCT 7). In addition, landscape effects would be significant at North Loch Awe Craggy Upland LCT7c, where the wind farm would introduce detractors to focal points and panoramas adversely affecting the character of the head of Loch Awe. Affected Landscape character types at the head of Loch Awe would include parts of: North Loch Awe Craggy Upland LCT7c, Rocky Mosaic LCT20 at Loch Awe (North of the proposal), High Tops including and South of Ben Cruachan.
Visual Impacts
We advise that the proposal would have significant visual effects from the North Loch Awe area, including Ben Cruachan and its southern approaches. The North Loch Awe area is a gateway to North Argyll, in this area the distinctive linear loch is aligned north-east to south-west between the rugged upland hills and the route to the Isles follows the north shore of Loch Awe via the A85 trunk road and the railway.
We note that from the north of Loch Awe and from Ben Cruachan the proposed wind farm would be more visible and more prominent than the existing and consented wind farms, as well as those at scoping stage.
Our advice differs from the LVIA in the ES and we provide further advice on: North Loch Awe, Ben Cruachan,
North Loch Awe / Head of Loch Awe
The head of Loch Awe is represented by a range of viewpoints and as the ZTV shows the development is widely and extensively visible across the head of Loch Awe, even taking into account the effects of intervening screening of woodlands and buildings. We consider that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the head of the Loch from a range of places including: the A85 Trunk Road, Loch Awe Village, north-west shores of Loch Awe (including Taycreggan Hotel, sections of National Cycle Route 78/Core path C173, cultural heritage sites along the north-west shore (see figure 13.5 in the ES), Annat, Loch Awe open water and islands. In addition, taking into account proposed forestry management plans that we are aware of, we advise that there would be significant effects from Kilchurn Castle, exacerbated by the confusing layout and relationship of turbines (T11, T14, and T19) with the steep slope that frames the views of the Loch.
Ben Cruachan and surrounding mountains, including popular Munros
Ben Cruachan is a highly sensitive viewpoint within the Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area 9 and the APQ and is a very popular Munro. Cruachan Dam is also a local walk and a tourist walk promoted by the Cruachan Power Station Visitor Centre. The proposal would have a significant visual effect when viewed from Ben Cruachan and its usual approach/descent via Cruachan Falls and the Dam.
This is illustrated by viewpoints (VP) 1 and 2. From VP1 Ben Cruachan the development at 10km away would be very prominent and dominant in the view, in the foreground of the craggy upland across the Loch. It would be a detractor to the view from Ben Cruachan, where other operational and consented wind farms are distant and not a main feature of the view, and we consider that the visual effect would be significant. From VP2 the development would remain dominant and would occupy the medium range of the view to where the eye is drawn (away from Power Station pylons) to Loch Awe. The turbines would be viewed across the water of the Loch, above the settled shore with turbines very prominent and breaking the skyline. The wind farm would arguably be a new feature, given the distance, minor size and upland association of An Suidhe’s 84m turbines (operational) that are barely perceptible from this VP. We also note that from VP3 Cruachan Falls the wind farm layout is less than optimal, with westernmost turbines (T1 and T2) creating extremes of vertical variation
Effects from the Munros Ben Lui within the Ben Lui Wild Land Area 6 and Beinn Ime in Loch Lomond Trossachs National Park are covered in our advice on cumulative impacts, below.
Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts
The LVIA identifies no significant cumulative effects as a result of this proposal. Our assessment disagrees with this; we consider that there would be significant cumulative effects. We consider that the cumulative assessment has been undertaken with a flawed methodology and/or poor knowledge of the local area. For example; from a range of viewpoints the study states that no other wind farms can be seen; when in the field turning the head round they are clearly visible (VP13 Loch Awe Open Water, VP14 Loch Awe Boats, VP18 Fernoch) - see also comments in section 11 below.
The predicted extent and pattern of visibility within the study area will be much more extensive than that already arising from Carraig Gheal, Beinn Ghlas and An Suidhe, and this is shown clearly on the cumulative ZTV maps in the LVIA (Figures 7.20d, 7.20h, 7.20j). In terms of the cumulative baseline, even including scoping schemes on the south Loch Awe Craggy Upland, then the ZTV mapping shows how much more extensive the visibility of Upper Sonachan would be on North Loch Awe in addition to other schemes, for example the nearby Balliemeanoch and Blarghour wind farms.
We advise that cumulative effects would be significant from Eastern Munros, Ben Cruachan Area, Beinn Lora, North Loch Awe (mainly the open water).
Eastern Munros
We advise that cumulative visual effects, as viewed from Ben Ime (VP10) in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park would be considerable and significant. From this viewpoint, Upper Sonachan would occupy the mid-ground and sit within the current gap between the existing foreground proposal (Clachan Flats), and those more distant; the nearest being Carraig Gheal and Beinn Ghlas.
In addition, from Ben Lui (VP9) in the Ben Lui Wild Land Area 6, the proposal would place windfarm development closer into view, with a different layout and with large turbines associated with the Loch, with cumulative effects bordering on significant. We advise that these elevated views from the east illustrate that the wind farm is in a fundamentally poor location in terms of cumulative effects.
Mitigation We advise that the impacts of Upper Sonachan wind farm, including those on the head of Loch Awe and the popular Munro Ben Cruachan within the Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area, would be difficult to reduce through design improvements, given the location of the wind farm.
Considerable design changes and a reduction in turbine height would be required to reduce impacts. The turbines closest to the loch (sitting below approximately AOD350m) and those at the western and eastern periphery of the higher landform group of turbines would likely need to be removed and the remaining group re-sited to achieve a layout with a better landscape fit.
These changes would alter the proposal to such an extent that would be a different proposal; however we consider that it is reasonable to expect that significant landscape visual and cumulative effects would still remain.
Additional Comments on the LVIA
The LVIA consistently underrepresents the landscape, visual and cumulative effects of the proposal in the assessment. We consider that this is primarily as a result of the approach to significance thresholds identified in the methodology, and we raised this as a potential issue at scoping. We draw attention to the cumulative assessment in the LVIA that finds the development would have no significant landscape and visual cumulative effects; we disagree with this position.
Our comments on the LVIA within the ES are not exhaustive and highlight only main issues that we consider the decision maker should be aware of. i. Setting of significance thresholds ii. Thoroughness of approach to the assessments iii. ZTV information and Viewpoint Visualisations iv. Use of the term ‘blade tip’ in the assessments v. Setting of significance thresholds
The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) within the Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared, generally, in line with the requirements of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd edition), however we consider that the landscape and visual effects are consistently underrepresented in the assessments.
We consider that this is a result of the approach to significance thresholds identified in the methodology that does not accurately identify instances where we consider that a significant effect would be expected. We advise that the threshold applied in the LVIA for a significant effect, i.e. where the effect would be considered a material consideration is set too high in the methodology, and as a result the LVIA systematically fails to highlight potential significant effects, and therefore material considerations.
Forestry Commission Dated 18.12.16 and 02.11.16 – No objection
Forestry Commission Scotland’s (FCS) letter of 18th December 2016 raised an objection to the development as proposed in the Environmental Statement (ES) of October 2015. FCS have considered the ‘FEI July 2016’ in relation to the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) and Scottish Governments Control of Woodland Policy (CoWRP).
In light of the further information provided and changes made to the forest design in the ‘FEI July 2016’, FCS removes its objection, subject to the application of the condition in Annex 1. The condition is required to secure compensatory planting and production of a Long Term Forest Plan.
Transport Scotland Dated 18.10.16 - No objection
Council’s Roads Engineer Dated 03.12.15 - No objection subject to conditions
Existing access at junction with public road to be upgraded in accordance with Operational Services Drg No SD 08/001a. Access may be constructed wider than shown to allow for the abnormal loads.
Visibility splays measuring 160m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained. No obstruction to visibility greater than 1.05m in height permitted within the visibility splays.
A system of surface water drainage will be required to prevent the flow of water onto the public road.
Swept path analysis to be provided. There shall be no oversail onto private land outwith the road corridor, without the landowner’s permission.
Traffic management plan to be provided. Plan should include the construction plant and materials required for the project, including the amount of imported fill required for the construction of the access route, Plan should also show how they intend to control the traffic in both directions when delivering the wind farm components, from the A85 junction.
Members are requested to note that it would be normal practice for a planning application that this information would be provided in advance of the grant of any permission. However, as this is a S36 application and not a planning application before the Planning Authority, a condition requiring such details, to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of any works associated with the development, shall be recommended to the Energy Consents Unit should they be minded to approve the proposal.
Council’s Access Officer Dated 26.11.16 - No objection
All the Paths and Tracks listed may all be used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders of all abilities and any new paths should be of the same standard or better than those to which they connect. The level of any new road crossing a path should be tied into it so that the movement of walkers, cyclists or horse riders is not impeded.
Any gates erected on paths or tracks should be provided with a bridle gate to allow public access; in order to stop livestock from straying this should be fitted with a self-closing device.
Council’s Biodiversity Officer Dated 10.12.15 - No objection Environmental Health Officer – (Dated 07.01.16 and 26.10.16) - No objection subject to conditions
In the original response dated 07.01.16 a number of appropriate conditions were suggested including the imposition of noise immision limits and noise limits at identified dwellings, noise monitoring and mitigation in response to complaints, and controls over site lighting. Further comment was provided in response to the FEI which included the removal of one turbine and the re-siting of the sub-station/grid connection to remove any possibility of adverse noise impact on sensitive receptors and included the submission of a draft Private Water Supply Protection Plan. This has not prompted any significant change in the recommended conditions and the position of no objection remains.
Historic Environment Scotland Dated 21.12.15 - No Objection
Content that there adequate information in ES to come to a conclusion on the application;
In some instances the assessments and their conclusions underestimate the potential impacts of the proposed development;
Overall broadly agree with ES assessment of setting and potential impact on most of the historic environment assets within HES’s remit;
Concludes that the development proposal does not raise issues of national significance sufficient to warrant an objection for our historic environment interests
Marine Scotland Dated 06.10.16 - No objection
Welcomes the selection of control sites within Fisheries assessment;
Further clarification required on impact associated with access track on site US3;
Welcome the content of the proposed water quality monitoring programme;
reiterates the recommendation for post-construction sampling to continue for at least 12 months once construction has ceased, this time period would be dependent on the results from the monitoring programme during construction.
Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council (AKCC) Dated 17.1.16 - Objection
The AKCC have produced a comprehensive and detailed objection to the proposals. The initial objection response dated 17.01.16 runs to some 56 pages and contains a very detailed evaluation on the contended landscape and amenity impact of the proposal, as well as examining the legislative and policy context for the application. The main points of this objection are that:
The proposals run contrary to national and local adopted policy;
The proposals will have a significant adverse impact upon people, houses, settlements, recreational and residential amenity, on established local natural heritage and on established ecological and ornithological interests; Argyll and Bute Council should recommend refusal of this application as it has no redeeming features which are genuine material considerations that would allow it to receive S36 consent. In particular it ignores the criteria contained in Schedule 9 of the EA 1989 and the adopted policies of the Local Development Plan 2015;
AKCC has growing concerns about the proliferation of wind farm development proposals in areas that have been assessed as being constrained or highly constrained in terms of landscape capacity, in particular around Loch Awe;
Many residences will be directly affected one way or another by the wide range of wind farm/turbine developments of which this is the latest.
Members should note that this is a brief summary of what is a lengthy objection available on both the Scottish Government and Council planning portals. Following the submission of the FEI on 12.09.16 officers understand that the AKCC intend to make further submissions.
Glenorchy and Innishail Community Council Dated 15.1.15 - Objection
Meeting held on 09.01.16. 41 members of the public and CC reported to have been present. After discussing proposals the following views were agreed:
Will have a negative impact on sustainability of the community and highly valued environment; The windfarm will be highly visible, whilst lying isolated from any other commercial development on the north side of Loch Awe; Loch Awe is a fragile rural community whose economy is based upon tourism and land management and is suffering from declining population. The promotion of tourism and related activities based upon the scenic quality of Loch Awe and other locally based attractions are key components of strategy for community development. The proposed windfarm would have numerous significant, negative visual and environmental impacts on the landscape valued by residents and visitors; Concerns over Ardbrecknish Community Water supply due to construction methodology; Statement does not take account of reflection of the development in such a large water body.
John Muir Trust Dated 10.10.16 - Objection
Objection is raised to the proposal for the following reasons:
These are massive structures inappropriate to the landscape of the area;
Proposals are contrary to the following policies:
Wild Land Policy Built Development Policy Energy and Wild Land Policy National Planning Framework (3) Scottish Planning Policy (2) Scottish Natural Heritage Wild Land Areas Map
Further details in respect of the above are contained in the full consultation response.
SEPA Dated 27.03.16 and 06.10.16 - No objection
Following the submission of Further Environmental Information SEPA have withdrawn an originally expressed objection to this proposal for the reasons set out below:
We previously objected to this application on the grounds of a lack of information on Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) (PCS/143598 dated 5 January 2016). Following this we were consulted by the applicant with additional information and agreed that this would address the grounds of our objection (PCS/146341 dated 27 April 2016). The additional information and our response are set out in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the Further Environmental Information. I confirm that based on this we are now able to remove our previous objection.
It is noted that a detailed plan for each borrow pit will be developed and agreed with key consultees. The plan would be included in the CMS which is thought will be subject to an appropriate planning condition, we are satisfied with this approach.
We note the revised tree felling and woodland management plan (Chapter 7). As before, we are satisfied that the Forest Residue Management Plan documents are appropriate and genuine on site reuse activities in line with SEPA guidance and as such do not consider that there are any Waste Management Licence (WML) implications or significant concerns.
We note that overall there is a reduction in the amount of waste peat to be generated, and we welcome this. We also welcome the proposed amendment to the text in relation to dewatering.
Proposed engineering works within the water environment will require authorisation under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended).
SEPA wish reference to be made to their previous comments dated 27.03.16 which remain pertinent to this proposal.
Scottish Water Dated 23.09.16 - No objection
Ministry of Defence Dated 04.10.16 - No objection subject to a requirement for visible or infrared aviation lighting.
Civil Aviation Authority Dated 21.10.16 - No objection
Highlands and Islands Airports Limited Dated 26.9.16 - No objection
BT Radio Network Protection Dated 22.9.16 - No objection ______
(D) REPRESENTATIONS:
The period for public representations relating to the additional information requested by the S36 consents team on 23.6.16 and submitted on 12.9.16 closed on 28.10.16, following advertising of the FEI and a further period of consultation in respect of the additional information submitted. There have been some 277 representations at time of writing this report made to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit.
As this is not a planning application the Energy Consent Departments web page is where the full and formal record of representations must be recorded and not the Council’s public access system. All representations can be found on the Scottish Government Webpage related to this application under the following Link which provides the up-to-date listing of third party representations and other submissions relating to this S36 application.
http://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails.aspx
At time of writing the number representations in support is 24 and the number of objections is 253. These figures are taken from the above web site.
Supporters: The key issues raised in support of the proposal may be summarised as follows:
Proposal will generate enough electricity to support 22,000 local homes will be provided saving around 66,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year;
During construction an estimated £24.3 million could be spent in Scotland in addition to a wide range of economic benefits to the local economy from hotel stays through to construction work;
easy access in relation to the A819 and the electricity network;
limited visibility from Kilchurn Castle;
suitable distance from homes;
minimal cultural heritage, archaeology and wildlife on site due to its nature as a commercial forest which will be replanted following construction;
outside protected ecological and landscape designations (with the exception of a local designation).
Objectors: The key issues raised in objections to the proposal may be summarised as follows:
Turbines would detract from natural beauty and environment of Loch Awe which is an Area of Panoramic Quality and very sensitive countryside;
Proposals would have an adverse Impact on visual and natural environment. Impact on bird life and bats would be devastating. After construction protected species of bird will be attracted to the site. This is especially true for immature raptors. This aspect is missing from the ES;
Development will have an adverse impact on tourism and local businesses. Insufficient surveys provided on this matter. Turbines will be visible from tourist routes and A85;
Area defined in Argyle and Butes Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study as an area medium sensitive to large turbines. They are in close proximity to terrain which is highly sensitive and the study points out that structures of the height of these turbines has an impact on adjacent terrain;
There will be a potential negative impact on any hydro schemes or private water supplies whose water catchment area falls within the site boundary. There is no public water supply that side of the loch;
High potential for noise impact on health both audible and low frequency infrasound. Studies in Finland indicate infrasound can carry through the air for many kilometres;
There would be a damaging cumulative effect when combined with other nearby installations around Loch Awe, both sequential and simultaneous;
Proposal does not adhere to criteria and policies laid out in the Local Development Plan or those within the SPP and NPF3;
The wind farm is not required in order for UK to reach its targets for renewable energy. Statement made by UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in 2015 stating there was enough onshore wind in the pipeline to meet UK Governments target of 11-13 GW for electricity;
Visualisations do not accurately portray turbines in some instances. Forest replanting in volume 4 fails to show adequate visual mitigation. Forestry growth accentuates the industrial scale and incongruity of the wind farm;
SNH visualisation of windfarms December 2014 appears not to have been followed due to a lack of “cropped” A3 images. However images and visualisations provided when taken together demonstrate the unacceptable visual impact of proposal;
Proposals are considered contrary to Policies LDP Strat 1, LDP 6 and LDP DM1 due to their scale and location. The proposals fail to accord with the development plan and there should be a presumption against consent;
Proposals would undermine rationale for owners buying Larach Bhan House to develop five holiday homes at the property for which planning permission exists. If proposals are allowed it will make no sense to develop this tourism business as all these holiday homes will experience proposed windfarm in their principal view across Loch Awe. Holidaymakers will be discouraged from visiting area by virtue of visual and noise disturbance impacting on outdoor activities;
The amenity levels enjoyed by the occupants of Larach Bhan House will be adversely impacted as all principle views face directly south towards the application site and the proposals will have an “oppressive impact” upon the level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by occupants of this property. A significant visual impact will occur from the wind farm which will appear as an oppressive industrialised feature. For some reason image showing considerable impact has not been submitted as part of the application pack; No decision should be made until a more complete and appropriate visual assessment is provided which accurately reflects impact upon the many properties which will be adversely impacted by the proposals in the local area. The assessment requires to be far more robust and the current exercise should carry no weight due to its shortfalls. Not enough evaluation or weight has been given to those properties which will suffer visual impact due to the proposals. A complete list of every property which will be impacted upon requires to be provided to the decision maker;
Proposals will have a negative impact upon the wide ranging cultural and historic significance of Loch Awe, its many and varied heritage assets and in particular its many scheduled ancient monuments and is contrary to SPP para 145;
No baseline or predicted noise levels have been provided for Larach Bhan House, which should be rectified. Specific noise readings should be taken at this and many other properties in the area so that they can see base and predicted noise levels for their property. No decision should be made until such information has been submitted and opportunity to comment provided.
Public Consultation Exercise
Members should also note that the applicants have held community engagement events in order to present details of the scheme and receive feedback from the local community. This included newsletters posted out to all addresses within 10km of the site centre and public exhibitions were held at Portsonachan and Kilchrenan village halls. The applicants indicate work was carried out to address issues raised by the public in the preparation of the submitted Further Environmental Information.
______
(E) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
(i) Environmental Statement: Yes
An Environmental Statement dated October 2015 was submitted in support of this S36 application. Further Environmental Information (FEI) was requested by the consents unit by letter dated 23.6.16. This FEI was provided by the applicants on 12.09.16 with representations required by 28.10.16. The ES and FEI submissions consider the following key issues:
Planning Policy Context; Site Selection & Project Evolution; Project Description; Landscape & Visual Impact; Noise Assessment; Ecological Assessment; Ornithological Assessment; Hydrology & Geology Archaeology & Cultural Heritage Forestry Assessment Peat Assessment & Carbon Balance Transport & Access Telecommunications and air safeguarding Socio Economics and the visitor economy Air Quality & Climate Change; Environmental Benefits of Renewable Energy Land Use & Recreation Shadow Flicker On-site utilities Mitigation & Residual Effects, Cumulative Effects
A number of consultation responses were received following the submission of this application and its accompanying Environmental Statement. Some of the consultees requested further information and clarification on certain issues. A request for additional information was made by the Energy Consents Unit on 23.6.16. In response to this request Further Environmental Information to supplement the original Environmental Statement was submitted on 12.09.16. The FEI contains additional information on the following topics:
Reduction from 19 to 18 Turbines Relocation of substation Updated Planning Statement Landscape and Visual Evaluation Design and Access Statement Ecology Ornithology Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology Noise Access and Transportation Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Socio Economics, Tourism and Recreation Shadow Flicker Telecommunications Aviation Climate Change and Carbon Balance Assessment Woodland Management and Tree Felling
(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:
Confirmed in SNH consultation response dated 25.10.16 following submission of additional information on 12.09.16
In our view, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly of the Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required
(iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Yes
EA and FEI submission packs
An addendum to the October 2015 Planning Statement dated July 2016 has been produced by the applicants to update the following matters:
Section 2 Changes to Applicable Planning Policy Assessment Criteria
Section 3 Landscape and visual analysis and FEI conclusions
Residential Amenity
Forestry and Woodland
Geology and Peat
Other environmental and amenity issues
______
(F) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
Members are asked to note in the context of the development plan and planning process that this application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under s.36 of the Electricity Act 1989. As part of the s.36 application process, the applicant is also seeking that the Scottish Ministers issue a Direction under s.57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that deemed planning permission be granted for the proposed development.
In such instances the Development Plan is not the starting point for consideration of Section 36 applications, as Sections 25 and 37 of the of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which establish the primacy of development plan policy in decision- making, are not engaged in the deemed consent process associated with Electricity Act applications. Nonetheless, the adopted Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 still remains an important material consideration informing the Council’s response to this proposal.
Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act does however require both the applicant and the decision- maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the prospective developer shall have regard to:
(a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.
Similarly, it obliges the Scottish Ministers in their capacity as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b).
Consideration of the proposal against both the effect of ‘Scottish Planning Policy’ 2014 (SPP) and the adopted Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent to which the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties.
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015)
LDP STRAT1 Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 Development Within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP 9 Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 Maximising Our Connectivity and Reducing Our Consumption
Supplementary Guidance
SG LDP Climate Change SG LDP ENV 1: Development Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity) SG LDP ENV 7: Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 10: Geodiversity SG LDP ENV 11: Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 13: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality SG LDP ENV 14: Landscape SG LDP ENV 16a: Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 19: Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments SG LDP ENV 20: Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance SG LDP SERV 6: Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation SG LDP SERV 7: Flooding and Land Erosion the Risk Framework for Development SG LDP TOUR 3 : Promoting Tourism Development Areas
Note: The above supplementary guidance has been approved by the Scottish Government. It therefore constitutes adopted policy.
Note: The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(i) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A
National Planning Framework Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2012) Argyll and Bute Supplementary Guidance 2 (July 2016) Planning Advice Note 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ Scottish Government Advice Note on Onshore Turbines (2014) Ministerial Statements Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape, SNH Guidance (2014). Environmental Assessment and FEI submissions; Views of statutory and other consultees; Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters. Transport Scotland Traffic Counts on A85 between Dalmally and Taynult
______
G) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______
(H) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______
(I) Summary of reasons why planning authority should object to this Section 36 application:
The proposal would become the dominant landscape characteristic of this part of Loch Awe causing significant adverse impact to its landscape quality and its primary viewpoints, due to its scale and dominance in the landscape from key visual receptors including residential properties, leisure/commercial tourist related facilities, residential properties and key transportation routes.
The proposal will extend the influence of wind farms in an unacceptable manner to more sensitive locally designated and protected landscapes, and in particular into land on the widely visible and important northern slopes facing directly onto Loch Awe which frame and contextualise this high quality landscape designated as comprising an Area of Panoramic Quality in the Local Development Plan 2015.
In respect of the above, the proposal conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, the adopted Local Development Plan, and the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study and SNH design and siting guidance for windfarm developments.
The proposal will result in cumulative landscape impact which will have a moderate adverse impact upon the wider landscape due to specific vantage points available to active recreational users. Although this issue in itself would not be a substantive reason sufficient to justify objecting to the proposal it is a supporting consideration to the recommendation that an objection should be raised to these proposals.
Note: This is a summary please refer to recommended reasons for objection on following page. ______
Author of Report: David Moore Date: 01.11.16
Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 01.11.16
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR OBJECTION TO 14/01342/S36
1. By virtue of its scale, location and eye catching movement, the development would exert significantly adverse visual effects upon a range of locations where sensitive receptors in the form of residents and visitors are concentrated, including important transport routes such as the A85. If approved the proposal would result in significant and adverse local impacts upon key views and panoramas, dominating views of and from many loch-shore residential and commercial leisure uses and the A85 trunk road represented by VPs 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 13. More particularly the proposal would introduce unacceptable large scale and visually incongruous features into the landscape which would be both out of character and extensively visible from surrounding roads and sensitive receptors. This impact being accentuated by the rotation of the turbine blades, further drawing the eye to these turbine structures which would dominate, re-define and unacceptably impact upon important landscape settings and views and significantly harm the high quality landscape within which they would be set. The development itself straddles a defined craggy upland area which displays homogeneous, sloping and attractive landscape character, with variation of texture and colour added by forestry plantations. These rugged upland hills encircle the upper stretches of Loch Awe and form important gateway hills and features to North Argyll. The development would be prominent from open sections of Loch Awe and the surrounding area and would form a dominant part of the immediate backdrop and setting of Loch Awe. This contextual landscape within which the turbines will be viewed includes a range of landscape features against which the proposal would appear discordant. These attractive landscape components comprise; rugged upland hills and dominant focal point hills (including Cruach Mhor upon which the proposal is located), Loch Awe itself, the forested islands within it, and the southern bank of the loch at Ardanaiseig with its designated and attractive landscaped gardens. All of these attractive landscape features would be adversely impacted upon by the proposal. These are all important and essential components in forming the high quality of the landscape at this point against which significant and unacceptable visual impact will occur. The significantly adverse local visual impacts of the development would be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (2014), and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014).
2. The proposal would extend the influence of wind farms in an unacceptable manner to more sensitive landscapes and sites and in particular into land designated as comprising an Area of Panoramic Quality in the Local Development Plan 2015 and to the highly visible slopes facing directly onto Loch Awe which form an important landscape setting to frame both the higher craggy landforms and the loch itself represented by VPs 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 13. More particularly the proposal would introduce unacceptable large scale and visually incongruous features into the landscape which would be both out of character and extensively visible from surrounding roads and sensitive receptors. This impact being accentuated by the rotation of the turbine blades, further drawing the eye to these turbine structures which would dominate, re-define and unacceptably impact upon important landscape settings and views and significantly harm the high quality landscape within which they would be set. In this respect the significantly adverse local landscape impact would be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (2014), and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014).
3. The development is located within the Argyll and Bute ‘Craggy Uplands’ landscape character area defined as LCT7 “Craggy Uplands” within the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2012). This character area covers the long plateau running along the spine of the southern side of Loch Awe. By virtue of its scale, movement, layout and very prominent location on the edge of Loch Awe, the development would exert a particularly unwelcome and defining impact on the character and setting of the loch and its immediate environs causing significant adverse impact on the local landscape setting of this attractive locality. The disproportionate scale of the development, in respect of both the number and size of the turbines and the large area of hillside covered by them, relative to its receiving environment and its poor landscape fit, result in the proposal being contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (2014), and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014).
4. The proposed development will have a moderate adverse cumulative impact on landscape quality from more distant and limited vantage points, and in particular those afforded to active recreational hillwalkers represented by VP’s 9 and 10. More particularly, from higher vantage points exemplified by VP’s 9 and 10 a substantially larger number of turbines will be visible within the landscape, altering it in a manner to make the landscape less natural and attractive. The addition of Upper Sonachan Windfarm into the landscape increases clutter and disruption to the open and sloping upland and hilly landscape within which it will be located. This distinct landscape area is both backdropped and framed in the distance by higher craggy mountains and ridges. This essentially homogeneous upland and gently sloping landscape, with intermittent forest planting areas, already contains two windfarms visible from higher vantage points. The addition of a third is considered to spread the impact and clutter of such industrial scale windfarm features into the upland area introducing additional prominent industrial scale features which would reduce landscape quality and attractiveness from long distance panoramic views. There is a significant concern that the addition of Upper Sonachan could lead to windfarms defining the character of this upland landscape area rather than being set within it. These matters, when considered in combination with the matters set out at reasons 1-3 above, support raising objection to this proposal as being contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (2014), and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014). APPENDIX A - PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME
In Scotland, any application to construct or operate an onshore power generating station, in this case, a wind farm, with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any ministerial authorisation given would include a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority.
The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed in the event that authorisation is given by the Scottish Government. In the event of an objection being raised by the Council, the Scottish Ministers are obliged to convene a Public Local Inquiry if they are minded to approve the proposal. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Such an inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals.
In the event that consent is given, either where there has been no objection from the Council, or where objections have been overruled following PLI, the Council as Planning Authority would become responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, and for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement of such conditions. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government following publicity of the application by them. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Council before a final decision is taken in the matter.
The conclusion of this report is to recommend that objection be raised to this proposal on the grounds of significantly adverse landscape, visual and cumulative impacts.
It is not necessary at this point in the process to recommend conditions in the event that the project is authorised by the Scottish Ministers, for if they are minded to approve the project regardless of an objection by the Planning Authority, there would be opportunity to suggest appropriate conditions as part of the process of Public Local Inquiry which would require to be convened in such circumstances.
B. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY
Policy LDP 6 of the Adopted Local Development Plan sets out the Council’s policy for renewable energy developments, in accordance with SPP 2014. In addition there is also the Supplementary Planning Guidance. SPP 2 contains a Spatial Framework which has been prepared in accordance with SPP 2014. The Supplementary Guidance (including the Spatial Framework) has been through the consultation stages and the Council agreed to send notification of intention to adopt to Scottish Ministers at their September 2016 meeting. At time of writing this is the current situation which will be updated as required at time of any change in the current position. The proposed development is within the defined Countryside Zone. In special cases Policy LDP DM 1 states that ‘large scale’ development in the Countryside zone may be supported if it accords with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). This proposal constitutes ‘large scale’ development in the countryside. However, it is not normal practice for an ACE to be undertaken for a wind farm which has been subject to an Environmental Statement (where consideration of alternatives is required as part of the EIA process and an LVIA will have been undertaken).
Each development management zone is subject to policy LDP DM 1: Development within the Development Management Zones. LDP DM 1 requires proposals to be consistent with all other Development Plan Policies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that the scale and location of the proposal will integrate sympathetically with the landscape, or without giving rise to significant adverse consequences for the visual amenity of its surroundings. For the reasons detailed below in this report, it is considered that this proposal does not satisfy Local Development Plan policy or associated and approved guidance in respect of wind farm development.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms and policies and Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014).
C. LOCATION, NATURE & DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposal is for the erection of 18 wind turbines. The following elements are included in the application:
• Erection of 18 wind turbines 136.5m high to blade tip (85m to hub, Rotor Diameter 103m) with an individual output of up to 3.4MW with a total installed capacity of 64.6MW. (Revised at FEI submission stage from initial proposal for 19 turbines); • Crane pad hard-standing areas adjacent to each turbine; • Formation of new onsite access tracks (approximately 5.5km) including 1.1km for the Forestry Link Road and approximately 10.3km of upgraded existing tracks together with formation of passing places and associated watercourse crossings; • On site control building underground cabling and an onsite grid connection substation (Revised substation location at FEI stage); • A permanent meteorological mast up to 85m in height and associated cane pad area; • Cable routes from turbines to the onsite substation; • Amended vehicular access off the A819.
The general design of the turbines and ancillary structures follows current wind energy practice. The design of the sub-station is generally acceptable and subject to appropriate detailing and finishing, it could integrate appropriately into the location suggested, taking the appearance of a traditional building. D. LANDSCAPE IMPACT
Officers consider that the adverse impact upon the landscape is the substantive issue in recommending that an objection be raised to the current proposals. Justification for this approach in respect of policy analysis is set out below:
Scottish Planning Policy
Officers have had regard to SPP advice in respect of the level of protection set out at P39 Table 1. “Spatial Frameworks”. Officers acknowledge that the application site is not afforded protection under Group 1 definition.
The proposal must therefore be considered under Groups 2 and 3 of SPP policy advice owing to the fact that seven of the proposed 18 turbines have now been identified in the FEI as being located within an SPP Group 2 location and sections of the proposed access track also fall within a Group 2 area.
This is further clarified at Figure 1 and Appendix 1 of the report related to SG 2 approved by PPSL on 22 June 2016 and which is soon to be submitted to the Scottish Ministers for adoption. Having been approved by PPSL this report has the status of being a material planning consideration at time of writing this report.
The SPP defines this Group 2 criteria approach at table 1, stating that group 2 locations are:
an area not exceeding 2km around cities, towns and villages identified on the local development plan with an identified settlement envelope or edge.
or
carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat.
In respect of any turbines falling within a within Group 2 area the SPP requires that the applicants:
Demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation”
The application site is partially within Group 2 land due to the following:
1) Seven of the 18 turbines are located within 2km of the settlement boundaries of either Ardbrecknish or Portsonachan 2) The construction of part of the access road will be on land identified as deep peat
Officers are of the view that although seven of the turbines fall within Group 2 no specific issue in raised in respect of this designation. The seven turbines which are within 2km of settlement boundary(s) will be substantially screened from views available from the settlements due to topography and tree screening and no objections to the proposal have been raised in respect of impact upon deep peat by SNH in respect of construction of the access road. It is therefore the opinion of officers that the proposal should be evaluated in respect of Category 3 criteria set out at paragraph 169 of the SPP and as set out in policy LDP 6.
In respect of those 18 turbines which fall within a SPP Group 3 location, the SPP states that:
“Beyond groups 1 and 2, wind farms are likely to be acceptable, subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria”
Paragraph 169 of the SPP provides the criteria which should be taken into consideration in evaluating such proposals as set out below:
• 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; • effect on greenhouse gas emissions; • cumulative impacts – planning authorities should be clear about likely cumulative impacts arising from all of the considerations below, recognising that in some areas the cumulative impact of existing and consented energy development may limit the capacity for further development; • impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker; • landscape and visual impacts, including effects on wild land; • effects on the 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, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings; • 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, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration; • opportunities for energy storage; and • the need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration.
Officers consider that having regard to the above SPP criteria, which reflect those contained in adopted policy SG LDP 6 that the proposal is, in respect of both Group 2 and Group 3 located turbines, not acceptable with regard to:
impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact; landscape and visual impacts, including effects on wild land;
impacts on tourism and recreation;
visual impacts on adjacent trunk roads;
cumulative impacts – planning authorities should be clear about likely cumulative impacts arising from all of the considerations below, recognising that in some areas the cumulative impact of existing and consented energy development may limit the capacity for further development.
Officers do not contend that the Group 2 or 3 located turbines proposal are contrary or give rise to concern in respect of other evaluation criteria and this will be a matter for other consultees to form opinion on. It is potential conflict with the above criteria which officers consider form the basis for lodging an objection to the current proposals, whether considered Group 2 or Group 3 in terms of location.
Given that the majority of the criteria raise no issue for objection by the Planning Authority in respect of SPP Group 2 or Group 3 located turbines Officers wish to clarify to Members that it is considered that the harm to the landscape and designated Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) is considered so great as to outweigh compliance or support for the proposals which may be afforded through the other criteria set out in SPP.
This is an appropriate approach to adopt in the weighing up of material considerations in the planning balance, and assessing the compliance of the proposal with SPP and other material advice and balancing that against the level of harm which will arise, particularly in the context of accepted significant localised landscape and amenity impact which has been accepted by the applicants. Officers can only advise Members on the weighting they consider is appropriate, and it is for Members to determine whether they agree with this evaluation and weighting.
Officers would advise Members that they consider that the level of harm caused to the high quality local landscape and APQ is of such significance that compliance with other criteria set out in SPP or support provided in other material documentation is outweighed by the significant and defining adverse landscape impact in this instance.
Impact Upon Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ)
The proposal is located within an APQ as defined in the Local Development Plan. In respect of this designation proposals have to be considered against the following policy framework:
In respect of the status of APQ as local landscape protection areas SPP states that:
196. International, national and locally designated areas and sites should be identified and afforded the appropriate level of protection in development plans. Reasons for local designation should be clearly explained and their function and continuing relevance considered when preparing plans. Buffer zones should not be established around areas designated for their natural heritage importance. Plans should set out the factors which will be taken into account in development management. The level of protection given to local designations should not be as high as that given to international or national designations. 197. Planning authorities are encouraged to limit non-statutory local designations to areas designated for their local landscape or nature conservation value:
the purpose of areas of local landscape value should be to:– safeguard and enhance the character and quality of a landscape which is important or particularly valued locally or regionally; or promote understanding and awareness of the distinctive character and special qualities of local landscapes; or safeguard and promote important local settings for outdoor recreation and tourism.
It is considered that the designation of the APQ within the adopted Local Development Plan clearly accords with these objectives and the adherence to these stated policy objectives is a material consideration in forming a view on this windfarm proposal.
Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan
Areas of Panoramic Quality are defined in LDP, Adopted 2015 glossary as “these are areas of regional importance in terms of their landscape quality, which were previously identified as ‘Regional Scenic Areas’ in the former Strathclyde Structure Plan.”
The current policy position on the Areas of Panoramic Quality is set out in the Written Statement policy LDP 3, Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13 and delineated on the proposals maps of the current and recently adopted Local Development Plan 2015.
“Areas of Panoramic Quality – these are areas of regional importance in terms of their landscape quality which were previously identified as ‘Regional Scenic Areas’ in the former Strathclyde Structure Plan.”
SG LDP 13 states:
“This policy provides additional detail to policy LDP 3 Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment of the Adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.
Argyll and Bute Council will resist development in, or affecting, an Area of Panoramic Quality where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape unless it is adequately demonstrated that:
(A) Any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance;
In all cases the highest standards, in terms of location, siting, design, landscaping, boundary treatment and materials, and detailing will be required within Areas of Panoramic Quality. Developments will be expected to be consistent with Policy LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design, associated SG and the relevant Argyll and Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment.”
It is therefore the opinion of officers that impacting significantly upon the local setting defined by the APQ has the consequence of impacting upon the character and appearance of a previously regionally identified area of landscape importance, contrary to the endorsed and adopted policies of LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 13.
Officers have acknowledged previously in this report that local designations in respect of wind farm proposals require to be considered within the remit of Table 1 and Paragraph 169 of the SPP where a more favourable strategic planning policy framework stance is set for windfarm developments in such local landscape designations (such as APQ’s) than would be applicable to other forms of development.
However it is also clear from the SPP that that regard has to be had on the likely level of harm to landscape within any turbines in either a Group 2 or Group 3 location. It is therefore perfectly reasonable, even within this more permission policy framework within the SPP for Group 3 locations to form a view that the harm caused by the proposals to this important and APQ designated local landscape is unacceptable and the substantive and defining matter in considering these proposals.
Having regard to the above it is to be noted that the applicants in their Environmental Statement accept that the proposal will have a “significant” localised impact. Indeed In their submissions in the non-technical summary at page 5 they state, inter alia, that:
“The assessment concludes that the proposed wind park will have a localised significant effect upon the host landscape character area and the adjacent areas: Craggy Uplands, North Loch Awe Craggy Uplands and Rocky Mosaic and the Area of Panoramic Quality (a local designation) for which it sits in. However, it predicts that the proposed wind park would not be of sufficient scale to influence the character of the wider landscape to such an extent that it would become the dominant and defining element of it”.
It is further stated that:
“The visual impacts of the proposed wind park on the majority of road and the rail network within the study area are also not predicted to be significant, mainly due to the limited visibility of the site from these routes and the brief nature of any views that are experienced. The assessment concludes that significant effects would be confined to a small section of the A85, and the adjacent railway, the B845 and the A819 and B840 in the vicinity of the site.”
Officers consider that the above evaluation understates the impact of the proposal on views available to road users of the A85 in particular. Although it is accepted that at some parts the A85 has screening which assist in obscuring the views of the proposal, it will be both visible and highly intrusive for sections of the road within the local area and will be viewed by a considerable number of road users.
The proposals will in officers opinion visually dominate and adversely impact upon the attractive setting of Loch Awe in a manner which completely changes the currently attractive local landscape character and APQ. The various juxtapositions and sensitive receptors where the windfarm will be visible from, and causing “significant impact”, is considered to be a substantive and defining matter which counts against the approval of the current proposals and convinces officers that an objection should be lodged. ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012’ (LWECS)
The Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012 was developed by Argyll & Bute with support from SNH to inform strategic planning and provide guidance on constraints and opportunities for wind energy development to help secure good quality renewables development in appropriate locations.
The study considers the sensitivity of the landscape character types on mainland Argyll and Bute up to 130m (large turbines); however for clarity we confirm that we consider the findings to be relevant also for the larger 136.5m turbines proposed at Upper Sonachan.
The Capacity Study is clear in its section on ‘How to Use this Study’ that landscape character types often have fluid boundaries with a gradual transition between character types, and that also as wind turbines are tall structures they are likely to have an influence on adjacent character types. The development is sited straddling a transitional area.
The proposal straddles the Craggy Upland LCT & and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c with the turbines sited at the edge of the mapped Craggy Upland 7 LCT where it abuts the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c. For clarification all the turbine units are within area LCT 7 although their influence extends to other areas due to their scale and location. The site location would be prominent from the open sections of Loch Awe, would be part of the immediate backdrop and setting of Loch Awe and would intrude into important and attractive landscape views to and from the loch.
Having considered the landscape effects of the proposal it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the Capacity Study, both in terms of the Detailed Sensitivity Assessments (Chapter 5), and in the Summary of Findings and Conclusions (Chapter 8).
Officers also consider the design of the wind farm results in a poor landscape fit and is contrary to the best practice guidance set out in the SNH publication ‘Siting and designing Windfarms in the Landscape’. The vertical variation between the lowest and highest turbine on the hillside is approximately the full overall height of the proposed turbines themselves and therefore would fail to achieve a visually balanced, simple and consistent image when viewed from a range of the selected viewpoints. In many views the turbines would be seen as randomly spaced large turbines, with a poor relationship to landform where partial skylining of blades and towers would occur.
It is considered that this would result in a visually dominating and incoherent complex image and identity in relation to its site and its surroundings. This emphasises the landscape and visual impacts and detracts from the landscape and visual amenity of this area.
Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal would introduce unacceptable large scale and visually incongruous features into the landscape which would be both out of character and extensively visible from surrounding roads and sensitive receptors. This impact being accentuated by the rotation of the turbine blades, further drawing the eye to these turbine structures which would dominate, re-define and unacceptably impact upon important landscape settings and views and significantly harm the high quality landscape within which they would be set.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan. It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by the Council and SNH concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.
Cumulative Landscape Impact
Officers have considered carefully whether cumulative impact will occur due to the proximity of existing windfarms as at Carraig Gheal and Beinn Ghlas which are visible from a limited number of vantage points where the proposal at Upper Sonachan can also be viewed. In respect of potential cumulative impact the applicants themselves state within their FEI submissions on 12.9.16 that:
“the proposed wind park is judged by the Applicant to potentially have a ‘moderate’ level of additional cumulative effect which would be adverse but not significant, for the reasons set out in the ES and the FEI. The extent of the predicted cumulative effect is shown on FEI Figure 2.1b Approximate Extent of Moderate Cumulative Effects; the pattern of the emerging cumulative situation is examined in FEI Figure 2.1c Pattern Analysis of Key Cumulative Schemes (see attachments FYI).”
More particularly, from higher vantage points exemplified by VP’s 9 and 10 a larger “swathe” of turbines will be visible within the landscape, altering it in a manner to make the landscape less natural and attractive. The addition of Upper Sonachan Windfarm to such views increases visual impact upon this attractive landscape by introducing additional prominent industrial scale features which are harmful alterations which reduce landscape quality and attractiveness from long distance panoramic views
After careful consideration, it is not considered that cumulative visual impact concerns on their own would be sufficient to raise an objection to the proposals. However, officers agree with the applicant’s conclusions that a ‘moderate adverse’ cumulative impact will occur. This is considered to be a material consideration in determining that an objection should be raised to the current proposals. Cumulative impact is therefore considered to be a contributory factor, but not in itself a defining matter, for raising objection to the current proposals.
Officers consider that in respect of the 5km ‘significant impact boundary’ set out in the FEI encompassing the location of Carraig Gheal and Beinn Ghias wind farms, the proposal would not cause cumulative impact when viewed in combination with the current proposal from within this defined area of significant impact (FEI Figure 2.1a). This, as a consequence, has the effect of highlighting the fact that these other two wind farms have significantly less impact on sensitive receptors than the current proposals, both in the context of the general landscape setting of Loch Awe, the APQ and views from the A85.
In the opinion of officers, the current proposals and their proposed location contrasts unfavourably in terms of landscape fit with the more appropriately scaled and located existing windfarms. The more limited impact they already exert upon on sensitive receptors reinforces that the current proposal is less acceptably located in relation to protective landscape designations.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan. It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by the Council and SNH concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.
E. VISUAL IMPACT
Visual impact relates to the proposal’s visibility and its impacts on views, as experienced by people. In determining the proposal’s visual impact, the layout of the wind farm has been assessed from key representative viewpoints. Visually sensitive viewpoints include those where there are views to, or from, designated landscapes; however, sensitivity is not confined to designated interests. Visually sensitive viewpoints can include those which are frequently visited by people (such as well-used transport corridors, tourist roads, or picnic spots), settlements where people live, other inhabited buildings or viewpoints which have a landscape value that people appreciate (and which they might visit for recreational pursuits or areas for hill walking, cycling or education).
In order to assess the visual impact, the developer has provided a series of viewpoints identified to reflect the sensitivity of receptors. These are located relative to local settlements, transportation corridors, places of recreational/tourism value and known popular viewpoints. It is accepted that photomontages and other visual information can only give an indication of the relative scale of the proposals in relation to the surrounding landscape and that a particular viewpoint may not exactly inform on the extent to which views are available in the locality in terms of the extent to which the viewpoint is available. This is particularly important in respect of those areas where there is a high degree of visibility from a sensitive receptor.
List of Viewpoints assessed: (amended viewpoint pack dated September 2016)
VP 1: Ben Cruachan Summit VP 2: Ben Cruachan Dam VP 3: Cruachan Falls Railway Station VP 4: A85 Layby VP 5: St Conans Kirk VP 6: Loch Awe Hotel VP 7: Kilburn Castle VP 8: B9074 Glen Orchy VP 9: Ben Lui VP 10: Bienn Ime VP 11: A819 Glen Aray VP 12: A819/B840 Junction VP 13: Loch Awe Open Water VP 14: Loch Awe Boats 19 VP 15: B840 Portsinachan VP 16: Finchairn Castle VP 17: Kilmaha VP 18: Fernoch VP 19: Taychreggan Hotel VP 20: Kilchrenan War Memorial (*substantial impact on village and approach road) VP 21: Barachander VP 22: Beinn Lora VP 23: Ardchattan Priory VP 24: Na Maoilean
Visibility of the proposal and significant landscape impact coincides with areas where highly sensitive receptors are located and results in significant intrusion in key views and loch side panoramas, dominating views of and from loch shore views and tourist related facilities and the A85 trunk Road.
Due to the proposal’s scale, open location and the manner in which the landscape is experienced, it will be extensively visible within the local area. Importantly, these areas of visibility often coincide with locations frequented by residents, tourists and visitors and are therefore experienced by large numbers of sensitive receptors who travel to and through this area wishing to experience the high quality landscape. The A85 in particular affords extensive visibility of the proposals.
It is considered that the proposal would introduce unacceptable large scale and visually incongruous features into the landscape which would be both out of character and extensively visible from surrounding roads and sensitive receptors. This impact being accentuated by the rotation of the turbine blades, further drawing the eye to these turbine structures which would dominate, re-define and unacceptably impact upon important landscape settings and views and significantly harm the high quality landscape within which they would be set.
The proposal will therefore be visually prominent in views from key transport routes, recreational areas and residential properties in the Loch Awe area which are important for residents, local communities and tourists. The proposal also impinges unacceptably on sensitive panoramas and important views.
Officers agree with the position adopted by SNH in their objection to the proposal that the applicant’s LVIA underestimates the visual impact that development of this scale and prominence will exert on sensitive landscape around the A85 transport corridor in particular, which will result in the development exerting significant adverse consequences for visual amenity whilst being experienced by large numbers of receptors. Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan. It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by the Council and SNH concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.
F. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
SNH, Scottish Water and SEPA are content that subject to the imposition of appropriate management operations and conditions placed upon any grant of consent that no grounds of objection arise in respect of any potential ecological or habitat impact.
SNH have confirmed by response dated 25.10.16 that given the above no Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ is required to support the current proposals.
It is noted that the Forestry Commission (FC) have made reference to tree felling, replacement planting regimes and potential conflict with bats. Officers understand that a suggested condition to address these matters will be proposed by the FC in future submissions to the Scottish Government.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent, from the point of view of ecological interests, with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
G. ORNITHOLOGICAL IMPACT
SNH have removed previous objections in respect of ornithological matters by letter dated 25.10.16 following additional submissions by the applicants on 12.09.16 as part of the FEI submission, stating that:
The FEI July 2016 included the additional winter of bird survey work hence completing the overall survey and assessment. No additional eagle use of the wind farm area was recorded. Since March 2016 the proposed development of Balliemeanoch wind farm has been formally withdrawn. This removes the potential for cumulative impacts with that development. The FEI contained a revised PAT Model, an assessment of risks of impacts on the SPA and also answered the question over simultaneous view shed monitoring which may have impacted on collision risk modelling. Due to the above we are able to retract our objections made in section 2.2 and 2.3 of our previous response dated 9th March 2016. In addition we also advise that, in our view, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly of the Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent, from the point of view of ornithological interests, with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
H. HYDROLOGICAL & HYDROGEOLOGICAL IMPACT
No significant hydrological or hydrogeological issues have been identified. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this regard provided that the detailed design and management of the works is undertaken in accordance with the details specified in the Environmental Statement.
Neither SEPA or Scottish Water have raised objection on these matters at time of writing.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of hydrology and hydrogeological impact the proposal is consistent with the provisions of: Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
I. MANAGEMENT OF PEAT/SOIL
In their response of 25.10.16 in respect of Carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat SNH commented that:
We agree with the conclusion drawn in Ch.3 section 3.4.5 of the FEI July 2016 that the majority of the existing peatland resource will be tending towards a M19 habitat type (eg. disturbed from historical management). We advise that the measures cited in section 2.6 of our response dated 9th March 2016, which are refined further in FEI July 2016 appendix 5.1 page 9, should be implemented so as to achieve maximum mitigation in terms of reducing further disturbance and protecting residual pockets of M17 habitat.
SEPA have commented that:
We note that overall there is a reduction in the amount of waste peat to be generated, and we welcome this. We also welcome the proposed amendment to the text in relation to dewatering.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of the management of peat and soils the proposal is consistent with the provisions of policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and Scottish Planning Policy 2014. J. BORROW PITS
The use of borrow pits have been indicated, albeit, they have not been submitted in detail. The Council would expect these to be the subject of separate minerals applications.
K. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has no objection to the proposal. They are content that there is sufficient information in the ES and FEI to come to a conclusion on the application. Whilst, they consider some elements of the methodology presented in the cultural heritage chapter problematic, they are content that these issues have not had a significant impact on the assessment itself.
HES agree with the conclusion of the ES that there will be some impacts on the settings of a number of heritage assets. However, they are content that in no instance are these of such a level as to warrant an objection.
In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in regard to the impact it will have on any sites of historical or archaeological significance.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; and LDP 9: Development Setting, Layout and Design.
L. TOURISM & RECREATIONAL IMPACT
The degree to which wind turbines influence the decision as to whether tourists should visit or return to an area, is open to debate. In dismissing an appeal for a windfarm at Corlarach in Cowal, the Reporter was persuaded that resource based tourism founded partly on landscape and scenery was important to Argyll and Bute, in the context of a local economy which is heavily dependent upon the tourism sector and its associated employment. Accordingly, development with significantly adverse landscape impacts has been recognised as having potential to devalue the attraction of Argyll as a tourism destination.
Opinions and attitudes towards wind farms have been the subject of several public opinion surveys over the past 20 years. In particular, the report of the Sustainable Development Commission Wind Power in the UK (2005) summarises the findings of 24 surveys conducted between 1992 and 2005, and reports that across these studies, an average of 80% of respondents support the development of wind energy technologies. The ES also refers to the 2003 MORI survey undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government) which concludes that people were three times more likely to say they felt their local wind farm had a positive impact on the area (20%) than as they were to say it had a negative impact (7%). People living within 5 km of the local wind farm held the most positive views with 45% saying they thought the overall impact had been positive and only 6% saying they thought it had been negative. In a more recent appeal decision (dismissed 11th July 2013), against refusal of a single wind turbine (84m to blade tip) on land north-east of Redesdale House, Skipness, the Reporter made a cogent point with regard to reference made by the appellant to research on the relationship of wind farms and tourism. He took the view that available surveys and research relate to a pattern of wind farm development which has come about under a fully developed planning system. They provide no evidence of the effect on tourists (and the tourism industry) had there been no such system in operation, or if it had been operated less carefully – for example by permitting an obtrusive turbine in a fine landscape traversed by important tourist routes. The Reporter therefore gave little weight in deciding the appeal to the conclusions of surveys referred to by the appellant in support of his proposal.
What is clear, is that appropriately sited and scaled developments with limited consequences for landscape character, scenic quality and tourism assets have less potential to influence the decisions of those who might prove sensitive to developments than those forms of wind power development which are more prominently sited and of larger scale, such that they are less readily capable of assimilation in their landscape setting.
Whilst it is not possible to be conclusive about the extent of these impacts, or to quantify them in a manner which would warrant a specific reason for refusal based upon conflict with tourism economy interests, it is reasonable to conclude that any proposal which will impinge on important views and the landscape and scenic qualities of an area which is valued as a recreational and tourism resource, will not be in the interests of the tourism economy.
VisitScotland, as Scotland’s National Tourism Organisation, has a strategic role to develop Scottish tourism in order to get the maximum economic benefit for the country. It exists to support the development of the tourism industry in Scotland and to market Scotland as a quality destination. VisitScotland were consulted on this proposal in their capacity as Scotland’s National Tourism Organisation.
While VisitScotland understands and appreciates the importance of renewable energy, tourism is crucial to Scotland’s economic and cultural well-being. It sustains a great diversity of businesses throughout the country. According to a recent independent report by Deloitte, tourism generates £11 billion for the economy and employs over 200,000 - 9% of the Scottish workforce. Tourism provides jobs in the private sector and stimulates the regeneration of urban and rural areas.
One of the Scottish Government and VisitScotland’s key ambitions is to grow tourism revenues and make Scotland one of the world’s foremost tourist destinations. This ambition is now common currency in both public and private sectors in Scotland, and the expectations of businesses on the ground have been raised as to how they might contribute to and benefit from such growth.
Importance of scenery to tourism
Scenery and the natural environment have become the two most important factors for visitors in recent years when choosing a holiday location. The importance of this element to tourism in Scotland cannot be underestimated. The character and visual amenity value of Scotland’s landscapes is a key driver of our tourism product: a large majority of visitors to Scotland come because of the landscape, scenery and the wider environment, which supports important visitor activities such as walking, cycling wildlife watching and visiting historic sites.
The VisitScotland Visitor Experience Survey (2011/12) confirms the basis of this argument with its ranking of the key factors influencing visitors when choosing Scotland as a holiday location. In this study, over half of visitors rated scenery and the natural environment as the main reason for visiting Scotland.
Taking tourism considerations into account - VisitScotland suggest that full consideration is also given to the Scottish Government’s 2007 research on the impact of wind farms on tourism. In its report, there are recommendations for planning authorities which could help to minimise any negative effects of wind farms on the tourism industry. The report also notes that planning consideration would be greatly assisted if the developers produced a Tourist Impact Statement as part of the EIA, and that planning authorities may wish to consider the following factors to ensure that any adverse local impacts on tourism are minimised:
The number of tourists travelling past en route elsewhere The views from accommodation in the area The relative scale of tourism impact i.e. local and national The potential positives associated with the development The views of tourist organisations, i.e. local tourist businesses or Visit Scotland
Conclusion
Given the importance of the tourism economy in Argyll and Bute, and the fact that visitors are largely drawn by the natural qualities of the area, including scenic assets, it can be concluded that developments with significantly adverse landscape and visual impacts are unlikely to be in the interests of the local tourism economy. Nonetheless in the absence of conclusive evidence to demonstrate that wind farms necessarily deter repeat visits by tourists it is not considered that conflict with tourism interests warrants a separate reason for refusal in this case.
It should also be noted that Loch Awe and its environs, including the application site, are identified in the adopted Local Development Plan 2015 as being located within a “Tourism Development Area” where SG LDP TOUR 3 “Promoting Tourism Development Areas” is applicable. This states that:
The Tourism Development Areas shown on the Economic Diagram in the LDP contain significant opportunities for the sustainable growth of the Argyll and Bute tourism industry.
These areas will be promoted by a range of partners (HIE, SE, FCS, Local tourist organisations and VisitScotland) to encourage the further development of new high quality tourism developments that are intended to add to the appeal of Argyll and Bute as a compelling destination for tourists and also as a better place to live for local residents.
Wherever practicable existing infrastructure will be utilised and best use will be made of all modes of transport to access new sites Applications for new tourism developments will also be subject to all other policies and SG of the LDP.
It is the opinion of officers that the significance of tourism to this area merits specific commentary given the designation of much of the area under SG LDP TOUR 3 “Promoting Tourism Development Areas”. The environs of the application site have a significant number of tourist attractions as well as providing extensive opportunities for recreational use of the hills and water around Loch Awe. Specific larger tourist related facilities include the following:
Loch Awe Boats Loch Awe Hotel Taychreggan Hotel Ardanaiseig Hotel, garden and designed landscape St Conan’s Kirk Cruachan Dam and Visitors Centre Kilchurn Castle Duncan Ban MacIntyre Monument
All of these important attractions will to some degree rely on the landscape quality as part of their attraction, bringing visitors to the area to take part in both passive and active recreational uses.
For clarity no objection related to the impact upon tourism is raised given the inconclusive information on this matter which has been previously acknowledged. However the SPP at para 169 does advise that consideration should be given to “impacts on tourism and recreation”, and on this basis, should other matters be finely balanced in determining the application, it is suggested that a “precautionary approach” should be taken in respect of potential impact upon tourism interests in the area given the importance of these to the local economy and local communities.
Having due regard to the above, as far as tourism interests are concerned, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP and Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 3: Protecting, Conserving and Enhancing Our Outstanding Environment Together of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
M. NOISE, LIGHTING & AIR QUALITY
Technically, there are two quite distinct types of noise sources produced by a wind turbine – the mechanical noise produced by the machine and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air. The Report, ‘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, which should be followed to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments, until such time as an update is available. 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.
A further report produced by Hayes McKenzie for DECC entitled “An Analysis of How Noise Impacts are Considered in the Determination of Wind Farm Planning Applications” suggested that best practice guidance is required to confirm and, where necessary, clarify and add to the way ETSU-R-97 should be implemented in practice. This report also concludes that there is no evidence of health affects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by turbines.
The most conclusive summary of the implications of low frequency wind farm noise for planning policy following on from the Hayes McKenzie report is given by the UK Government’s statement regarding the finding of the Salford University Report into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise (September 2011). This study concluded that although Aerodynamic Modulation cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of Aerodynamic Modulation resulting from wind farms in the UK is low. Out of the 133 wind farms in operation at the time of the study, there were 4 cases where Aerodynamic Modulation appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for 3 out of these 4 sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent installation, investigations are ongoing.
The Environmental Protection Officer has considered the information provided in both the Environmental Statement (ES) and Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI), including the assessment of noise and vibration and has raised no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of noise and air quality the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
N. SHADOW FLICKER & ICE THROW (EQUIPMENT SAFETY)
Government guidance advises that if separation is provided between turbines and nearby dwellings (as general rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not be a problem. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no concerns or objections in respect of these matters having responded twice to the proposals. Therefore no issue or reason for refusal related to these matters is supported in this case
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of ice throw and shadow flicker the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
O. TELEVISION RECEPTION
Television reception can be affected by the presence of turbines although this has become less of a problem since the switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting. In the event that reception is impaired then it is the developer’s responsibility to rectify the problem. This would need to be secured by condition in the event that consent is approved.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of television reception the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
P. AVIATION MATTERS
The Civil Aviation Authority does not object to the proposal having reviewed the proposals. The MOD have requested that appropriate lighting or infra-red lighting is used on some of the peripheral turbines but raise no objections to the scheme.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of aviation matters the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
Q. ELECTRO-MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE TO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
Telecommunications operators have been consulted to determine whether their systems would be affected by electro-magnetic radiation associated with electricity generation. SPP and Local Development Plan Policy highlights telecommunications interference as a material consideration in considering the acceptability of wind turbines.
BT Network Protection have studied the proposal with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links and have concluded that, the proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks. BT Radio Network Protection have confirmed they have no objection as this proposal will not affect their radio network.
The Joint Radio Company does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of the above the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
R. ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT
The Council’s Area Roads Manager has no objection to the proposal which would take access from an A class road, but requests the conditions to address:
• Existing access at junction with public road to be upgraded in accordance with Operational Services Drg No SD 08/001a. Access may be constructed wider than shown to allow for the abnormal loads.
• Visibility splays measuring 160m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained. No obstruction to visibility greater than 1.05m in height permitted within the visibility splays.
• A system of surface water drainage will be required to prevent the flow of water onto the public road.
• Swept path analysis to be provided. There shall be no oversail onto private land outwith the road corridor, without the landowners permission. • Traffic management plan to be provided. Plan should include the construction plant and materials required for the project, including the amount of imported fill required for the construction of the access route, Plan should also show how they intend to control the traffic in both directions when delivering the wind farm components, from the A85 junction.
Furthermore, officers consider that no work should start on site until the applicant has provided the following information, for approval in writing by Argyll and Bute Council:
- A Traffic Management Plan, which should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components and labour required during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases;
- A detailed method statement in relation to access and transport of materials, plant and equipment;
Transport Scotland has no objection to the proposal but will require any abnormal load traffic on the trunk road network to be agreed in advance.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.
S. INFRASTRUCTURE
No requirement for public water or foul drainage connection is identified and the Environmental Protection Officer has not raised any concerns over impact on private water supplies.
In additional no current objections on such matters have been received from Scottish Water, SEPA or SNH. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that in terms of drainage and water supply there is insufficient information to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; and LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
T. GRID NETWORK & CABLES
Connection to the National Grid is not a matter of land use policy, however, it should be considered ‘in the round’ as part of the planning application process.
No objections have been raised in respect of these matters by any formal consultees.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms. U. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT
According to the SPP net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities (para. 169) are material considerations in the determination of energy infrastructure projects.
Member’s attention should also be drawn to the fact that the proposal will bring benefits. More particularly it is stated that the proposal will:
Result in £83.6m capital investment (including turbine manufacturing) with up to £5.4m being spent locally
For the duration of construction support up to 33 (FTE) local jobs in Argyll and Bute and 147 (FTE) jobs in Scotland
Operation phase could result in annual expenditure of £4.6m and directly support up to 5 (FTE) local jobs
Other socio economic and employment benefits could also arise due to pre- construction felling works and in relation to other phases of the proposed development.
Members are requested to note that the FEI confirms that the removal of one of the turbines will result in a reduction in generation capacity by 5.3% and this would result in a similar reduction in the envisaged socio economic benefits. Officers accept that this 5.3% reduction does not materially alter the weight which should be afforded to the benefits of the proposal as set out above.
The applicants also refer to predicted financial community benefits in their submissions. However Community Benefit is not considered to be a ‘material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. In the event that permission were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process.
In reaching our conclusions we have had regard to those factors which weigh in favour of the development – the presumption in favour of sustainable development established by SPP, the contribution the project can make to renewable energy targets, local economic benefits etc. but notwithstanding these benefits, when weighed in the balance against the local environmental shortcomings of the proposal, and having regard to views expressed by consultees and third parties, officers are of the view that the scale of development proposed on this site remains unacceptable.
V. DECOMMISSIONING
Should Scottish Ministers be minded to support the proposal a requirement for decommissioning and site restoration should be included in the conditions recommended by the Council, which would be triggered by either the expiry of the permission, or if the project ceases to operate for a specific period. This would ensure that at the end of the proposal’s operational life the turbines would be decommissioned and principal elements removed; the site would be restored to its former use leaving little if any visible trace of the turbines; the foundations, new tracks and hardstandings would be covered over with topsoil and reseeded; the cables would be de-energised and left in place, and any cables marker signs removed; and the electrical substation building would be demolished to ground level with the foundation covered with topsoil and reseeded.
Having due regard to the above, as decommissioning could be controlled by condition it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in that regard in terms of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
X. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICY & ADVICE
The commitment to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources is a vital part of the response to climate change. Renewable energy generation will contribute to more secure and diverse energy supplies and support sustainable economic growth (SPP). The current target is for 100% of Scotland’s electricity and 11% of heat demand to be generated from renewable sourced by 2020 (2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland).
SPP provides the government’s policy position on planning matters having regard to national priorities with the intended outcomes identified reflecting the strategic visions set out in NPF 3. An underlying theme is that of sustainability, a principle which has been accorded enhanced priority in this iteration of SPP through the introduction of a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. Whilst the statutory primacy of the development plan in decision-making is not undermined by this policy pronouncement, the intention is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should prevail other than in circumstances where there are ‘adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in this SPP’ (Para 33).
Paragraph 29 of SPP sets out principles by which decisions should be guided. Those relevant to this case are securing economic benefit and good design, supporting delivery of energy infrastructure and climate change mitigation, and protecting the historic and natural environments and the amenity of existing developments. In terms of development in rural areas, SPP recognises the need to secure development which protects the character of the particular area and to support business whilst protecting environmental quality.
The delivery of a ‘Low Carbon Place’ is key ambition of SPP which aims to support the transformational change to a low carbon economy, focused on the reduction of greenhouse gases associated with fossil fuel electricity generation. It expresses support for renewable energy technologies, of which onshore wind remains the principal generator. As with the stance adopted in NPF 3, the support for wind farms as a component of an expanding renewables sector is not unqualified. There is recognition of the value and importance of the natural environment and an expectation that the planning system should facilitate positive change while maintaining and enhancing distinctive landscape character. Siting and design should take account of local landscape character and developers should seek to minimise adverse impacts through careful planning and design. Permission should be refused where the nature or scale of proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the natural environment.
Overall, as a renewable energy proposal with considerable generating capacity the proposal gains support in principle from SPP in terms of the contribution it would be able to make to the achievement of national renewable energy targets and the ambition to move to a low carbon economy. That said, sustainability has to be considered in the round and developments which may benefit the wider environment may come at a price which is too high in terms of their more localised consequences for the receiving environment. So support for wind farms as a means of expanding the proportion of electricity produced from renewable sources is qualified by the need to have regard to the extent of local environmental impacts and whether they amount to ‘adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in this SPP’ (Para 33).
The Council’s conclusion has been that the location and scale of the turbines proposed do not relate satisfactorily to the scale and character of the receiving landscape. These negative effects, in the Council’s view, outweigh the benefits of the proposal, including the contribution it could make to the local economy and to the achievement of national energy generation targets.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
Y. ENERGY POLICY, THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS & ARGYLL & BUTE’S CONTRIBUTION ( Update required?)
In assessing the acceptability of wind farm proposals, it is necessary to have regard to the macro-environmental aspects of renewable energy (reduction in reliance on fossil fuels and contribution to reduction in global warming) as well as to the micro-environmental consequences of the proposal (in terms of its impact on its receiving environment).
Installed onshore wind energy generation capacity in Scotland in 2012 was 5.8GW and is expected to continue to grow in response to the Scottish Government target of meeting 100% of demand from renewable sources by 2020. As a consequence, planning authorities have to consider more frequently turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, where design elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed (Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms).
The national and international drive to combat climate change by reduced reliance on fossil fuels is accepted, but this cannot be an over-riding reason to accept development where acknowledged interests of importance are significantly prejudiced. This is particularly the case given that the renewables sector is pursuing a large number of prospective sites across Scotland, so there remains an element of choice as to the most appropriate locations. There is therefore not such an imperative to develop a high proportion of prospective sites as there might be if the sector had fewer sites under consideration, as in that scenario unsuccessful applications would clearly jeopardise the ability to meet renewable energy production targets. Secondly, the rate at which wind farm development have been approved in recent years is such that the Scottish Government’s ambitious target for renewables to satisfy the equivalent of 100% of gross annual consumption by 2020 is now well within reach. In a recent appeal decision in the Scottish Borders (Barrel Law PPA-140-2046 19.08.14) the Reporter concluded that having regard to both operational and approved developments yet to be implemented, of the 16GW required to meet the target there was in 2014 only an additional 2.7GW shortfall, with 7.2GW in the planning system; more than two and a half times that required to close the gap. Although further capacity beyond the target is desirable, and there remains an element of uncertainty as to exactly what will be on stream by 2020, the absence of a significant shortfall relative to the target, and continued proliferation of prospective schemes is such that there is no over-riding imperative to secure additional development where it gives rise to unacceptable local impacts. Accordingly, given that there is no lack of proposals being pursued, as time goes on the increasing prospect of the target being satisfied allows planning decision-makers to be more stringent in their consideration of the respective merits of proposals, given that refusal of a particular development will not necessarily contribute to the prospect of the government’s stated target being missed.
Whilst the 64.6 MW maximum capacity of the proposal would add to Argyll & Bute’s contribution to Scotland’s renewable energy commitments, it is not considered that the macro-environmental benefits of the proposal in terms of renewable generating capacity are such as to warrant the setting aside of the other Development Plan policy considerations identified above which have prompted the recommendation that objection be raised to this proposal.