Greenburn Wind Farm, New Cumnock

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - 25 September 2020

Report by the Interim Head of Planning and Economic Development, Economy and Skills

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE PROPOSED GREENBURN WIND FARM AT PROPOSED GREENBURN WIND PARK NEW CUMNOCK. EAST AYRSHIRE (20/0001/S36)

Click here for application details: http://eplanning.east- ayrshire.gov.uk/online/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=Q9AAD2GF01U0 0

PURPOSE OF REPORT 1. The purpose of this report is to present for the consideration of the Planning Committee under the scheme of delegation a formal consultation from the Scottish Ministers on an application made under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a proposed wind farm development on land to the west of New Cumnock and for the Planning Committee to take a formal view on the proposed development. The Section 36 application includes an application for deemed planning permission for the same development under Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

RECOMMENDATION

2. It is recommended that the Council objects to the development and that this committee report and the minutes of the Planning Committee be forwarded to the Scottish Ministers as presenting this Council’s formal response to the consultation.

3. In addition, it is also recommended that the Council:

 Informs the Scottish Ministers that should Ministers be minded to grant consent for the Greenburn Wind Farm, that the Council seeks the conclusion of a Section 75 legal agreement between the Applicant and the Council prior to issue of Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission, or agreement to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority of another arrangement to secure a legal obligation post decision, to include those matters listed within the legal implications section of this committee report, and

appropriate planning conditions for the deemed planning consent to ensure that the matters noted throughout this report are properly addressed and recognising that such conditions are returned to the Planning Authority for discharge.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF APPLICATION 4. The Scottish Ministers are responsible, under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, for the authorisation of any new, or extensions to existing, electricity generation schemes with a generation capacity in excess of 50 Megawatts (MW). As the proposed Greenburn wind farm would have an installed capacity of 67.2MW, East Ayrshire Council has been formally consulted by the Scottish Ministers in terms of Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

5. The Council is a formal consultee in this process. In procedural terms the Council, as Planning Authority, requires to provide a response to the Scottish Ministers. In this regard, the Council in response to the consultation can either:

(i) Offer no objections to the Section 36 application as submitted; (ii) Offer no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and/or legal obligations it considers necessary to make the development acceptable, or (iii) Object to the application, stating the grounds on which objection is made.

6. Should the Scottish Ministers be disposed to grant a Section 36 consent for the Greenburn wind farm, the Applicant has requested that deemed planning consent be granted in terms of Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. A separate application for planning permission would not, therefore, be required for the proposed development.

7. There is no specific history to this application, no previous wind farm applications have been made on this site and other than the general planning history (which is set out elsewhere within this report) there is no discernible history to report. A scoping request (18/0003/S36SCP) was received on 1 November 2018 with the Council’s response to the Energy Consents Unit made on 7 December 2018.

APPLICATION DETAILS

8. Site Description: The application site is located wholly within East Ayrshire Council. The site is located on an area of gently sloping undulating land currently a mixture of commercial forestry in the western half of the site and open moorland in the eastern half. The application site abuts former (no longer actively mining) opencast sites, with Netherton on the north-west boundary and Greenburn and House of Water on the southern boundaries. The site will be accessed from Glaisnock Road which generally runs parallel to the A76, and links the B741 in the south to the B7046 in the north. The application site is approximately equidistant from the settlements of New Cumnock (approximately 3.8km to the east) and Cumnock (approximately 3.2km to the north). The site area varies in topography from approximately 260m AOD up to 365m AOD, with higher elevations tending to be located towards the west, north- western areas of the site, at Carsgailloch Hill, with elevation tending to lower towards 65

the east and south-east. The A76 trunk road (Kilmarnock to Dumfries) is located approximately 1.7km north-east of the application site.

9. There are many farms and individual dwellinghouses throughout the vicinity of the application site within this rural area, generally located in easterly and northerly directions, the closest of which is located directly across the road from the proposed site access, at approximately 23m from the site boundary.

10. The proposed wind farm application site falls within two different Landscape Character Types (LCTs) as defined within the East Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study (EALWCS) and these are LCT 17a: Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining and LCT 15: Upland Basin. It should be noted that the majority of the application site, including all but one turbine, falls within LCT 17a with turbine T3 and other associated infrastructure located in LCT 15.

11. Proposed Development: The proposed development comprises 16 wind turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 149.9 metres. Associated with each turbine will be the corresponding foundations, crane hardstandings and electrical plant (which will likely be located within the turbines, although may be housed in external kiosks adjacent to the turbines). The formation of approximately 7km of new access tracks (in addition to 2.4km of upgrading of existing tracks) is proposed. Five new water crossings are proposed along with the possible upgrading of six existing crossings. An estimated 10MW battery storage facility measuring approximately 58m x 40m and 4.2m in height is proposed, alongside a 132kV substation and control building compound measuring approximately 64m x 50m and 6.8m in height.

12. During the construction period, there will also be the following components: two temporary site construction compound areas, including car parking; a borrow pit area of approximately 1.6ha; a 50m micro-siting allowance (increasing to 75m for turbines T1, T2, T3, T6, T9 and T10 – including access tracks serving these turbines), and the felling of approximately 77ha of commercial forestry, although there would be restocking and on-site compensatory planting to compensate for this.

13. There would be a construction period of approximately 20 months, with a proposed operational period of 35 years and an as yet unspecified period for decommissioning, restoration and aftercare. The candidate turbines are assumed to have a rating of 4.2MW, which would equate to an installed capacity of 67.2MW.

14. The proposed turbine delivery route would be from the King George V Dock in Glasgow, travelling south down the M77, before becoming the A77 into Kilmarnock. Vehicles will then travel south-east on the A76, before leaving the A76 at the roundabout just south of Netherthird and travelling southwards on the C36 before joining the U719 and into the site access.

CONSULTATIONS AND ISSUES RAISED

15. The Council is a consultee in the Section 36 application process and therefore consultation by the Council is limited to Council departments and associated organisations/consultants. As such, a summary of the wider consultation responses received by the Scottish Government is also included below, as these may be relevant to the view of the Council.

16. Environmental Health – confirm that this service has no substantive comments to make in respect of the application. In respects of potential noise impacts, Environmental Health would defer to the views of the Council’s external consultants, ACCON UK Ltd.

17. Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) – have no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions. Conditions include (but are not limited to): The requirement for the submission of a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP); Any mitigation necessary to the existing adopted road network will require to be carried out under Section 56 of the Roads Scotland Act; No large turbine component movements, cranes or deliveries of materials shall take place at peak school times (08:30-09:30 and 15:00-16:30) unless previously confirmed school transport will not be using the delivery route at these times; Details of and written approval from ARA of mitigation works required on public road verges, street furniture, etc. and works completed at least 1 month prior to the first delivery; Prior to works commencing on site, the Applicant shall undertake a joint condition survey with ARA of routes affected by extraordinary traffic and this survey shall be repeated at intervals as agreed between the parties, and the access road must be tarred appropriately and wheel washing facilities will require to be installed.

18. New Cumnock Community Council (NCCC) – NCCC have agreed a time extension with the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) to provide their comments on the proposed development to the ECU in October 2020.

19. The following were also consulted, however no responses were provided:

Contaminated Land Officer; Countryside Access Officer; West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS); Auchinleck Community Council; Cumnock Community Council; Dalmellington Community Council; Drongan, Rankinston and Stair Community Council; Mauchline Community Council; Ochiltree Community Council, and Netherthird and District Community Council.

20. The Scottish Government consulted widely on the Section 36 application and a list of those who have responded, along with a summary of their comments, as shown on the Energy Consents Unit website, are provided below.

21. Joint Radio Company (JRC) – This proposal cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by Scottish Power and Scotia Gas Networks. JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry. This is to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements. JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided. If 67

details of the wind farm change, particularly the disposition or scale of any turbine(s), it will be necessary to re-evaluate the proposal. It should be noted that this clearance pertains only to the date of its issue. As the use of the spectrum is dynamic, the use of the band is changing on an ongoing basis and consequently, developers are advised to seek re-coordination prior to considering any design changes.

A further response in July 2020 reiterated the above comments.

22. British Telecom (BT) – BT have studied this windfarm proposal with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links. BT have reviewed the proposed mitigation measures for turbine 11 (micrositing out with the necessary buffer) and have calculated a minimum of 25m movement within a south- west, west direction is acceptable. Ideally the full 50m would be preferred.

BT responded to additional information in July 2020 to confirm that as there were no changes to the wind turbine locations, their original response still stands.

Further correspondence between the Applicant and BT has shown that the Applicant has committed to microsite turbine T11 a minimum distance of 25m west, south-west to avoid interference with BT’s planned radio network and BT have confirmed they are satisfied with this.

23. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) – NATS have determined that the terrain screening available will not adequately attenuate the signal and therefore, this development is likely to cause false primary plots to be generated on the Lowther Hill Radar. A reduction in the radar’s probability of detection for real aircraft is also anticipated. The proposed development has been examined by technical and operational safeguarding teams. A technical impact is anticipate and has been deemed to be unacceptable. NATS responded to additional information in July 2020 to confirm their previous objection to the development remains.

24. Scottish Water – Scottish Water have no objection to this planning application, however the Applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced and would advise the following: According to Scottish Water records, the development proposals impact on existing and proposed Scottish Water assets. The Applicant must identify any potential conflicts with Scottish Water assets and contact the Asset Impact Team directly to apply for a diversion. Any conflict with assets identified may be subject to restrictions on proximity of construction. A review of Scottish Water records indicates that there are no Scottish Water drinking catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposed activity.

25. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) – SNH advise that the nearest designated natural heritage sites of international and/or national importance are at least 6km from the site and therefore, in SNH’s views will not be adversely affected by the proposed development. SNH advise that further details of proposed bat mitigation be provided which they will be happy to advise on further, once received. SNH advise that the impacts on peat and carbon-rich soils could be overcome, through reviewing (if necessary) and implementing the Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative Peatland 68

Restoration and Survey Plan for the whole of Glaisnock Moss/Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site in its entirety. SNH recommend the proposed Habitat Management Plan be finalised prior to determination of the application and that it should also include proposals to manage and improve the condition of the adjacent Ancient Woodland Inventory parcel at Pappet Hill. SNH recommend the ornithology mitigation proposed be undertaken and also support the proposals to develop a Bird Monitoring Programme which can be used to measure the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. SNH recommend an assessment of the potential impacts on deer welfare, habitats, neighbouring and other interests should be presented. A Deer Management Plan may be required.

26. The proposed development is located on prominent south-east facing slopes close to the Upland Basin LCT (and settlements, roads and recreational facilities in this area) increasing intrusion and effects on the character of this landscape character type (LCT). The proposed development would also result in significant additional cumulative effects with existing and consented wind farm development, likely to give rise to a perception of increasing encirclement and domination of the Upland Basin LCT. The proposed development would be located much closer to the Upland Basin LCT than any other existing or consented wind farms. Significant visual effects would occur widely across the Upland Basin LCT including views from New Cumnock and nearby settlements, the popular Lochside Hotel, areas used for recreation and the A76 between New Cumnock and Cumnock. Significant effects would also be experienced from parts of Cumnock, Auchinleck and also potentially the Ochiltree area. The proposed development would lie adjacent to the proposed North Kyle wind farm and though Greenburn comprises substantially fewer turbines than the North Kyle proposal, its closer proximity to the Upland Basin LCT would result in it making a significant contribution to the extensive accumulation of wind farm development seen on the uplands immediately surrounding the Upland Basin LCT, and as experienced from the A76 where many other existing, consented and proposed wind farms are located within the upper Nith Valley between Sanquhar and Cumnock. The design of the wind farm lacks cohesion and the omission of turbines 13, 14, 15 and 16 (and possibly also turbine 7) from this scheme could mitigate landscape and visual impacts to some degree. SNH recommend further work is done on the Wind Farm Forest Plan (including more ambitious restocking plans) and that the outline proposals for mitigation and enhancement set out in the LVIA against the objectives of the North Kyle Forest Masterplan should receive firm commitment from the Applicant is the proposed development is approved.

27. Marine Scotland Science (MSS) – The proposed development area is drained by watercourses within the River Nith and the River Lugar catchments, the latter drains into the River Ayr. Both river catchments support salmon and trout populations and MSS welcomes the proposed Fisheries Management Plan (FMP). MSS recommends that the developer follows the guidelines issued by MSS in relation to the survey / monitoring of the water quality and aquatic biota (macroinvertebrate and fish populations) associated with wind farms. MSS advise that the developer carries out pre-construction surveys of the water quality (including key hydrochemical parameters, turbidity and flow data) and fish populations at sites within and downstream of the proposed development area at least 12 months prior to construction commencing, further surveys during the course of construction and for at least 12 months after construction is complete. Additional surveys are likely to be 69

required before decommissioning takes place. MSS recommend that control sites are selected where potential impacts are unlikely as a result of the present proposal and developments which have hydrological connectivity with Greenburn Wind Park (e.g. adjacent wind farms, coal mines and restoration sites). MSS encourages the developer to remove all felled material from within and adjacent to watercourses, as outlined in the UK Forests and Water Guidelines, to avoid leaching of nutrients into adjacent watercourses. MSS welcomes the proposed buffer zone of 50m adjacent to all watercourses, the use of SuDS in the proposed drainage system, and the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW). MSS recommends that the 50m hydrological buffer zone is adhered to, should the 50m / 75m micrositing allowance be required, and that the ECoW undertakes regular visual inspections of all watercourses as outlined in the MSS guidelines.

28. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – have stated they object to the application on the grounds of lack of information regarding Private Water Supplies and Forestry. SEPA object to the planning application unless the modifications in Sections 3 and 4 of their response can be accommodated. Section 3 in SEPA’s response notes that turbines 9 and 11 are positioned adjacent to a watercourse and require to be moved out with the buffer zones outlined in SEPA guidance. Furthermore, SEPA requests the Applicant examine whether turbine 11 could be moved west along the track and off the area of moderate GWDTE. Section 4 of SEPA’s response note the habitat loss of wet modified bog and blanket bog (as mentioned in paragraphs 10.5.26 and 10.5.29) due to the access track and also fragmentation could be mitigated by the use of floating roads in these areas. SEPA note if floating roads aren’t possible then engineering the track with a view to maintaining hydrological connectivity would be required. SEPA require roads to be floated over areas of peat deeper than 1m (where feasible) to avoid further unnecessary peat excavation. SEPA welcome the habitat restoration tying in with the Glaisnock Moss restoration. With regards to Private Water Supplies, SEPA note that one PWS was identified within 1km of the site (at Wellhead Steadings), though no information is provided within the EIAR that a walkover survey (as per SEPA guidance LUPS-GU4, Appendix 2: Section 4.1) was undertaken to locate the PWS source on the ground. SEPA note that the Applicant should undertake a walkover survey to confirm the location of the PWS source to ensure it is out with the 250m buffer zone as per SEPA guidance. In terms of forestry, SEPA want confirmation of whether felling will be carried out in line with the forest plan or if the crop will be felled early to make way for the proposed development. SEPA request that after felling, the felled area is walked and checked for areas of Springs and Flushes, with any found being clearly marked and avoided. SPEA note that a complex construction site licence under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) will be required for a site of this size. SEPA responded to additional information in July 2020 noting that their previous comments / objections are pertinent and should be taken into account.

29. The Applicant provided further information on 3 August 2020 to address the points made by SEPA. Regarding the Private Water Supply matter, contact was made with the resident of the supply who advised that the water is supplied via a rainwater harvester on the premises and bottled water is used for drinking, and confirmed they do not have a supplementary supply from a ground or surface water source. There is therefore, no PWS source as such to fall within 250m of the proposed development. 70

In terms of forestry, the Applicant confirmed there is currently no approved forest plan covering the woodlands within the forestry study area of the EIA Report and the felling plan only shows the felling required to facilitate the proposed wind farm development. No further felling is proposed. The Applicant confirmed micrositing will allow turbine 9 to be moved to address SEPA’s concerns thought would accept a condition requiring a revised layout scheme be submitted for approval post-consent but prior to construction to ensure turbine 11 is moved in line with SEPA’s recommendations. SEPA’s response of 27 August 2020 confirmed that these matters had now been addressed, apart from turbine 11 and SEPA would still object unless they receive an updated plan reflecting the alterations.

30. Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) – undertook a Stage 1 audit of the Peat Landslide & Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA) submitted by the Applicant. Ironside Farrar conclude that although much of the PLHRA submitted by the Applicant is sound, there are some key elements which are considered to be insufficiently robust to be able to support the conclusions reached within the PLHRA. Ironside Farrar recommend that aerial photographs (current and historical) should be reviewed to provide some further desk study analysis and identify any site features that might affect the PLHRA. Adding this information to the report is to demonstrate a suitably robust desk study and check whether any features have been missed in the subsequent assessment. Discussion is required on mitigation to reduce peat slide risks for areas of permanent or temporary peat storage. Whilst it is noted that blasting may be unlikely (but not completely ruled out), some discussion is required on any mitigation should blasting be required. It is recommended for future consequent assessments that further inputs like receptor value should be considered and the PLWRA should always incorporate a stand-alone desk study within the report.

31. IFL provided further comments on 19 August 2020 in response to comments made by the Applicant in light of IFL’s original consultation response. The Applicant noted that high resolution aerial photography was incorporated into the GIS (Geographical Information System) modelling which has helped advise the peat landslide risk. The Applicant confirmed that there is no intention to store peat on site on a temporary or permanent basis, with excavated peat being translocated to appropriate locations without storing. In terms of blast mitigation, the Applicant advised that although not expected to be required, if blasting did take place within the proposed borrow pit area it would be at a location away from risk of peat landslide. On the basis of the information provided, IFL were satisfied that the new information closed out the queries they had originally made.

32. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) – Our Line of Sight Analysis (LOS) indicates that all turbines will be visible to our primary radar (S511 and Terma Scanter 4002) and will generate unacceptable clutter on our radar displays that will require mitigation. Discussions continue with the developer in regards of ILS Safeguarding Assessment and the need for an Instrument Flight Procedures Assessment against both Conventional and RNAV published charts in UK AIP for Prestwick. Until such times as these discussions are concluded and a Mitigation Agreement is agreed for the life of the wind farm, Glasgow Prestwick Airport Ltd must currently object to the proposed development on the ground of aviation safety.

33. Transport Scotland – Transport Scotland notes that a 20-month construction period was assumed, and that any lengthening in the programme will result in a reduction of the peak period between trip generation. The maximum traffic movements associated with construction will occur between months 9-12 of the programme, during which time an average of 61 HGV movements and a further 38 car and minibus / light good vehicle movements per day are predicted. The EIAR indicates that the maximum percentage increase will occur on the A76(T) north of Dettingen Roundabout, with a 7.46% increase in HGV traffic and a 1.11% increase in total traffic. Transport Scotland is, therefore, satisfied that the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Guidelines for further assessment have not been breached, and no further assessment of these receptors is required. Detailed swept path assessments were undertaken for constraint points within the EIAR and identified that modifications would be required to accommodate the movement of the turbine components to the site. These modifications include the introduction of over- run or load bearing surfaces, the removal of street furniture and clearance of vegetation. Transport Scotland state that any proposed changes to the trunk road network must be discussed and approved (via a technical approval process) by the appropriate Area Managers prior to the movement of any abnormal load. Transport Scotland are satisfied with the submitted EIAR and have no objection to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network, and would request two conditions relating to abnormal load movements be attached to any consent, if granted.

34. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – HES have concluded that the development proposal does not raise issues of national interest sufficient to warrant an objection for our historic environment interests. The EIA Report concludes there would be no direct impact on sites which may affect our historic interests, however notes there would be setting impacts on: Dumfries House Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL) of ‘minor’ significance, and The Temple (A-listed building within Dumfries House GDL) of ‘minor’ significance. HES would agree with the methodology used to undertake the assessment. In terms of the six Scheduled Monuments within the 10km study area, HES are content with the assessment that no Scheduled Monuments or inventory battlefields would experience a significant impact from the proposed development. Whilst distant views of parts of turbines may be possible from Auchencloigh Castle, we do not consider this raises issues of national significance.

35. With regards to the A-listed building, ‘The Temple’, the EIA Report acknowledges that whilst the architectural detail and historic association of The Temple structure would still be readily appreciable, the proposed development would form a visible new and modern addition in the view to the south from The Temple and across the valley, and is considered to change the wider setting of this structure in particular the north side of the GDL. The effect on The Temple and its setting is assessed as minor and this is not significant in EIA terms. HES agree with this assessment. With regards to Dumfries House, this is included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in recognition of its national importance. The EIA Report states that the proposed development would not change the interrelationships of the main structural elements of the estate to each other or the spaces and access routes through the GDL, nor how these elements can be understood or appreciated in their intentional design, individual architectural merit and historic associations. HES agree 72

with this assessment. The EIA Report concludes that the magnitude of the impact on the GDL is assessed as low upon a high sensitivity receptor, and the effect is assessed as being of minor significance (which is not significant for the EIA Regulations). HES agree with this assessment. HES were consulted on additional information pertaining to the LVIA (Chapter 7) of the EIA Report but responded in July 2020 to note that the additional information does not demonstrate an impact that is significant for HES’s interests and confirmed they have no additional comments to add to their original response.

36. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – RSPB agree with the assessment of cumulative collision risk impact to peregrine falcon as significant. While the conclusion drawn in the EIA states that the proposed wind farm is not contributing significantly to the overall impact (paragraph 9.7.15), RSPB would advise that this should not affect the level of mitigation measures to be implemented as part of any consent for the proposed development. RSPB therefore agree with the commitment to produce an Operational Protection Plan for peregrine to mitigate the impact which should include nest site location, protection and potential creation; carcass searches and post-construction monitoring, and advise that these conditions should be made part of any planning consent for this proposal. With regards to black grouse, RSPB welcomes the proposed mitigation measures to buffer lek sites up to 750m from disturbance during the lekking season as outlined in the Outline Bird Protection Plan (Technical Appendix 9.3) although RSPB advise that the timings of restrictions should run from the end of March until mid-May to cover this season. RSPB would recommend that habitat restoration plans for bog habitat and forestry includes objectives to benefit black grouse. RSPB fully support the measures to monitor black grouse through post-construction monitoring.

37. RSPB notes that the EIA Report does not make an assessment of the impact of the proposal on the Glaisnock Moss / Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS), although it does confirm that the majority of open moorland within the site boundary falls within the LNCS and that local planning guidance states that any impact to such sites should be avoided or mitigated. RSPB consider this an omission in the assessment process. Nevertheless, RSPB notes and fully supports the habitat restoration objectives for the blanket bog that falls within the LNCS based on survey and habitat recommendations presented by the East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative (CEI) report. The restoration should be based on survey findings and recommendations by CEI and detailed in an agreed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as suggested within the EIA Report and made part of any planning conditions for this proposal. RSPB recommend that habitat restoration works include management to enhance habitat for black grouse, specifically management should aim to identify and maintain and / or create areas of nesting and brood rearing habitat. RSPB welcome the objectives to reduce the area of Sitka spruce and increase the area of native broadleaves and mixed conifer on site following felling and replanting of forestry to accommodate wind farm infrastructure. However, this will include the planting of native broadleaves 100m from the turbine locations. Given the attractiveness of native broadleaves to black grouse, the planting of these species should be targeted further away from turbine infrastructure. One potential alternative area could be in the area noted as sitka spruce poor at Carsgallioch Hill close to Martyrs’ grave and further away from the turbine infrastructure areas which would reduce the risk of collision for foraging black grouse. 73

38. Nith District Salmon Fisheries Board (NDSFB) – responded to advise that earth works high in river catchments, where a considerable rainfall is anticipated, can create problems in the aquatic environment when these are conveyed down catchment. Many of these impacts can be mitigated against if measures are incorporated to ensure that the impacts are addressed at source. The NDSFB have to be in a position to establish the status of each watercourse to be potentially impacted and this is done by a series of surveys for fish and aquatic invertebrates. It is also sensible to survey for Fresh Water Pearl Mussels. The initial series of surveys sets a baseline prior to construction activity occurring. From the initial baseline survey, information can be obtained which will be useful in advising construction method statements and impact avoidance when it comes to road construction and culvert placements, etc. The NDSFB have received all the documentation associated with the Greenburn Wind Park and are familiar with the area. We note in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Non-Technical Summary section 10.3.16, an intention to develop a Fisheries Management Plan for the site. NDSFB can confirm that it will be willing to participate in developing such a plan for the Nith catchment component of the Greenburn Wind Park proposals.

39. Scotways – Scotways notes there may be general access rights over any property under the terms of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. They note that the Core Path Plans prepared by the access team at East Ayrshire Council as part of their duties under this Act have been consulted in the preparation of the application. Scotways would draw attention to the following: Extract from the Welsh Assembly Government’s Technical Advice Note on Renewable Energy (TAN 8) Proximity to Highways and Railways, part 2.25, “It is advisable to set back all wind turbines a minimum distance, equivalent to the height of the blade tip, from the edge of any public highway (road or other public right of way) or railway line.” Scotways is aware of several wind farm developments, at different stages in the planning process, in the local area. Scotways ask that the cumulative impact of these proposed, and any consented, developments are taken into account when considering this application.

40. The Coal Authority – Coal Authority records indicate that the site is in an area of likely historic unrecorded coal mine workings at shallow depth as well as being in an area of past surface mining activity. Having reviewed the available coal mining and geological information submitted with the application, the reports conclude that intrusive site investigations should be carried out in order to establish the ground conditions and risks posed by past coal mining activity. Based on these conclusions, it is recommended that the intrusive site investigations, along with any remedial measures identified as being necessary to ensure the safety and stability of the development, are carried out on site prior to commencement of development.

41. Ministry of Defence (MOD) – The MOD has no objections to the proposed development. In the interests of aviation safety, the MOD would request that the turbines be fitted with MOD accredited aviation safety lighting. The perimeter turbines should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500 ms duration at the highest practicable point. If consent is granted, MOD wish to be advised of the following prior to commencement of construction: the start date and end date of construction, the maximum height of construction equipment and the 74

latitude and longitude of every turbine. A further response was received in relation to a consultation request due to updates to Chapter 7 (LVIA) of the EIA Report. MOD confirmed that their original comments, set out above remain extant.

42. Scottish Forestry – Scottish Forestry recommend that before the application is determined, clarification on the actual extent and date(s) of wind-blow clearance undertaken to date within the 22.6ha identified as ‘bare ground’ be provided, to ensure the areas identified as compensatory planting meet the eligibility criteria as set out in the Scottish Government’s policy on the control of woodland removal. Scottish Forestry recommend that before the application is determined, clarification under what approval, and the dates on which, the small number of coupes identified as recently clear-felled in Chapter 10, paragraph 10.3.50, be provided. Scottish Forestry recommend that before the application is determined information on the ‘forest plan without development’ be provided to support the Applicant’s calculations for net woodland removal and any resulting compensatory planting, which would be required if the proposed development is given consent. Scottish Forestry recommend that before the application is determined, clarification on restocking alternatives be provided in the event that land for temporary infrastructure isn’t reinstated and available for forest restocking. Furthermore it is noted that Chapter 14, paragraph 14.6.5 considers ‘bare ground’ as un-plantable yet this forms part of the area currently identified for compensatory planting. Scottish Forestry recommend that prior to the application being determined, clarification on whether the ground is conducive to tree growth for each of the chosen species is provided.

43. Scottish Forestry recommend that before the application is determined, clarification of restocking maintenance responsibilities including appropriate timescales be provided and clarification on deer protection measures also be provided. Scottish Forestry also consider that before the application is determined, further information on the felling and timber transport operations be provided. Scottish Forestry will be happy to work with the Applicant to develop a suitable compensatory planting plan. Upon agreement of the area of compensatory planting, Scottish Forestry will seek that it is a condition of approval and that it is in place prior to the commencement of construction.

REPRESENTATIONS

44. The Scottish Government has advised that 6 letters of objection have been received from third parties.

45. The letters of objection raise issues relating to landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts and resultant impacts on tourism and recreation. Encirclement of New Cumnock is a concern, as are impacts on wildlife, peat and bird life. Cultural heritage impacts are raised as a concern alongside aviation impacts due to the flightpath for Glasgow Prestwick Airport. Noise impacts have been raised including those associated with construction and traffic noise as well as turbine specific noise including amplitude modulation. Road safety concerns have also been raised within the representations.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

46. The application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Unlike a planning application, there is no requirement that the application be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Instead, the Development Plan is a material consideration, albeit an important one, amongst a number of material considerations, which require to be taken into account by the Scottish Ministers in the determination of the application.

47. For the purposes of the Council’s assessment of the proposed development, to inform its response to the Scottish Government, it is considered that the Development Plan represents a logical document against which to base its primary assessment. Other material considerations pertinent to the application are considered following the assessment and overall conclusions are drawn thereafter.

48. The Development Plan comprises two separate plans. These are the Minerals Local Development Plan (MLDP) which was adopted by the Council in January 2020 and the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan (EALDP) which was adopted by the Council on 3 April 2017. The policies relevant to wind energy are contained solely within the EALDP, however given the location of the site, some MLDP policies would be relevant. All relevant policies from both the EALDP and MLDP are considered in detail below.

49. It is important to note that the assessment by the Planning Authority focuses on the significant environmental effects predicted to arise, resulting from the proposed development, as such effects are more likely to be of a determinative nature in the assessment and conclusions. For the avoidance of doubt, a lack of significant effects does not mean there will be no effect at all, and non-significant effects are still relevant to the assessment of the proposed development.

Adopted East Ayrshire Local Development Plan (EALDP)

Policy RE3: Wind energy proposals over 50 metres in height

50. All wind energy proposals over 50m in height, including extensions and proposals for repowering, will be assessed using the spatial framework for wind development shown on Map 12 and all relevant Renewable Energy and other LDP policies.

51. The Council will afford significant protection to Group 2 areas shown on Map 12. Development may be appropriate in some circumstances within these areas in cases where it can be demonstrated that any significant adverse effects on the environmental characteristics of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation and where the proposal is acceptable in terms of all applicable renewable energy criteria set out in Schedule 1.

52. Within those areas shown on the Spatial Framework (Map 12) as Group 3 – Areas with Potential for Wind Energy Development, proposals for wind energy over 50m in height will be supported where it can be demonstrated that they are acceptable in terms of all applicable Renewable Energy Assessment Criteria set out in Schedule 1. 76

53. The proposed wind farm is located in both Group 2 and Group 3 areas as identified on the Spatial Framework (Map 12). The reason the site falls within a Group 2 area is the presence of two Class 1 Carbon and Peatland Areas located within the application site. A small area fringing the western boundary of the site (which extends beyond the site boundary to the west) and a more sizable area located in the northern, central area of the site, which extends beyond the site boundary northwards.

54. The smaller (western) area of Class 1 peatland has been avoided by all proposed infrastructure through the site design. The larger northern, central area of Class 1 peat would see some lengths of track cut across it, alongside the location of one turbine (T13) with associated crane pad, hardstandings and turning areas. T15 is on the edge of the Class 1 Peat and elements of its structure such as the foundations or crane pad have the potential to overlap with the Class 1 peat. Probing by the Applicant and shown in the EIA Report, Volume 2, Figures 12.5.1 to 12.5.5 and 12.9, indicates peat where this infrastructure is proposed ranges from approximately 0 to 1 metre in depth, though it appears to be predominantly 0 to 0.5m in depth. Further assessment of peat matters is provided below against the relevant Schedule 1 criteria.

55. The policy requires significant protection of such mapped areas of peat unless it can be demonstrated that significant effects can be substantially overcome through siting, design or other mitigation. Due to the location of the proposed infrastructure across the Class 1 peat, siting has not been demonstrated to overcome the impact.

56. The location of turbine 13 is such that micrositing would not allow it to avoid the Class 1 peat altogether although it could be positioned so as to affect less of it. With regards to turbine 15, micrositing could move it further away from the edge of the Class 1 peat. Nevertheless, other mitigation will be required to reduce impacts on this deep peat. Some of the key mitigation proposed includes separate excavation, handling and storage of acrotelmic and catotelmic peat and mineral soils, progressive restoration during the construction phase, and monitoring of vegetation water table levels and peat stability during the operational phase. Excavated peat would be reused for restoration of the site, with no peat proposed to be disposed of off-site. A Habitat Management Plan is proposed which includes a peatland restoration plan for Glaisnock Moss (based on the findings and recommendations of the existing East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative report, included as Appendix TA12.9 of the EIA Report). This would represent peatland restoration / improvement across an area of approximately 100ha of peat and this has been factored into the Applicant’s calculations for their Carbon Calculator results, so forms a fundamental component of the proposed habitat management of the development site, necessary to ensure the carbon balance reported is achieved. It is considered that securing the mitigation measures proposed, particularly the habitat management, by condition, would represent appropriate mitigation to substantially overcome the impacts on the Class 1 carbon rich soils required by Policy RE3.

57. Policy RE3 also requires that developments be acceptable in terms of the Schedule 1: Renewable Energy Assessment Criteria – this sets out a list of criteria against which applications for turbines over 50m in height will be assessed. Each criteria will be addressed below:

Landscape and visual impacts:

58. The majority of this application site lies within the LCT 17a: Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining (as defined within the East Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study 2018 (EALWCS)). Easterly parts of the application site do extend into the neighbouring LCT 15: Upland Basin. The majority of the proposed infrastructure is located within LCT 17a, although the construction compound, turbine T3 and some access tracks would be located within LCT 15. The proposed turbines would be located on land which varies in elevation from approximately 270m to 360m AOD, with the site generally decreasing in elevation away from the north-west (summit of Carsgailloch Hill) towards more easterly and northerly directions, leading towards the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT and into the Upland Basin LCT. Landscape impacts will be assessed initially, before turning attention to visual impacts.

59. Looking first at landscape character type 17a Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining, this hosts the majority of the proposed development and would face direct impacts from the proposed development. The ZTV (Figure 7.12a of Volume 2 of the EIA Report) shows theoretical visibility widely across the much of this LCT and across a 10km radius in general, with views extending beyond this distance to north, north-west and north-east most notably. The landscape of LCT 17a is noted within the EALWCS as providing a low and generally even backdrop to the East Ayrshire Lowlands (7c) LCT to the north and also forms a simple containing edge to the Upland Basin (15) LCT, to the east. The capacity study examines impacts based on height ranges, within which a ‘very large typology’ category is provided for turbines of 130m and above in height. The capacity study’s findings for turbines falling within that category, as is the case with the proposed development, will be considered when looking at landscape impacts. The scale, landform and landscape pattern within LCT 17a are generally quite expansive and undulating with a simple land cover dominated by moorlands and coniferous forestry plantations. Given the generally simple, expansive nature of this landscape, it is less sensitive to turbines of the scale proposed although it is noted that more pronounced hill summits should be avoided. The existence of extensive commercial forestry plantations along with the remains of disturbed ground associated with the former mining operations, particularly in the periphery of the LCT, reduces any real sense of wildness within this LCT. Although it is highlighted that extensive wind farm development could continue negative perceptions of this currently disturbed landscape, by exacerbating the fragmented nature of the landscape, reducing the likelihood of positive landscape change taking place.

60. The EAI Report finds significant landscape impacts would occur as a result of the scale and siting of the turbines within the eastern edges of LCT 17a, though not across the LCT as a whole, and would be most notable at the transition into the adjacent Upland Basin LCT (15) and East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT (7c). The Council’s consultants, IFL, consider significant landscape effects would occur out to approximately 5km from the turbines, which would coincide with the findings of the 78

EIA Report that landscape effects on LCT 17a would be limited to the eastern parts of this landscape rather than the whole area. Whilst the simple expansive character of the Foothills LCT would make them less sensitive to large turbines, they are proposed on one of the more sensitive parts of the landscape (the north-eastern, eastern edge) which means impacts on adjacent, lower-lying settled landscapes would be evident.

61. Although the majority of the development is located within the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a), one turbine and associated infrastructure is located within the Upland Basin LCT (15) which adjoins LCT 17a to the east, therefore it has the potential for both direct and indirect landscape impacts. There are no wind farms within this LCT although there is a single turbine at High Park Farm to the south of New Cumnock, and there are a number of wind farms on the containing skyline of the Southern Uplands, which exert an influence on the Upland Basin. The EALWCS finds this LCT to have a high sensitivity to turbines greater than 70m in height and finds there to be no scope for large or medium typology turbines (and therefore none for very large typology turbines). Constraints highlighted within the LVIA include views from the A76 and other roads and settlement within the LCT, including open views across the landscape from New Cumnock. Potential clutter is a constraint in the western part of the LCT where the remains of opencast mining could contribute to any additional fragmentation and clutter introduced by wind turbines in this area. Cumulative impacts are also a constraint when considering other operational and consented wind farms around the Upland Basin, particularly those located in the Southern Uplands LCT.

62. The EIA Report considers significant landscape impacts would occur on the Upland Basin LCT due to the presence of the proposed turbines on the immediate low, even backdrop of the foothills forming the western containing skyline to the Upland Basin. The turbines would be readily experienced from settlements and transport routes within the low-lying landscapes, such as the Upland Basin and East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT (7c). The EIA Report considers the proposed Greenburn turbines would form a more tangible and direct impact upon the setting of the Upland Basin than those of more distant and smaller scale wind farms located in the Southern Uplands, though considers significant effects would only affect the western edges of the Upland Basin LCT. Given the wide visibility of the turbines across the Upland Basin, and significant landscape effects occurring out to 5km from the turbines as assessed by IFL, it is considered significant landscape effects would impact the Upland Basin as a whole and not only the western edges. In terms of the adjacent East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT (7c), the EIA Report states on page 7-74, “The scale of the proposed turbines is likely to appear large and more readily appreciated when viewed on the skyline backdrop in the context of the smaller scale features and low relief of the Ayrshire Lowlands LCT, particularly from a local area of the LCT to the immediate north of the Proposed Development (to the south and south-west of Cumnock).” It is considered that significant landscape impacts are unlikely to affect the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT, visual impacts are more of a concern, and will be discussed later in this report.

63. With respect to the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a), the EALWCS states on page 79, “While the large scale and simple landform and land cover of these uplands could relate in principle to larger turbine typologies, this 79

landscape is not without constraints, the key ones being the need to reduce cumulative landscape and visual effects on adjacent well-settled lowland landscapes and to minimise the exacerbation of the already fragmented nature of this landscape which is already characterised by extensive open cast mining.” The EALWCS concludes that the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a) has a High-medium sensitivity to very large typology turbines. The EALWCS highlights particular constraints to wind farm development within LCT 17a, of particular note in this case, page 80 states, “The more visually prominent outer slopes and pronounced hills of this landscape which form the containing edges to settled and smaller scale Upland River Valley (10) of the Doon valley to the south-west, the Upland Basin (15) to the east and the East Ayrshire Lowlands (7c) and Lowland River Valley (9) of the Lugar Water to the north-east.” Other cumulative constraints will be discussed elsewhere within this report, however these include excavations and fragmentation of the landscape due to now former opencast mining in the area. Due to these constraints and cumulative issues, LCT 17a has been found to have very limited scope for very large typology turbines to be accommodated within the landscape. The EALWCS notes that turbines lower than 150m would reduce intrusion on surrounding sensitive landscapes but highlight that turbines should be set well back from the more sensitive north-eastern, eastern and south-western edges of the LCT to avoid significant impacts on the neighbouring smaller scale, settled landscapes, and to reduce cumulative impacts with other operational and consented wind farms seen from neighbouring landscapes, such as the Upland Basin (15) and Upland River Valley (10).

64. Due to the scale of the turbines and their siting within one of the more sensitive parts of LCT 17a (in the eastern and north-eastern edges) significant adverse landscape impacts are considered to occur across the eastern half of this LCT. Direct and indirect adverse landscape impacts will also occur on the adjoining Upland Basin LCT (15), due to the scale and prominent location of the wind turbines on the western containing skyline. These impacts are considered to be unacceptable.

Visual Impacts

65. The EIA Report in Chapter 7 (including appendices) assesses the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed turbines, considering the 22 viewpoints assessed as part of the EIA process. The EIA Report found there would be a high or medium-high magnitude of change (resulting from the introduction of the wind farm) deemed significant, on the visual amenity of 9 of the 22 viewpoints (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20 and 22). The ZTV (Figure 7.12a) shows theoretical visibility tends to extend across much of the area within 10km of the site, but beyond this distance views tend to extend from north-westerly directions around to north-easterly directions, with views to the south relatively limited. The EIA Report notes that views of the proposed development would primarily be experienced within 10-15km which includes the eastern edges of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT, the Upland Basin to the east, the Ayrshire Lowlands to the north and the southern flanks of the Southern Uplands to the south. The Planning Authority would agree this to be a reasonable judgement. The visual impacts resulting from the proposed development will be discussed under sub-headings below.

Visual Impacts – on Upland Basin settlements

66. The proposed development is the closest wind farm in the area (considering all operational, consented and application stage wind farms) to New Cumnock, the main settlement in the Upland Basin, being located on the eastern edges of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT and even extending into the Upland Basin LCT itself. Considering New Cumnock, Viewpoint 7 (Figure 7.33- Figure 7.33e) provides a representative viewpoint from this settlement. What the visualisations show is the prominent position of the turbines, extending laterally across the containing ridgeline and extending down the slope towards the Upland Basin. At 5.7km to the nearest turbine, the proposed development introduces a prominent turbine influence at relatively short distances across an area which is readily visible in face-on views from New Cumnock, particularly from more elevated positions such as the viewpoint location (although foreground trees obscure some of the view, had the location of the viewpoint been moved a few metres to the left, open unobscured views would have been available) or the railway station and railway bridge, which would provide clear views towards the proposed development from the northern part of the settlement.

67. Given the relatively close proximity of the turbines in relation to New Cumnock, moving around the settlement will allow for many views of the turbines, particularly given their prominent location along the containing ridgeline of the western Foothills, including properties along the western side of the A76 which will not benefit from built or natural screening to the same extent as properties located in the core of the settlement. Viewpoint 9 (Figures 7.35 – 7.35f) provides a viewpoint from Mansfield which is located on the northern edge of New Cumnock and could be considered representative of what properties in Mansfield (albeit likely limited to western parts of Mansfield) and Pathhead, and even northernmost areas of New Cumnock would experience. The prominence of the turbines on the containing ridgeline is evident from the visuals from this viewpoint, with the buildings in the foreground providing scale references which exacerbate the sense of scale of the turbines relative to the buildings, positioned prominently above the settlement(s) and having an overbearing effect. The settlement of New Cumnock and Pathhead/Mansfield would be impacted with a sense of these turbines being extensively visible throughout the settlements, unless travelling in an easterly direction. Residential receptors would be particularly affected, with properties on the western and northern edges of the A76 readily having clear views either from rear or front windows or garden space. Whilst properties on the opposite sides of the A76 would have views partially screened by the properties on the western and northern edges of the road, the prominent position of the turbines will mean that views, especially from upper floors, remain likely from a number of residential receptors.

68. There are a number of smaller settlements located within the Upland Basin LCT, along the B741 road, including Connel Park, Bankglen, Burnside and Dalleagles. Viewpoint 7 (New Cumnock) could be considered to give an indication of the sorts of views possible from the nearby settlements of Connel Park and Bankglen (particularly properties on the northern side of the B741). Viewpoint 4 (Figures 7.30 – 7.30g) provides a representation of the views likely from Burnside. The visualisations demonstrate a number of clustering effects of different turbine groupings (turbines T1-3; T5 and T6 appear almost as a single tower with two hubs, and T13-15). The 81

position of the turbines along the ridgeline of the containing landform, descending down towards the Upland Basin alongside the lateral expanse, only ensures their prominence from such views. The existence of distant farm buildings in such views provides clear scale references visible in relative close proximity in conjunction with the turbines which causes overbearing effects on these features, and highlights the scale of the turbines in a way which would be less apparent without such reference features. Whilst some turbines would be partially screened at lower levels by intervening topography or vegetation / built structures from certain locations, views of all hubs and blades will be possible in addition to many of the towers. Given that many of the Upland Basin settlements are located approximately parallel to the application site, they would largely have views across the skyline with the majority of the proposed turbines being visible on or in front of the containing landform. The combination of the location, layout and height of the proposed turbines on the more sensitive elevated containing ridgeline to the east of the Upland Basin means that lower lying settlements such as New Cumnock and the scattered individual dwellings / farmhouses located throughout the Upland Basin will have expansive, open views of the turbines, considered to represent a significant adverse and unacceptable impact on the visual amenity at these settlements, experienced by a large number of sensitive receptors.

Visual Impacts – on more distant settlements

69. Settlements in the wider area out with the Upland Basin LCT include Skares, Cumnock, Auchinleck and Ochiltree, which are all located within 10km of the proposed wind farm. These settlements face varying degrees of visual impact, with views from Skares (the closest to the site at 3.2km to the nearest turbine) represented by visuals in Viewpoint 1 (Figures 7.27 – 7.27e). Whilst only one turbine is visible at tower height a further six have visible blade tips, one of which has a visible nacelle too. Whilst relatively few turbines are visible from this settlement, there is a considerable gap evident between T13 and 14 at the left of the view and the other five turbines (T1, 4, 5, 7 and 8) located to the right. The protrusion of the blade tips above the largely uniform southern skyline landform would introduce a number of distracting features across the view. The EIA Report finds there would be no significant visual impacts from this location, considering the proposed wind farm alone. Based on the above findings, however, it is considered that the outlier turbines and distracting feature of a number of blade tips breaking the skyline in different parts of the view have the potential to cause significant visual impacts, particularly for those properties with private garden ground to the rear which look out across this skyline. Ochiltree is located to the north-west of Skares and the application site, at a distance of 7.6km to the nearest turbine. Representative views of the proposed wind turbines from this location can be seen in visuals for Viewpoint 10 (Figures 7.36 – 7.36d). From here the clear separation between turbines T13-16 is evident, resulting in those appearing as clear outliers to the main turbine cluster further to the right of the view. Stacking is also apparent, particularly involving turbines T13-15 and a further stacking effect involving turbines T4 and 7. Turbines T13-16 given their location at the eastern edge of the foothills are actually seen as a backdrop to the lowland landscape. Given the irregular and incoherent layout of the turbines when viewed from this location, in combination with the stacking and prominence of the turbines, it is considered Ochiltree would face significant visual impacts as a result of the proposed turbines. This is a particular issue given the 82

number of residential properties facing the south and newer residences on the western edge of the town, located on a higher elevation than that of the viewpoint location, where clear views of the turbines across the southern skyline would be possible.

70. The larger settlement of Cumnock is located approximately 3.2km north of the application site, whilst Viewpoint 6 (Figures 7.32 – 7.32e) provides representative visuals from the northern, more elevated parts of Cumnock (on Bute Road specifically) at a distance of 5.4km to the nearest turbine. From here some stacking is still observed (T12 with 15, T10 with 13 and T4 with 1) though the most apparent issue from this location is just how prominent the turbines are on the containing southern skyline, most significant of these being turbines T13-16, but also T7 and even T11 and 12. Whilst some turbines benefit from partial screening by the landform, their scale in combination with their relative proximity to the settlement means that all turbines remain highly prominent features from this location. The EIA Report finds the project alone impacts at this viewpoint to be significant given its scale and proximity in the upland backdrop to Cumnock and as a result of successive cumulative effects with operational wind farms. The Council accepts that this viewpoint is unlikely to be representative of the settlement as a whole, particularly lower lying parts and areas where the dense urban pattern restricts views outwards. From elevated parts of the settlement and settlement edges, however, with views towards the foothills to the south, the proposed development is considered to result in significant adverse visual impacts.

71. The settlement of Auchinleck is located almost immediately to the north of Cumnock and Viewpoint 8 (Figures 7.34 – 7.34e) provides a representative set of visuals from this settlement at a distance of 6.2km to the nearest turbine. Much like Cumnock, views of the proposed turbines would be most readily available from the southern settlement edges and on more elevated northern parts. Some views would be possible in the centre of the settlement where gaps in the built environment allow for clearer views to the south. Much like the views available from Cumnock, from Auchinleck, the prominence of the turbines on the southern skyline is evident, the most significant of these resulting from turbines T13-16 and T7. A degree of stacking is further noticeable particularly between T13 and T11 which almost appear on top of one another. Other operational turbine visible in such views are located at much greater distance and generally in the Southern Uplands LCT. Due to the separation distance between those schemes and the viewpoint receptors, in comparison Greenburn would appear significantly larger due to its relative closer proximity to the settled Ayrshire Lowlands landscape given its location on the north-eastern edges of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT. This only serves to exacerbate the prominence of the proposed turbines in such views towards the south. The EIA Report assesses impacts from Auchinleck as significant from Greenburn alone (due to “its scale and proximity in the upland backdrop to Auchinleck and across the Ayrshire Lowlands” p.7-152) and as a result of simultaneous cumulative effects with operational wind farms. These impacts, including those from Auchinleck and Cumnock which are considered unacceptably adverse, are precisely why the EALWCS highlights the north-eastern and eastern edges of Foothills LCT as being more sensitive to turbines of the scale proposed due to the visual prominence of this area forming containing edges to the adjoining more settled East Ayrshire Lowlands (7c) and Upland Basin (15) LCTs. 83

Visual Impacts – General area within 8km of the turbines

72. The ZTV (Figure 7.12a) shows the proposed wind farm would be theoretically visible throughout much of the area within 10km of the turbines before the extent of visibility tends to become more broken across the remaining views in north-westerly around to north-easterly directions. Significant visual impacts are considered to occur out to distances of approximately 8km. Beyond this distance views of the proposed turbines tend to reduce in significance due to a combination of their perceived scale and prominence reducing due to separation distances and varying degrees of screening from landform / vegetation and built form. It is ultimately judged that specific assessment of impacts on viewpoints beyond 8km will not be necessary for the report, and focus will now turn to the general visual impacts within 8km.

73. Transport routes throughout this area will be impacted in parts, particularly the A76 between Cumnock and New Cumnock, where views of the proposed turbines would be particularly noticeable, especially when viewed in combination with more distant turbines in the Southern Uplands such as Afton and Hare Hill wind farms. Given the different locations within the landscape of the various schemes, the perceived scale differential between Greenburn and the more distant wind farms would only serve to make the Greenburn turbines appear comparatively larger in scale, even more so than they otherwise would do anyway, given their prominent location within the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a). The Kilmarnock to Dumfries railway line would experience very similar impacts as the A76 given it runs generally parallel to this road along much of its length, particularly in this area. The B741 road which is located to the south of the application site would face significant impacts along a length extending approximately between New Cumnock and the Meikle Hill Substation to the west. From this road, in either direction, the proposed wind farm would be highly prominent in views across the northern landscape with the turbine influence which would be introduced by the consented Overhill wind farm, being extended eastwards across views of this landscape. Cumulative impacts will be discussed in more detail in the following section of the report, however, given the consented Enoch Hill and South Kyle turbines on the skyline to the southern side of the B741, and the consented Overhill and application stage North Kyle, in combination with the Greenburn turbines to the northern side of the B741, this will result in drivers having the sense of moving through a wind farm landscape. There are also a number of recreational routes, such as core paths, throughout the area and these will face varying degrees of visual impact, similar to those observed in the viewpoints from nearby locations. A full consideration of such impacts is discussed elsewhere within this report.

74. It is clear from many of the viewpoints assessed, just how prominent the proposed Greenburn wind turbines would be. Whilst the Applicant has sought to reduce visual impacts by opting to choose a scale of turbine (149.9m to blade tip height) which is consistent with the nearest wind farms to it (the consented Overhill wind farm and application stage North Kyle wind farm both have turbines of 149.9m in height), the difference between Greenburn and those schemes is in its location. The Overhill turbines are located more in the core of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT, which ensures that, although prominent to varying degrees, from different locations, the turbines are generally more distant from the adjoining settled 84

landscapes of the Upland Basin and East Ayrshire Lowlands so the comparative prominence (compared to that of Greenburn) is less significant. Whilst North Kyle is currently under assessment, and therefore a final position on its landscape and visual impacts has yet to be determined, in general terms, the North Kyle turbines are also located closer to the core, largely enveloping those of Overhill, which provides more separation between their locations and the receptors in the neighbouring settled Upland Basin and East Ayrshire Lowlands LCTs. In contrast, despite being the same height of the turbines associated with Overhill and North Kyle, Greenburn’s design and location, on the more sensitive north-eastern and eastern edges of the Foothills LCT, means that they appear relatively larger and far more prominent on the containing skyline than those of Overhill and North Kyle when viewed from the settled landscapes, as the turbines are located closer to these landscapes, even being located in the Upland Basin LCT (although some North Kyle turbines are also located within the Upland Basin LCT). The design of the proposed Greenburn wind farm further exacerbates the visual effects due to the clear separation between turbines T13-16 and the remaining cluster, resulting in the wind farm appearing as two separate developments. Such effects are evident from Viewpoints 7 (New Cumnock) and 9 (Mansfield Road) which represent views from both southern and northern areas in and immediately adjacent to New Cumnock, and represent the sorts of views likely when moving throughout the settlement and nearby smaller settlements such as Pathhead and Burnside.

75. Turbine stacking will vary with the direction of view although it is apparent in many of the viewpoints presented within the LVIA, including turbines appearing on top of one another such that the resulting impression in views is of two sets of blades emanating from the same tower. This feature, a result of the design and layout of the wind farm, just exacerbates the significant visual impacts apparent and widespread throughout the settled landscapes adjoining the host landscape, particularly the Upland Basin LCT where prominent views would be available across much of the area.

76. SNH in their consultation response have considered that the proposed wind farm is located within part of the landscape on prominent south-east facing slopes in close proximity to the Upland Basin LCT (and settlements, roads and recreational facilities within the Upland Basin) which increases the intrusion and impacts on the character of this landscape. Furthermore, SNH consider that significant visual impacts would occur widely across the Upland Basin LCT, including views from New Cumnock and other nearby settlements and the Lochside Hotel, recreational areas and from the A76 between Cumnock and New Cumnock. SNH also consider there would be significant effects on views from parts of Cumnock and Auchinleck and potentially Ochiltree too. SNH consider the wind farm design to lack cohesion, with turbines T13-16 forming outliers and appearing more prominent in views from the north and east, with stacking of turbines also evident in some views. SNH recommend the removal of turbines T13-16 and possibly even T7 to mitigate landscape and visual impacts to some degree.

77. The Council’s landscape consultants, Ironside Farrar Ltd, assess significant visual effects would extend to receptors up to 8km from the proposed turbines, agreeing with the EIA Report that visual effects on Burnside, Connel Park, parts of New Cumnock, Cumnock and Auchinleck would be significant but also consider that impacts on Skares and Ochiltree may be significant. Ironside Farrar also agree that significant effects would be evident on sections of the A76, B741, the local railway network and on three core paths (core paths are discussed in more detail elsewhere within this report). Ironside Farrar note that the main concern regarding this scheme is its position on the north-eastern edge of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a). This results in the proposed development appearing prominent on the skyline from the lower, settled areas to the east, and around to the north, with this prominence exacerbated by the design of the wind farm.

78. To summarise the landscape and visual impacts, the proposed Greenburn wind farm would cause a further extension of wind turbine influence across a wider part of the western containing skyline than other consented and application stage wind farms would, extending this into a part of the view free from wind turbine influence at present. The scale of the turbines, located on the sensitive north-eastern and eastern edges of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a) result in significant widespread visual impacts on the adjacent settled lowlands of the Upland Basin LCT (15) and East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT (7c). It is clear from many of the viewpoints assessed just how prominent the turbines would be, the significant visual impacts are a result of the scale, location and design of the wind farm. Cumulative impacts are also a significant issue although these will be discussed in the following section of the report. If anything, the resultant significant visual impacts exemplify why the EALWCS highlights the eastern and north-eastern edges of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a) to be sensitive to large turbines and a key limiting factor for turbines in an otherwise extensive upland landscape. At the time of its publishing, the EALWCS noted there were no operational or consented wind farms within LCT 17a, however both Polquhairn and Overhill wind farms have now been consented. The EALWCS highlights the sensitivity of the adjacent Upland Basin LCT (15) to the east will be increased where operational and consented wind farms are/will be prominent features on containing ridges. The proposed Greenburn turbines, particularly those extending eastwards from Carsgailloch Hill would result in unacceptable visual impacts, being highly prominent across the western containing skyline to the Upland Basin and furthering the increasingly unavoidable cumulative influence of wind turbines on the Upland Basin LCT, being the most prominent in views from the settled adjoining landscapes. Whilst cumulative landscape and visual impacts have been touched upon within this section, these will be dealt with in full in the following section.

Cumulative impacts – 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;

79. Cumulative impacts of most relevance to this application would be landscape and visual impacts, noise impacts and natural heritage impacts. Whilst there may be other cumulative impacts, on a number of the Schedule 3 assessment criteria which 86

follows, these are not considered to be of a magnitude likely to result in significant adverse impacts.

80. Natural heritage matters of relevance relate to potential wildlife impacts, including birds and bats in particular, given the similar wind farm developments consented and proposed nearby. The EIA Report in Chapter 10 identified potential impacts on fish populations in the River Nith catchment due to the requirement for watercourse crossings for tracks, whilst surface water pollution from site runoff and particularly forest felling would also risk polluting watercourses and impacting fish species. In terms of the other nearby wind farm developments which may impact the same catchments/sub-catchments as Greenburn, the EIA Report has identified parts of the South Kyle wind farm to be in the same sub-catchment as Greenburn. The resultant impacts have been reported as unlikely to reach a threshold where there would be a significant risk and best practice during forest felling would help reduce risks. A Fisheries Management Plan (to be development in consultation with the Nith District Salmon Fisheries Board) is proposed (alongside more general mitigation such as the use of an on-site Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) and compliance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)) which will help mitigate potential impacts on fish species.

81. Bat populations could be impacted cumulatively given the number of wind farms in the wider area and an assessment of those within 10km has been undertaken within the EIA Report. The EIA Report notes that provided all wind farms, if they become operational, comply with the mitigation measures each has reported, then impacts on bat species should be limited. The Applicant proposes a Bat Protection Plan for the operational phase of the development which also includes bat mortality monitoring. SNH have acknowledged that the Applicant recognises the risk to internationally protected bat species and accept that the principles of the Bat Protection Plan appear to accord with current guidance and best practice, however SNH also point out that it is best practice to detail how mitigation for protected species will be delivered prior to the determination of an application. As such, SNH advise that details of the Bat Protection Plan should inform the decision on the application rather than being submitted post-consent if this is granted. In light of this, the Applicant has recently submitted a draft Bat Protection Plan. Mitigation detailed within that document would be implemented to minimise impacts on bat species and would include turbine curtailment (where the blades can be reduced in rotational speed to less than 1 rotation per minute) which would be implemented if pre- and post- construction monitoring studies indicate this level of mitigation is required. A fully detailed method statement for bat activity monitoring is proposed to be submitted for approval by SNH not less than 12 months prior to construction on site. As the Scottish Ministers will be determining this application it will be for them to ensure they are satisfied that they have assessed the impacts on bats sufficiently to allow them to determine the application.

82. With regards to birds, the local area supports a pair of breeding peregrine which are of regional importance. The cumulative assessment carried out in the EIA Report notes that there is the potential for cumulative impact on peregrine. The Applicant proposes pre and post construction breeding bird surveys and an Operational Protection Plan specifically for peregrine. RSPB agree with the Applicant’s commitment to produce the operational protection plan for peregrine and appropriate 87

conditions should be used to secure the required mitigation. SNH agree that the proposed mitigation for peregrine is required but also recommend that cumulative assessments of other species (whooper swan, golden plover ad curlew) should be undertaken to better understand the cumulative impacts of the proposed wind farm. As the Council does not have in-house expertise on such matters and as Scottish Ministers will be determining this application, it will be for them to ensure they are satisfied that the assessments undertaken provide adequate information to determine the cumulative impacts on those bird species, and other relevant species, as advised by SNH, the Scottish Government’s advisors on ecology matters.

83. In terms of cumulative noise impacts, there are a number of consented / in planning wind farms throughout the wider area which the Applicant identified for the cumulative assessment. These were Enoch Hill, Polquhairn, Over Hill, South Kyle (all consented) and North Kyle (in planning). The approach to determining operational noise limits undertaken by the Applicant was to determine, upon taking into account the cumulative noise levels of the other nearby wind farms, what remaining noise levels remained from ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits to determine what budget or apportioned noise limits remained available. As the predicted noise levels of the wind farm fall within the remaining budget, or apportioned limits, when taking into account the cumulative levels of other wind farms, then the cumulative assessment has demonstrated that the noise levels would meet ETSU-R-97 limits at the nearest noise sensitive receptors for daytime and night time.

84. The Council’s noise consultant, Accon UK Ltd, has reviewed the Applicant’s submission in terms of materials relating to noise. Accon are satisfied that the methodologies used by the Applicant in their noise assessment represent good practice and comply with ETSU-R-97 and the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) Good Practice Guidance for wind turbine noise assessment. Accon is satisfied with the Applicant’s site specific noise limits though does advise that a protocol for investigating any noise complaints and how the identification of the wind farm responsible (given the cumulative picture in this area) is to be achieved, should be attached as a condition to any consent, if granted.

85. Turning to cumulative landscape and visual impacts, there are a number of operational, consented and application stage wind farms and individual turbines throughout this southern part of the East Ayrshire district. The Applicant has undertaken a cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment. The more recent changes since the Applicant’s assessment of landscape/visual impacts for this application include the consenting of the resubmitted Lethans (2019) wind farm which comprises 22 wind turbines with some reaching a maximum height of 220m and the recent submission of a Section 36c application to increase the heights of the consented Enoch Hill turbines from 130m up to 149.9m. A very recent application has been received by the Council in late August for a new Overhill wind farm with ten turbines up to 180m in height on the same site as the consented Overhill scheme.

86. Cumulative landscape and visual impacts will vary in significance. The proposed Greenburn wind farm development would exacerbate some existing visual impacts cumulatively, in some cases this entails extending views where existing or consented turbines would be near and increasing the influence of wind farm development on such views but also introducing views of wind turbines where none would otherwise occur.

87. The assessment of cumulative landscape and visual impacts is complicated by the number of schemes which need to be taken into account and the corresponding status of each scheme (operational, consented or application stage) which influences the weight you would give to the consideration of such schemes in the resultant landscape/visual impact observed in the assessment visuals. Whilst operational schemes can be observed in the field, consented but, as-yet, unbuilt schemes are afforded greater weighting than application stage schemes as there is greater certainty that they will eventually be built. With this in mind, in terms of cumulative landscape and visual impacts, the consented Polquhairn and Overhill wind farms have a bearing on the magnitude of change Greenburn would consequently cause. These consented schemes would, if built, introduce turbines into the Foothills LCT (17a) where none currently exists and would introduce turbines into views of this landscape. Polquhairn wind farm, given its location to the north- west of LCT 17a, is far less likely to be viewed from eastern directions, such as from the adjacent Upland Basin LCT (15). The consented Overhill turbines are located such that they would more readily appear in views alongside those of the proposed Greenburn turbines. The Applicant has effectively provided three cumulative scenarios:- a baseline scenario which includes operational wind farms, and two future scenarios - a consented cumulative scenario, which takes into account the potential cumulative effects of the proposed Greenburn in combination with other consented schemes, and an application stage scenario which considers the cumulative effects when application stage wind farms are also taken into account.

88. Considering landscape impacts initially, the proposed Greenburn wind farm is considered within the EIA Report not to have a significant impact on the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a) as a whole when considering the consented cumulative scenario, as the proposed development is argued to reinforce the pattern of wind farms being a characteristic element within the landscape (along with the consented Polquhairn and Overhill wind farms). The EIA Report acknowledges that the proposed development would form an easterly increase in the wind farm developed character to the east of this LCT. The EIA Report considers the Greenburn wind farm would result in significant landscape impacts in the application stage scenario as a result of the change to the perceived character of the eastern parts of the Foothills LCT (17a) as it would result in the formation of a new and more prominent wind farm influence in the eastern parts of this LCT. With that in mind, it is considered that the same could be said of the landscape impacts in the consented scenario, despite the EIA Report finding no significant cumulative landscape impacts in such a scenario. In the application stage scenario, where primarily North Kyle wind farm would add significantly to the cumulative baseline, the EIA Report notes that Greenburn would result in significant landscape impacts in the north-eastern parts of LCT 17a. It is considered that Greenburn wind farm would result in significant cumulative impacts in all cumulative scenarios, albeit in the application stage 89

scenario, the baseline (considering North Kyle) would effectively be a wind farm landscape rather than a landscape with wind farms.

89. Given the location of one turbine (T3) and other infrastructure in the Upland Basin and the defining effect the adjacent Foothills LCT have in containing the Upland Basin, cumulative landscape impacts are also considered to affect the Upland Basin LCT (15). At present there are no consented or operational wind farms in the Upland Basin, with the proposed Greenburn windfarm extending a wind farm into this landscape, and landscape effects largely resulting from the introduction of turbines into the adjoining landscapes (around the Upland Basin). In the consented scenario, there are a number of other consented wind farms, predominantly located in the Southern Uplands and Southern Uplands with Forestry LCTs, which would have an effect on the character of the Upland Basin LCT, though Lethans would have an impact to the east and Overhill would have an impact to the west. The EIA Report states on page 7-165, “Over Hill is set back from the settled areas of the Upland Basin, and although visible, it forms a relatively discreet cluster set-back into the foothills, which has a relatively limited influence on the character of the settled parts of the Upland Basin.” The EIA Report then considers the Greenburn wind farm would extend the turbine influence to the west of the Upland Basin, combining with Overhill to increase the wind farm influence west of the Upland Basin LCT (15). As the EIA Report notes though, Overhill is relatively discreet and has a limited influence on the Upland Basin. In contrast, Greenburn, given its location in the more sensitive eastern and north-eastern parts of the Foothills LCT, even extending into the Upland Basin, would have a far greater influence on the character of the Upland Basin (evident from Viewpoints 7 and 9 from New Cumnock and Mansfield respectively) given the prominence of the turbines in these views. The EIA Report suggests that as the proposed development is located in the west, a dominant encircling effect on the Upland Basin is avoided, and a wind farm characterising effect on the Upland Basin as a whole is avoided so impacts are not significant. This is not considered an accurate reflection of the nature of cumulative wind farm development consented around the Upland Basin LCT, which in essence would only leave direct northerly areas free from wind farm influence.

90. As acknowledged by the Applicant in the EIA Report, Overhill has a limited influence on the western containing skyline of the Upland Basin, however, Greenburn in contrast, due to its scale and location would be highly prominent - extending laterally across the western containing skyline and extending wind turbine influence into north-westerly directions when viewed from the Upland Basin and combining to result in successive views with other operational and consented schemes. This will contribute to the increasing potential for encirclement of the Upland Basin, and associated settlements, by significantly increasing the extent of turbines visible on the skyline surrounding the Upland Basin, something which the EALWCS highlights as a significant constraint to development in order to avoid a dominant ‘encircling’ effect on the skylines which contain the Upland Basin. Whilst the EIA Report considers cumulative landscape effects would not be significant in the application stage scenario, with North Kyle contributing considerably to the wind farm influence on the western containing skyline, Greenburn would still extend this influence into the north-west and, even in comparison to North Kyle, would remain to be the most prominent turbines due to their design, location and scale. Given North Kyle is at 90

application stage, it is not known whether or not it will ultimately receive consent, or in what form.

CUMULATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS

91. Viewpoints 7 (New Cumnock) and 9 (Mansfield Road) provide representative views of the likely cumulative impacts in corresponding cumulative wirelines. Given the number of operational, consented and application stage wind farms throughout this area, it is becoming increasingly apparent that New Cumnock faces significant cumulative visual impacts. In all directions other than immediately north views would be influenced by wind turbines across the containing skylines, predominantly along the Southern Uplands but now also across the western Foothills. The EIA Report in Table 7.43 finds significant cumulative impacts on New Cumnock (VP7) in the consented cumulative scenario, noting that Greenburn is separate (although closely sited) to Overhill though with a perceived larger turbine scale due to Greenburn’s closer proximity. Successive visual impacts are also acknowledged when the consented Pencloe, Enoch Hill and South Kyle schemes are taken into account, with Greenburn extending the influence of wind farm development into the Foothills. In the application stage scenario, the introduction of North Kyle wind farm into the cumulative scenario is the most noteworthy scheme when considering the cumulative impacts of Greenburn (with others schemes such as the Pencloe variation and Sanquhar 2 having an influence although to a lesser degree).

92. Whilst there would be a degree of overlap between Greenburn and the Overhill/North Kyle cluster, this is relatively limited and confined to the westernmost turbines, whilst Greenburn extends the wind turbine influence further eastwards. The EIA Report in Table 7.49 notes that Greenburn would be perceived as increasing the number/density, eastward spread and prominence of turbines of the landscape in the backdrop of New Cumnock. Whilst this table considers that Greenburn would introduce turbines of a similar form and scale to those that would already form a substantial characteristic element in views from New Cumnock (Overhill and North Kyle), the wirelines (particularly Figure 7.33c, from V7: New Cumnock) indicate that due to the siting and location of the Greenburn turbines, they would actually not widely appear similar in scale to the others, but the majority of turbines would appear separate from and larger in scale due to their closer proximity to receptors and their location on the more sensitive eastern edge of the Foothills LCT in comparison to Overhill and to an extent North Kyle, which are generally located deeper into the core of the landscape. This feature of the cumulative visual impact is also evident from Mansfield (VP9), where the proposed Greenburn turbines appear more prominent and larger in scale the further east (or right in the view) the turbines are from the Overhill/North Kyle cluster.

93. Considering some of the smaller settlements within the Upland Basin, Viewpoint 4 is representative of Burnside. This shows that there is very little overlap between the proposed Greenburn turbines and those of the Overhill/North Kyle cluster, and any resultant similarity in scale could only possibly be observed at the left-most turbines within the view (wireline Figure 7.30b), with the majority of the Greenburn turbines widely appearing larger and more prominent due to the siting and design of the wind farm as it extends to the right, across the view. Views from this area are also influenced at closer proximity by the consented Enoch Hill and South Kyle turbines, 91

meaning successive views are highly influenced by turbine development at relatively close proximities on the skylines. Viewpoint 3 (Lochside House Hotel) provides a useful representation of what views towards the north of the Upland Basin LCT would be like, particularly from the A76 road and the Kilmarnock to Dumfries railway line, as this LCT extends to the north-west where it joins the adjacent East Ayrshire Lowlands (7c) LCT.

94. From the Lochside Hotel the cumulative impacts are apparent. Turbine development would influence the containing landform, with Lethans to the east, extending round where the southern skyline is particularly influenced by Afton, Pencloe, South Kyle and Enoch Hill, before Greenburn would then extend this influence further westwards. Even though the consented Overhill would be seen in western views, these limited views result in an almost negligible impact resulting from that scheme, meaning that Greenburn would be the most influential wind farm in western views. North Kyle is an application stage wind farm so the weight which would be afforded to it in the assessment is less than it would otherwise have been if it had consent. Even if it was consented and subsequently built, it would have a relatively limited influence on views in comparison with Greenburn which would be highly visible, viewed at close proximity and prominent from this viewpoint, particularly turbines T13-16. Table 7.49 of the EIA Report notes on page 7.191 with regards to Greenburn, “The Proposed Development will extend wind farm influence in a largely wind farm free section of the panorama, in addition to the 2-3 visible North Kyle turbines and contribute to an in-succession effect with wind farms visible in multiple directions....The Proposed Development will form a separate and larger scale development, on the lower foothills to the west, at closer proximity.”

TRANSPORT ROUTES

95. A cumulative assessment was presented within the EIA Report for the following transport routes: the A76, A70 and B741 roads and the Kilmarnock to Dumfries railway line. The A76 is the main transport route running through the Upland Basin LCT (15) but also extends through the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT (7c). The EIA Report highlights specific sections of the route for consideration including southbound between Mauchline and Auchinleck. Whilst the EIA Report considers cumulative impacts on this section of the route to be not significant, it notes that Greenburn would form an easterly extension of the Overhill/North Kyle cluster on the Foothills skyline view, though considers Greenburn would be largely subsumed within the extensive wind farm influenced backdrop, introducing turbines or a similar form and scale to those that would already be a substantial characteristic in views from this section of the route.

96. Viewpoint 11 (A76 south of Catrine) provides a representative view from this route and the cumulative wireline (Figure 7.37b) in particular shows that whilst the scale differential between the Greenburn and Overhill/North Kyle turbines is less apparent from here, any overlap is also far less evident and Greenburn (particularly turbines T11-16) is viewed in combination / overlapping with more distant schemes located in the Southern Uplands such as Enoch Hill, Afton, Pencloe and the Windy Rigg/Windy Standards, which results in a clear scale differential between those more distant schemes and the perceived (and largely actual) larger scale of the Greenburn turbines. Significant effects are reported in the EIA Report for views experienced on 92

the A76 between Cumnock and New Cumnock with views further south, towards New Cumnock resulting in the proposed Greenburn wind farm appearing as a distinct and separate wind farm to those on the Southern Uplands skyline in closer proximity to the A76. This highlights that from certain viewpoints, Greenburn is viewed more readily in combination with the more distant wind farms in the Southern Uplands rather than in combination with Overhill or North Kyle.

97. In terms of sequential impacts the EIA Report finds significant sequential impacts on the A76, particularly northbound through Upper Nithsdale, where Greenburn and North Kyle in the Foothills beyond New Cumnock are considered to contribute to the defining northward sequential increase in effects along this route. It is considered Greenburn would add considerably to this, given its more prominent location within the Foothills LCT. Views from the Kilmarnock to Dumfries railway line are reported within the EIA Report and they are largely similar to those impacts likely along the A76, which is not surprising given the two transport routes are located in close proximity along much of their length throughout this area. Travelling northwards in particular, when moving through Upper Nithsdale, Sandy Knowe, Glenmuckloch and Lethans (2019 – now consented) would have an impact which then is further exacerbated by the emergence of the North Kyle, Overhill and Greenburn schemes in views when approaching New Cumnock, and beyond towards Cumnock.

98. In terms of the A70 which runs between Cumnock in the east and Ayr in the west, theoretical visibility tends to be most likely within 10km of this route. The EIA Report assesses no significant cumulative impacts along this road given that Greenburn would introduce turbines of a similar scale to what would be a substantial characterising influence from wind farms if Overhill and North Kyle are part of the cumulative scenario. The Planning Authority would probably agree with this assessment. Looking at the B741 which links New Cumnock in the north-east to Dalmellington in the south-west. Visibility closer to Dalmellington is less likely though from the Meiklehill Substation onwards towards New Cumnock this length of the road is where visibility would be more apparent. Cumulative impacts on the B741 are assessed as significant in the consented scenario (with Overhill), where Greenburn would extend the turbine influence eastwards across the skyline from Overhill. Sequential impacts would be experienced with Enoch Hill, South Kyle and Pencloe, all consented, located on the southern side of the B741, with the result as noted on page 7-181 of the EIA Report, “....leading to the experience of passing through a wind farm influenced landscape on either side of the road.” In the application stage scenario, where North Kyle would have a considerable influence of views, significant impacts are assessed within the EIA Report due to Greenburn extending the wind farm influence of North Kyle further eastwards across the skyline, increasing the number and spread of turbines in views and contributing the most prominent wind farm influence between New Cumnock and Peat Hill / Knockburnie. West of this, cumulative impacts from Greenburn are assessed as not significant due to the Greenburn turbines largely being subsumed within those of North Kyle which would extend closer to the road itself.

WIDER SETTLEMENTS AND GENERAL OVERVIEW

99. Considering settlements throughout the wider area, extending into the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT (7c) and their corresponding figures / visualisations where these have 93

been provided, these show the increasing influence of wind turbines on the western containing skyline of New Cumnock and the Upland Basin LCT in general, but also the southern skyline when viewed from the East Ayrshire Lowlands. The proposed Greenburn wind farm would add significantly to this cumulative context, effectively extending the spread of turbines eastwards close to the edge, and even extending into the Upland Basin LCT.

100. It is acknowledged that the proposed North Kyle wind farm could lessen the significance of the cumulative landscape and visual impacts slightly from some viewpoints, though it is worth noting that from some viewpoints the North Kyle turbines do appear noticeably more set-back than those of Greenburn and their resultant perceived scale reduced in comparison. North Kyle is also located such that it effectively arcs around the consented Overhill scheme whereas Greenburn tends to only partially overlap with these schemes (with very little overlap evident between Greenburn and Overhill if North Kyle does not receive consent). The EIA Report suggests the proposed development is following a strategy of concentrating and intensifying development within or near existing and consented wind farms (or those potentially emerging through applications) in an attempt to avoid dispersed patterns of development in areas without a wind farm influence. In this case, however, Given the often limited overlapping between Greenburn and Overhill or even North Kyle, Greenburn extends wind farm influence across a wider section of the landscape in views, into areas with no or limited wind farm influence at present.

101. The location of the proposed turbines on the sensitive eastern edges of the Foothills LCT also results in Greenburn appearing as the most prominent of all wind farms visible when viewed from New Cumnock. Figures 7.38b, 7.32c, 7.33c (cumulative wirelines from VP12 Blackcraig Hill, VP6 Cumnock and VP7 New Cumnock respectively) highlight the evident overlap between Overhill and North Kyle but by contrast the relative lack of overlap Greenburn has with these schemes. Even where there is a degree of overlap, the Greenburn turbines appear larger and more prominent due to their location on the north-eastern / eastern edges of the Foothills LCT. Whilst infilling can sometimes have a beneficial effect, in this case, the residual cumulative impacts resulting from the Greenburn turbines remain significant. It would result in a more lateral expanse of turbines, extending eastwards introducing turbine influence into views more so than any other schemes within the Foothills LCT, when viewed from adjacent landscapes (Upland Basin and East Ayrshire Lowlands), leading to a large, almost continuous expanse of turbines highly visible (with prominent face-on views) from the easterly Upland Basin LCT, along its western containing skyline. The increased eastwards spread and location within the Foothills LCT would mean that even if North Kyle were to receive consent, Greenburn would still cause significant visual impacts, extending the influence of wind turbine development ever closer to the Upland Basin, with the perceived scale of Overhill and North Kyle evidently reduced in comparison to Greenburn.

102. Cumulative landscape impacts will be felt by the increasing perception of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT becoming a wind farm landscape due to the extent of wind energy development within this landscape, which would alter the character of this landscape from its present state. Whilst North Kyle would be the largest contributor to the change in character of the landscape to one where wind farms are part of its character, the EIA Report notes within Table 7.47 that 94

North Kyle (enveloping Overhill) would spread turbines across the central part of the Foothills LCT, though also extending partially into the Upland Basin LCT. Table 7.47 also notes that Greenburn would extend this influence into north-easterly parts of the Foothills LCT resulting in a significant cumulative effect in this area. If the baseline includes North Kyle, then Greenburn would not materially change the character of the Foothills LCT, however, the EIA Report does find that although the cumulative effects of Greenburn would not be significant for the central and western parts of the Foothills LCT, significant effects would occur on the more sensitive north-eastern part of this LCT. The EALWCS states on page 76, with regards to turbines 130m and taller within the Foothills LCT, “Turbines of this size would be highly visible from the settled Upland Basin (15), Upland River Valleys (10) of the upper Doon and the East Ayrshire Lowlands (7c) and Lowland River Valley (9).”

103. Considering the adjacent Upland Basin LCT (15), the EIA Report acknowledges that both the proposed Greenburn and North Kyle wind farms would introduce turbines into the western edges of the Upland Basin LCT, and considers there would be a significant cumulative effect on western parts of the Upland Basin LCT as a result. The EIA Report considers in Table 7.47 that Greenburn would not constitute a material change to the overall landscape character of the Upland Basin, particularly in the application stage scenario where North Kyle is included, arguing that the Greenburn turbines have a similar scale, siting and design, within the same LCT (Foothills LCT), as turbines already substantially influencing the backdrop of the Upland Basin. The visuals within the Upland Basin LCT, particularly those representing the largest settlement of New Cumnock, however, indicate that despite the scale of the Greenburn turbines being the same as Overhill and North Kyle at 149.9m, their location within the Foothills LCT actually results in their perceived scale appearing noticeably larger than those of North Kyle and Overhill in particular. The EIA Report accepts that the addition of Greenburn extends the wind farm characteristic around the western edges of the Upland Basin LCT, increasing the influence of wind turbines in the, “upland foothills skyline that defines the visual envelope of this western part of the Upland Basin.” (page 7-186)

104. The EALWCS states on page 66 in respect of the Upland Basin LCT, “This character type is limited in extent but strongly contained by the uplands of the Plateau Moorlands (18a), Foothills with Forest and Opencast Mining (17a) and Southern uplands (20a). The Southern Uplands form a more dramatic backdrop to this low- lying basin than the generally more uniform and lower-lying uplands of the LCTS 17a and 18a which contain the basin.” The EIA Report considers landscape impacts on the Upland Basin LCT as a whole are not significant, due to large areas of it not including any wind farm development within it, and continuing to be defined by its baseline characteristics. Given that the Upland Basin is itself defined as such due to its containment by the surrounding uplands, then the influence of Greenburn on the containing western skyline would be considered to affect the character as a whole, particularly considering the Greenburn turbines would be highly visible across much of this LCT and represents the most prominent of all wind farms viewed from New Cumnock.

105. The EALWCS highlights the potential cumulative impacts facing the Upland Basin LCT, stating on page 72, “The location of further wind farm development within the Southern Uplands (20a) and potential new developments sited within the 95

surrounding uplands of the East Ayrshire Plateau Moorland (18a) and Foothills with Forest and Opencast Mining (17a) (seen together with operational and consented wind farms) where they may be perceived as ‘encircling’ this basin and dominating skylines formed by the hills which contain this basin.” Page 73 states, “It will be essential to monitor the cumulative situation in relation to any future developments sited in the surrounding upland landscapes of the Plateau Moorlands (18a), Foothills with Forest and Opencast Mining (17a) and East Ayrshire Southern Uplands (20a) and to ensure that these avoid a dominant ‘encircling’ effect on the skylines which contain this landscape.” SNH within their consultation response to the Scottish Government, consider that the proposed Greenburn wind farm would result in significant additional cumulative effects when considering existing and consented schemes located in the Southern Uplands LCTs and the Plateau Moorland with Forest LCT, “likely to give rise to a perception of increasing encirclement and domination of the Upland Basin LCT.” SNH further state, “The proposed development would lie adjacent to the proposed North Kyle wind farm. Although this proposal comprises substantially fewer turbines than the North Kyle proposal, its closer proximity to the Upland Basin LCT would result in it making a significant contribution to the extensive accumulation of wind farm development seen on the uplands which immediately surround the Upland Basin LCT – and as experienced from the A76 where many other existing, consented and proposed wind farms are located within the upper Nith Valley between Sanquhar and Cumnock.”

106. The Council’s consultants, Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL), have also provided comments on the cumulative landscape and visual impacts, noting that they broadly agree with the Applicant’s assessment, though differ in some judgements, identifying a slightly wider extent of significant effects than reported by the Applicant. IFL agree that significant cumulative landscape and visual effects would occur mainly if consented and application stage schemes were included in the baseline (such as Overhill and North Kyle particularly, located within the Foothills LCT). IFL note that Greenburn would contribute significantly to the skyline of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT when viewed from within or across the adjacent Upland Basin LCT and parts of the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT, extending effects of other consented/application stage schemes into unaffected areas on the skyline. IFL consider that in the application stage cumulative scenario, North Kyle would mean that some receptors would no longer face significant additional effects from Greenburn due to this scheme adding proportionally fewer turbines to the skyline resulting in them causing a less obvious or noticeable change. Due to the prominence of the proposed Greenburn turbines, however, they would lead to some significant effects, even considering North Kyle in the cumulative scenario. Cumulative impacts can also result from wind farms viewed in combination with opencast mining operations, particularly given both would be located within the host LCT (Foothills with Forest and Opencast Mining). The opencast sites within this area have now ceased operation with only some restoration works taking place, so the extent of landscape degradation will decrease as the remaining landscape is graded in parts and seeded to vegetate, leaving a slightly more natural looking landform of grassed slopes in parts. It is considered that such cumulative impacts involving previously worked opencast sites and the proposed wind farm would not result in unacceptable cumulative landscape or visual impacts. In terms of other cumulative impacts, many of these will be discussed within their respective section of the report (traffic issues, noise impacts, recreational paths, etc.) so will not be discussed here. 96

107. In terms of cumulative landscape and visual impacts, it is clear that the proposed Greenburn wind farm would result in significant impacts, particularly on the adjacent settled landscapes of the Upland Basin LCT (15) to the east, and on parts of the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT (7c) to the north, much of which is due to the location of the wind farm in the sensitive north-eastern and eastern edges of the Foothills with Forest and Opencast Mining LCT, in close proximity to and even extending into the Upland Basin. The EIA Report states in paragraph 7.13.42, “....this LCT is a large- scale landscape with wind farms, forestry and restored surface coal mining integral to its character.” In the consented cumulative scenario, however, only Polquhairn and Overhill wind farms would be located within the Foothills LCT and as both are in separate parts of the landscape with very limited inter-visibility, and both being relatively small schemes (comprising 9 and 10 turbines respectively), it is not considered wind farms would be integral to the character of this landscape in such a scenario.

108. The EIA Report considers the introduction of Greenburn into such a scenario would not result in significant cumulative effects due to their being sufficient ‘space’ between the schemes such that they appear as separate developments. The EIA report also argues however, that siting the proposed development where it is would reflect a strategy of concentrating development within or near to existing wind farm landscapes rather than a dispersed pattern of development within areas without wind farm influence. Whilst avoiding dispersed wind farm developments can be a positive, the EIA Report also highlights the schemes (Greenburn and particularly Overhill) appear as separate developments, which would be counter to the position that the schemes are concentrated to avoid areas without wind farm influence, or located within wind farm landscapes (which the Foothills LCT would not be in the consented scenario). Though Overhill and North Kyle would exert an influence on the western skyline in the application stage scenario, Greenburn intensifies and extends these impacts into north-western views of the Foothills LCT which are free from wind farm influence at present. North Kyle is an application stage wind farm so less weight can be placed on it in the assessment, however Overhill is consented, and would afford greater weight in the decision making process. There is very limited overlap between Overhill and the proposed Greenburn wind farm, acknowledged within the EIA Report, which highlights they appear as separate schemes. Given the relatively limited influence on the character of the host Foothills LCT resulting from Overhill (even including Polquhairn), particularly when viewed from the Upland Basin LCT, Greenburn is clearly located in an area of the Foothills LCT currently not influenced by wind energy development (the east/north-eastern edges of the LCT) and is markedly more prominent than Overhill, due to Overhill being set further back into the core of the landscape, and the consequent effects on the Upland Basin LCT from Greenburn are far more significant.

109. EIA Report paragraph 7.13.49 states, “With the addition of the Proposed Development, wind farms would become a prevailing characteristic of the western part of the Upland Basin LCT.” SNH advise that Greenburn would be located much closer to the Upland Basin LCT than any other operational or consented wind farm and, “would also result in a significant additional cumulative effect with existing and consented wind farm development.... likely to give rise to a perception of increasing encirclement and domination of the Upland Basin LCT.” The Planning Authority 97

consider the contribution to the potential encirclement effect to be significant and adverse. Whilst there are no wind farms immediately to the north of the Upland Basin, and New Cumnock itself, the consented Lethans wind farm to the north-east in combination with Greenburn to the north-west would mean that wind farms (particularly Greenburn given its close proximity and prominent visual appearance) would appear in peripheral views when looking north. Therefore, even northerly views will provide a sense of turbines being present on the periphery which would contribute to a sense, from within the Upland Basin and its largest settlement of New Cumnock, of turbines encircling the area and appearing prevalent in views. It is clear the proposed Greenburn wind farm would bring significant landscape and visual impacts closer to the settled Upland Basin, much of which are due to the location, scale and design of the wind farm and increasing extent to which wind turbines are becoming a key feature within this area. The proposed development would reinforce and extend the wind farm development west of the Upland Basin and particularly on the settlement of New Cumnock, with Greenburn representing the most prominent of all existing/consented and application stage wind farms viewed from here. In conclusion, the landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed Greenburn wind farm are significant, adverse and unacceptable.

Impacts on carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitats; using the carbon calculator;

110. The Applicant has undertaken a peat probing exercise across the site, although probes were mainly taken around areas of proposed infrastructure, with fewer samples taken within the confines of the wider site (the results of this can be seen in the interpolated peat depth Figures 12.5.1 – 12.5.5 and Figure 12.9). Technical Appendix 12.8 provides some more detail on infrastructure elements and the depths of peat on which they will be located. The figures indicate generally shallow peat depths across the site between 0 to 1m in depth although there are areas of deeper peat (deep peat being classed as peat deeper than 1m), particularly in the northern part of the site which encroaches into Glaisnock Moss, where peat depths are 2m or deeper. This area is designated as Class 1 peatland and also forms Glaisnock Moss / Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS). There are smaller pockets of deep peat towards the south and western boundaries of the site also.

111. The Applicant has taken steps to avoid peat through the design and siting of the wind farm infrastructure and has been reasonably successful in avoiding the deepest peat, although not entirely. The Application site contains areas of Class 1 peat, into which there will be some infrastructure proposed. Despite this, the probing undertaken by the Applicant has indicated that where infrastructure is proposed in Class 1 peat, this is within areas of relatively shallow peat which does not exceed 1m in depth in general. As noted, whilst deep peat has not entirely been avoided, Table 2 of Technical Appendix 12.6 indicates that the volume of peat to be excavated on site would total 9,188m3, much of this comprising excavations from predominantly shallow peat. The Applicant is not proposing the use of floating tracks on deep peat, relying on excavated tracks across the whole site. Given there are limited excursions onto deep peat, and considering the relatively low overall total of peat excavation reported, this is probably reasonable in this case. Table 2 also highlights that the total volume of peat extracted could be reinstated on site in other locations.

112. Whilst there will be some loss of peat on site as a result of the proposed development, including some impacts on Class 1 peat, the site layout has generally sought to avoid deeper peat and, subject to appropriate storage and handling of excavated peat, there are opportunities to utilise excavated peat for reinstatement on site. The Applicant has provided a carbon calculation using the carbon calculator which indicates the expected carbon payback period would be 0.9 years (with a minimum payback period of 0.1 years and a maximum payback period of 3 years) compared to a fossil fuel mix. Based on the carbon calculator findings, there is expected to be a saving of approximately 2.99M tonnes of CO2 over the lifetime of the development compared to a fossil fuel mix (based on a saving of 85,299 tonnes per year, over a proposed 35 year lifetime). Therefore, despite some impacts to peat and specifically Class 1 peat, which has not been avoided, the carbon balance would be strongly weighted in favour of the proposed development, although the carbon calculations do include peat enhancement in the form of 100ha of restoration of Glaisnock Moss, so this habitat management / enhancement must be considered integral to the scheme.

Effects on the natural heritage, including birds. Renewable energy proposals will only be approved where the Council has ascertained that they would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site;

113. The Applicant states in Chapter 10, paragraph 10.3.12, “The closest statutory designated site is Barlosh Moss SSSI, situated approximately 5km to the northwest of the Site boundary.” Nith Bridge S.S.S.I. is closer to the application site, however, at approximately 1.3km south-east of the site boundary. This feature is designated for its geological interest and is therefore unlikely to be impacted as a result of the proposed development. More distant features such as the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area and Muirkirk Uplands S.S.S.I. which largely cover the same areas, are located approximately 6.2km east of the application site. At this distance it is unlikely the proposed development would adversely impact on these designated sites, though as the Scottish Ministers will be taking the final decision on the application, it is for them to ensure that the integrity of these Natura 2000 sites are not adversely affected. SNH in their consultation response, confirm that no distant international and national heritage designations will be impacted by the proposed development and also note that the closest, The Nith Bridge S.S.S.I. will be in no way affected by the proposed development.

114. Approximately three quarters of the application site itself fall within the Glaisnock Moss / Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS). This is an important site comprising blanket bog, modified bog and semi-improved acid grassland with a variety of bog species present. The Applicant has identified this receptor as having a Medium (Regional) sensitivity level, although this is for the blanket bog. RSPB in their consultation response have noted that a specific assessment of the Local Nature Conservation Site has not been undertaken by the Applicant and consider this an omission. Whilst the LNCS has not been assessed specifically, the impacts on features for which it is designated (blanket bog/modified bog and semi-improved acid grassland) have been considered in the assessment.

115. The Applicant indicates a loss of 1.03 ha of semi-improved acid grassland would occur as a result of the proposed development (equating to approximately 9.3% of this habitat without mitigation). In terms of modified bog, 1.71 ha of wet modified bog and no dry modified bog loss would occur as a result of the proposed development. Direct losses of wet modified bog would also lead to indirect impacts through the lowering of water levels adjacent to proposed infrastructure though the losses account for approximately 1% of this resource within the site. Blanket bog (including modified bog) has been assigned a Medium sensitivity level by the Applicant. The EIA Report indicates due to access tracks, particularly those crossing the bog, extending between turbines 12 to 16, this could result in some loss of hydrological connectivity and localised drying of peat and habitat degradation over the long term, with a loss of approximately 0.78 ha (1%) of this habitat. The impacts on blanket bog and modified bog, without mitigation, have been reported in Chapter 10 as having an effect significance level of minor (not significant). This does not reflect the significance levels set out within the Applicant’s matrix in Table 10.6, which shows that for Medium sensitivity receptors and low level effects, this would equate to ‘Moderate-Minor’ significance of effect. The Applicant has therefore downplayed the impacts on these features within the assessment by describing the impacts only as of minor significance.

116. Nevertheless, mitigation is proposed including site supervision by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), following measures detailed within any Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to protect sensitive habitats during construction, appropriate storage, handling and re-use of extracted peat and ongoing monitoring. In addition to this, and more significantly, the Applicant proposes to implement a detailed peatland restoration plan (based on the report carried out by the East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative (CEI), which would form part of their Habitat Management Plan for the site, equating to approximately 100 ha of peatland restoration. This proposed mitigation is supported by RSPB who would recommend this be made part of any planning condition, should consent be granted. SNH have requested that this mitigation for peatland impacts go further, and has advised the Scottish Government, in their consultation response to the proposed application, that details of the proposed peatland Habitat Management Plan (ideally a reviewed version of the CEI Peatland Restoration Plan) be available to inform the decision on the application rather than being submitted subsequent to any consent. SNH also consider that the CEI Peatland Restoration Plan should be implemented in its entirety, across the whole of the Glaisnock Moss/Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site, rather than being limited to the confines of the application site boundary, given the hydrological connectivity of peatland. SEPA have advised that the hydrological connectivity of the peat and drying issues could be mitigated through the use of floating tracks in those areas identified as at risk due to the location of the access track. SEPA seek the use of floating track on areas of peat deeper than 1m where possible, and it is considered that floating tracks should be considered to further mitigate the hydrological connectivity risks to peatland associated with the access track route.

117. Protected Species Surveys were carried out to inform the Ecology chapter (10) of the EIA Report. A number of species (including badger and red squirrel) have been found to require mitigation to reduce impacts on these species. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be required which, alongside 100

detailed Construction Method Statements, would set out the main construction methods and steps required to minimise the risk of pollution and other impacts on the environment. In addition, an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) would be appointed for the pre-construction, construction and site restoration phases to oversee the implementation of the ecological mitigation and environmental protection measures. A Fisheries Management Plan is proposed which would be developed in consultation with the Nith District Salmon Fisheries Board (NDSFB). This would detail the water quality monitoring required for the site and would be established prior to any works, including tree felling, taking place on site. Marine Scotland advised in their consultation response to the Scottish Government that pre- construction water quality surveys should take place for 12 months prior to commencement of construction. Species Protection Plans would be produced for all relevant species to minimise adverse impacts as a result of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development. A Habitat Management Plan and Bat Protection Plan are also proposed. A draft Bat Protection Plan was recently submitted by the Applicant which set out in more detail the various mitigation measures they propose to adopt on site, which would require agreement with SNH on the parameters of these. The adoption of all these measures will ensure that impacts on ecological interests are minimised as far as possible, and steps taken to mitigate and enhance the habitat on site to benefit species in the long term. SNH advise that the Applicant provide full details of proposed bat mitigation, which they have recently done so, though SNH have yet to provide further comments on the draft Bat Protection Plan. For species such as badger and otter, given they are mobile species, SNH recommend that updated protected species surveys are carried out prior to commencement of any development (if consented) to ensure such species have not moved to the site area prior to any commencement.

118. The EIA Report assesses the impacts on ornithological interests in Chapter 9. It was concluded that of all the bird species at risk of impacts as a result of the proposed development (such as Black Grouse, Golden Plover, Lapwing, amongst others) the significance level of impacts faced by all but one species would be minor or negligible and therefore not significant. The only species which was found to face a moderate significance level of impact was Peregrine. General measures will be taken to reduce impacts on bird species and these include pre-construction surveys for birds, aiming to ensure tree felling takes place outside the main breeding bird season (March to August). A Breeding Bird Monitoring Plan would be developed and implemented prior to works commencing on site. Specific to Peregrine, a nest site protection zone would be established to ensure disturbance to that area is avoided. An operational protection plan for Peregrine is also proposed which could include the option to create and manage suitable nesting sites near the application site. Cumulative impacts have also been found to result in a potential impact only on Peregrine. RSPB agree with the Applicant’s assessment of significant impacts on Peregrine and agree with their commitment to produce an Operational Protection Plan for Peregrine (as set out in Technical Appendix 9.3 Outline Bird Protection Plan). RSPB also wish to see any proposed habitat restoration plans for the bog habitat and forestry to include objectives to benefit black grouse). RSPB do not object to the proposed development, though would like to see such matters addressed by appropriate conditions, if consent is granted. SNH are also supportive of the proposed ornithological mitigation, including that for Peregrine, and the proposals to develop a Bird Monitoring Programme that can be used to measure the 101

effectiveness of the mitigation measures applied. SNH though do recommend that further cumulative assessments are carried out. The Council supports the views of the relevant consultees, particularly SNH as the Scottish Government’s advisors on ecological matters, and fully support their recommendation that the CEI Peatland Restoration Plan be updated and implemented in its entirety, to benefit the Glaisnock Moss/Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site and mitigate the impacts of the proposed development.

IMPACTS ON WILD LAND

119. The application site is not located within or in close proximity to any designated wild land. The closest such wild land is Merrick, approximately 23km south-west of the application site. At this distance, whilst some visibility of the turbines may be possible, their relative scale due to separation distances, and potential degree of screening across the intervening landscape mean that visual impacts are not judged to significantly detract from the wild land.

IMPACTS ON ALL ASPECTS ON THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

120. In terms of the historic environment, developments can have direct impacts, such as physical impacts on such features, or indirect impacts such as on the setting or character of a historic asset. The EIA Report highlights, in Chapter 8, there are a number of heritage assets within the application site and further assets in the wider study area beyond the site boundaries. Those within the site tend to be associated with quarry activity or boundaries/enclosures and are all non-designated assets. Two features of particular note are Fardenreoch Cairn (approximately 240m north of T12) and Martyrs’ Graves (approximately 262m north-east of T7). In terms of direct impacts, no designated assets would be impacted by the proposed development. Some non-designated heritage assets within the site such as enclosures or possible Roman road remains may be impacted, although the Applicant proposes an Archaeological programme of works and watching brief to record any assets found during construction to ensure they are preserved by record. As noted, two assets worth closer inspection are Fardenreoch Cairn and Martyrs’ Graves. Fardenreoch Cairn is a prehistoric burial cairn and WoSAS categorise this as “almost certainly nationally important”. The open landscape setting of the cairn would be interrupted by the introduction of the proposed large turbines leading to an industrialised influence on its setting. The Applicant acknowledges that no further mitigation is possible and there would remain a significant residual effect on this asset which would persist for the lifetime of the proposed wind farm. Martyrs’ Graves is a monument located in a clearing within a wooded area on site. This monument has considerably more substance to it in comparison to Fardenreoch Cairn which has no obvious structure remaining. The Applicant notes that felling plans indicate the trees surrounding the Martyrs’ Graves monument will not be felled during the proposed construction or operational lifetime periods and therefore the setting would be maintained, with the surrounding trees providing screening of the proposed wind farm. The Applicant proposes to fund maintenance of the Martyrs’ Grave monument and provide signposts and interpretive materials on an information board as well as a commemorative bench next to the monument. This is designed to enhance this feature though would make no difference to the findings of any effects on this monument. The Council has not received any consultation response from WoSAS to 102

this application. This may be as a result of coronavirus impacting on their service delivery, though unfortunately it means they have not provided any advice on archaeological impacts of this proposed development.

121. Beyond the site boundary there are a number of heritage assets considered to be worth further assessment in the EIA Report for indirect impacts. Auchencloigh Castle Scheduled Monument is located approximately 5km north-west of the proposed turbines. It is located partly within some woodland and very little remains other than some rubble and low stone wall parts. The consented Polquhairn wind farm would be located at much closer distances to this scheduled monument and would have more of an influence that the proposed Greenburn wind farm on its setting. Whilst cumulative impacts will increase, given the number of consented and proposed wind farm extending across the southern landscape from the scheduled moment, however its setting is not considered to be unacceptably impacted by the proposed development, including cumulatively. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have commented within their consultation response to the Scottish Government that they are content with the assessment that no scheduled monuments or inventory battlefields would experience a significant impact from the proposed development. Wider conservation areas and listed buildings are not considered to face unacceptable impacts on their settings though given varying separation distances and varying levels of built and natural screening, some will face varying degrees of significant impacts, just none unacceptably so. Garrallan, a C-listed building located approximately 2.9km north-west of the nearest turbine (T13) is considered to face residual non-significant impacts due to screening around the site reducing views to the south to an extent. The Applicant considers such residual impacts are reversible upon decommissioning.

122. Whilst the paragraph above does deal with listed building out with the site, matters regarding listed buildings specifically within Dumfries House Garden and Designed Landscape are considered herein, rather than the previous paragraph. Dumfries House is an Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape and also includes a number of A-listed buildings within its grounds, including Dumfries House itself, a Dovecote, Avenue Bridge and The Temple. In addition to these A-listed structures, a number of B-listed assets are also located within Dumfries House GDL, these include a Sundial, Ice House, Coach Houses, and two sets of Lodges and Gateways. The closest of the B-listed buildings (which is also the closest of all listed buildings within the Dumfries House GDL) is approximately 5km north of turbine 13. Chapter 8 of the EIA Report considered that due to a combination of lack of intervisibility between the proposed turbines and the listed buildings, and the relationship of the listed buildings to others within the GDL or the wider GDL estate, the resultant impacts on the B- listed buildings would not be unacceptably adverse. The A-listed assets have been considered to be more significant, though for similar reasons as the B-listed buildings, have not been found to face unacceptable impacts. Notably the entrance to Dumfries House itself is provided as Viewpoint 5 within the EIA Report Volume 3: LVIA and Cultural Heritage Visualisations. The visuals provided for Viewpoint 5 indicate that a number of turbine tips will be visible, although vegetative screening would largely eliminate those, with only a single blade tip (from turbine 10) being visible directly south of the entrance above the horizon. Whilst this moving element could cause a distraction, particularly given its lack of context with the remainder of 103

the turbine being hidden from view, it is a disappointing intrusion on Dumfries House though unlikely to result in unacceptable impacts.

123. The Temple, a restored A-listed northern entrance to the estate, is located such that it will experience wider views to the southern skyline than some other parts of the GDL. HES requested that visuals be provided from this A-listed building to assist in the assessment of impacts. These can be seen in Figures 8.3 – 8.5 within the EIA Report Volume 3: LVIA and Cultural Heritage Visualisations. The Applicant’s assessment has found that from the certain views the proposed turbines will result in a noticeable, modern addition to views from the Temple and will change its wider setting and that of the northern part of the Garden and Designed Landscape. The Applicant notes within paragraph 8.6.37 of the Cultural Heritage chapter that they consider the impact on Temple to be a low magnitude on a high sensitivity receptor and that this results in a minor impact and not significant in EIA terms. Judging by Table 8.3 however, the impact would be moderate, not minor. Further, paragraph 8.6.52, when discussing impacts on the Dumfries House Garden and Designed Landscape as a whole (rather than specific buildings within it), notes that the magnitude of impact is considered to be low on a high sensitivity receptor resulting in a minor impact. Table 8.3 would indicate otherwise, and this impact would be moderate, not minor. These moderate impacts are considered to be significant in EIA terms as noted by the Applicant in paragraph 8.3.19.

124. Within their consultation response to the Scottish Government, HES have, with regards to Dumfries House Garden and Designed Landscape and the A-listed Temple building, stated the findings of the EIA Report, notably the significance being considered within as minor (which is not significant for the EIA Regulations), and advise they agree with the assessment. It is not clear whether HES have referred to Table 8.3 in coming to this conclusion, when it indicates the significance of impact would be moderate, not minor, which would be significant in EIA terms. HES have set out reasons, including that of screening, particularly in the core of the Dumfries House estate, which they conclude would not raise issues which would cause HES to raise an objection, though they accept there will be adverse effects on views from the Temple. The Scottish Ministers may wish to seek further clarification/correction from the Applicant with regards to the significance level of effect, based on their Table 8.3, for the historic assets associated with Dumfries House before coming to a decision.

125. WoSAS had requested during scoping that the assessment consider non– designated ‘nationally important’ heritage assets. Such features include Gass Water mining and industrial remains, Craigdullyeart mining and industrial remains, and other assets such as Ochiltree Castle, Hillbank Wood Motte, Beoch and Little Rigend. Due to a combination of separation distances and the ability to appreciate the settings of these features in the landscape, none are expected to experience such significant impacts on their settings that they are considered to be unacceptably impacted by the proposed wind farm. With regards to non-inventoried Gardens and Designed Landscapes, WoSAS had expected these to be assessed where they are located within 15km of the proposed development, as noted in their scoping response. The Applicant has stated within Table 8.4 of Chapter 8 that it is not considered that this class of heritage asset is uniformly likely to receive significant impacts and none were identified within 15km where any such significant impact is 104

likely, so no formal assessment is required. Glaisnock non-inventory Garden and Designed Landscape is, however located approximately 1.9km to the north of the application site. There are others beyond this distance, though these, such as Logan non-inventory GDL, are located at distances of approximately 5km and farther from the application site. Given the status of these sites in comparison to the inventory GDL of Dumfries House, distances of 5km and beyond are likely to offer sufficient separation distances that at such distances, these non-inventory GDLs are unlikely to face unacceptably adverse significant impacts. Considering the closer Glaisnock site though, looking at the blade tip ZTV (Figure 7.12a) it would appear that within the Glaisnock site, only part of the non-inventory GDL would have theoretical visibility of up to 16 turbines, with much of it falling within an area likely to have theoretical visibility of only up to 4 turbines. As noted previously, WoSAS have not provided a consultation response to the Council to advise on the heritage matters of their interest to inform the assessment. Should WoSAS provide a response at a later date, this shall be passed on to Scottish Ministers although it is advised that Ministers try to obtain comments from WoSAS prior to determining the application if the Council has not received anything from them during the intervening period.

126. The cumulative impacts of heritage assets has been considered, particularly given the relatively close proximity of some nearby schemes including Overhill (consented) and North Kyle (application), amongst other schemes in the wider area. The EIA Report concludes that there would be no significant cumulative effects, although for some assets the cumulative scenario would result in turbines being visible in more directions and/or would intensify the effects where additional turbines are visible in the same view. Most heritage assets will experience varying degrees of cumulative impacts though none considered to be unacceptably adverse. Dumfries House Garden and Designed Landscape (and the A-listed Temple), would receive cumulative impacts much like those of Greenburn alone, though with the addition of North Kyle appearing to extend across the southern skyline, resulting in an extensive wind turbine influence on the northern part of the GDL and Temple structure. The Applicant has noted that Greenburn would result in minor (not significant) in-isolation effects, though the Planning Authority consider that this should actually be a moderate impact, based on the Applicant’s own correlation set out in Table 8.3, and therefore would be significant in EIA terms. Given the in-isolation effects would be more significant than reported by the Applicant, questions are raised over the assessed significance of cumulative effects reported from this receptor. HES have not specifically mentioned cumulative impacts on the Dumfries House Garden and Designed Landscape (and listed buildings within it) within their consultation response. HES does however note that sufficient information has been provided within the EIA Report for them to conclude that the level of impact on heritage assets of interest to them would not raise issues of national interest such that HES would object to the proposed development on the basis of historic environment impacts. It is suggested that Scottish Ministers again seek clarity/correction from the Applicant with regards to the level of significance of cumulative impact on historic environment assets based on their own correlation levels set out in Table 8.3 and what effect the finding of significant impacts has on these assets.

105

Effects on hydrology, the water environment, flood risk and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems;

127. The proposed development has been designed to seek to minimise potential impacts on, amongst other things, watercourses by employing a 50m buffer to all infrastructure, where possible, although where this has not been possible, the Applicant does propose further mitigation. The site is located across a number of surface water catchments which drain into the River Nith and Lugar Water. Mapping would indicate very limited areas of potential flood risk throughout the site and the Council would agree with the Applicant’s findings that the site is not considered to be at risk of flooding. There remains a risk of contamination of watercourses due to surface water runoff or other site drainage, especially during the construction period when forestry felling and track formation/modification results in increased exposed ground. Further direct impacts could be during the construction (5 new) and modification (6 existing, possibly requiring upgrading) of watercourse crossings. Disruption and removal of peat also has the potential to disrupt the peat hydrology. The Applicant has considered cumulative impacts on hydrology but notes that nearby schemes (North Kyle, Polquhairn and Overhill wind farms) are all located in different sub-catchments to those of the application site so would be unlikely to result in cumulative flood risk impacts.

128. The Applicant notes that the CEMP document would incorporate good practice principles and would provide measures to avoid and minimise hydrological impacts. The mitigation measures and good practice proposed include, amongst others, filtration of surface water through sediment lagoons and silt traps, fuels and oil would be securely stored and handled, access tracks would have a permeable construction and Pollution Prevention Plans and Incident responses would be developed. Water facilities for the substation would be delivered from a groundwater source or rainwater harvesting system. Foul drainage would feed into a small package treatment plant or septic tank next to the substation. Table 11.9 of Chapter 11 of the EIA Report sets out the guidance and general good practice measures which would be employed on site to prevent pollution and sediment release. These measures noted herein are just a small sample of the measures the Applicant proposes and it is considered that appropriate conditions requiring detailed CEMP and Pollution Prevention Plans be approved prior to commencement of development and then implemented throughout construction, operation and decommissioning, as necessary, would adequately mitigated such impacts.

129. With respect to Private Water Supplies (PWS) there is one such supply within 1km of the application site, to the east of the site entrance (Wellhill Steadings PWS). This PWS is located at a distance of approximately 300m from the site boundary and approximately 450m from the nearest proposed infrastructure (site access road). The Applicant has noted within Chapter 11 of the EIA Report that this PWS is not located within 250m of the proposed development. Initially the Applicant had not been able to identify the source of the PWS or map the pathway from that source to the receptor, so it was not possible to confirm if the PWS at source would be out with 250m of the proposed development. The Applicant did however undertake further discussions with the owner of the property served by the PWS during the assessment of the application, in light of concerns raised by SEPA. The Applicant was able to ascertain that the water supply there is from rainwater harvesting with no 106

ground or surface water source, and with no supplemental supply provided via a groundwater source. On this basis, it would appear that this PWS would not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. SEPA, though originally raising concerns regarding this PWS, also advised in a further response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit that this matter had been dealt with. There is one groundwater abstraction (A1) located approximately 105m south of the site boundary and 185m from the nearest infrastructure, a crane pad. The Applicant has assumed this abstraction is no longer in use as it is located within the adjoining surface coal mind void, and this appears to be a reasonable assumption.

130. Scottish Water have confirmed their records indicate there are no Scottish Water drinking water or abstraction sources designated as Drinking Water Protected Area (under the Water Framework Directive) in the area likely to be affected by the proposed development. They do note, however, that the proposals would impact on their assets and that the Applicant will require to contact Scottish Water directly to discuss these matters.

131. With regards to Ground Water Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs), there are a number of such features throughout the application site covering habitats (M23, M25, MG9 and MG10) with the majority of these tending to be located in the central, northern and eastern parts of the site, largely coinciding with the Glaisnock Moss / Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site. The Applicant reports within Chapter 11 of the EIA Report that the GWDTEs are predominantly maintained through rainfall contained within the peat rather than the bedrock aquifer. They also note, where present, glacial till forms a barrier between the peat and the bedrock, and conclude that the GWDTEs will be dependent on precipitation and through-flow in the peat rather than groundwater flows. As a result, the Applicant considers the proposed development will not risk GWDTEs. SEPA have advised that turbines 9 and 11 will require to be moved out with the buffer zones detailed in SEPA guidance and has urged the Applicant to consider moving turbine 11 westwards off the moderate GWDTE.

Re-use of excavated peat, forest removal and forest waste;

132. During any construction period of the proposed development, extracted peat will be managed through best practice, including minimising peat transportation on site, immediate relocation and keeping the peat out of sunlight and wind. No temporary stockpiling of peat on site is proposed whilst extracted peat will be used for restoration of various elements within the site such as track verges. The Outline Peat Management Plan (OPMP) (Technical Appendix 12.6) indicates in Table 2 that all extracted peat could be utilised for restoration purposes. A condition of any consent, if granted, would require a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a detailed PMP be approved in writing, prior to being implemented on site to ensure the appropriate handling and management of any excavated peat.

133. Given that commercial forestry is the existing land use on approximately half of the site, coinciding with the majority of the proposed infrastructure, the proposed development would result in a considerable amount of tree felling (approximately 77 ha) and resultant waste material. Such waste material, in the form of brash and stumps, would remain in places as brash mats to further aid timber extraction. Such 107

mats would be left to biodegrade naturally. Brash would be removed in areas where infrastructure is proposed or where no replanting is proposed. Some timber could be processed for use as biomass but any remaining forestry waste may be used as a base for floating roads. It is understood that floating roads are not proposed for this site, however, so Ministers should seek clarity as to what the proposed uses for any remaining forestry waste might be.

Impacts on forestry and woodlands, with reference to the Ayrshire and Arran Forestry and Woodland Strategy (2014);

134. The Ayrshire and Arran Forestry and Woodland Strategy (2014:35) notes the Scottish Government’s aim of reducing carbon emissions and measures to do this will include: the substitution of fossil-based fuels with low carbon and renewable energy sources; improving energy efficiency designed to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, and initiatives to increase the amount of carbon absorbed and retained within the environment.

135. Woodlands and forestry can contribute to all of the above. This document further states, “increasing the amount of carbon sequestered by woodland is a national priority.”

136. Chapter 14: Forestry of the EIA Report indicates that, as a result of the proposed development, there would be an area of approximately 77 ha of commercial forestry felled to accommodate the development. This would be concentrated in the south- west of the application site, where the majority of the infrastructure would be located. The Applicant proposes onsite compensatory planting, which would reduce Sitka spruce areas onsite though would increase areas of other coniferous trees and mixed broadleaf species. Whilst there would be an increase in open ground associated with the turbines, this increase is compensated for by the decrease in existing open and base ground on site (totalling 22.9 ha which is proposed to be planted). The Applicant’s proposals would result in a very slight net increase of stocked woodland of 0.51 ha on site compared with the existing baseline. The Applicant has not set out a timeframe for the compensatory planting/restocking to take place, however has stated that this will be agreed with the Planning Authority. SNH observed within their consultation response to the Scottish Government, that whilst the restocking plan increases the areas of broadleaves and mixed conifers, it perpetuates the poor design of the original forest. SNH had hoped for a more imaginative felling and restocking plan, considering the wider forest area within the application site (rather than limiting broadleaves to narrow linear bands along tracks and outer margins of the forest), and such an approach would have accelerated positive landscape change.

137. It is considered that whilst there will be some loss of woodland as a result of the proposed development, the onsite compensatory planting is sufficient to satisfy the aims of the Ayrshire and Arran Forestry and Woodland Strategy, particularly given the compensatory planting will take place onsite, although SNH’s comments regarding the design and extent of restocking should be taken on board and the Council would support improvements to the restocking plans. In order to ensure effective restocking any planning condition, if consent is granted, will require the 108

Applicant to provide further details of the compensatory planting, including a timeframe for undertaking this and species composition.

EFFECTS ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

138. The proposed wind farm would directly help tackle climate change by producing electricity from a renewable source. The disturbance to and loss of peat on site to accommodate construction of the proposed development will result in the carbon storage capabilities of this site being damaged, which will result in the release of greenhouse gasses. Despite this impact, the balance over the lifetime of the development and estimated savings of 2.99M tonnes of carbon dioxide, will favour the wind farm’s potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker;

139. With regards to impacts on communities and individual dwellings, the nearest of these, within 2km of any turbine, are listed below, all of which are located within East Ayrshire. Of the 19 properties listed, 18 are within 2km of any turbine whilst one property (Mosside House) was assessed by the Applicant as it was located just beyond the 2km distance. The approximate separation distances between each property and the nearest turbine is also provided, along with the Applicant’s reference number assigned to each property as set out in the Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) (Technical Appendix 7.2 from the EIA Report):

Property ID Property Name Distance from nearest turbine 1 Wellhill Steading 1.69km east of T16 2 Caer Nivan 1.87km east of T16 3 Davidson House 1.86km east of T16 4 ‘Modern House’ 1.87km east of T16 5 Highmount 1.93km east of T16 6 Pinegrove 1.96km east of T16 7 Wellhill Cottage 1.95km east of T16 8 Benrigg 1.77km north-east of T16 9 Benston Smithy House 1.83km north-east of T16 10 Glaisnock Moore 1.72km north-east of T16 11 Shield House 1.76km north-east of T16 12 High View (Ciboney) 1.89km north-east of T13 13 Thistle Bank 1.88km north-east of T13 14 Greenfield Farm 1.48km north-east of T13 15 Islay 1.58km north-east of T13 109

16 Muirdyke 1.29km north north-east of T13 17 Corby Lodge 1.58km north of T13 18 Mosside House 2.12km north of T13 19 Mossback Farm 1.98km north of T13

140. The above are the properties within 2km of a turbine, with the exception of one. There are no settlements within 2km of a turbine, with settlement impacts discussed previously within the ‘Landscape and visual impacts’ section of the Schedule 1 assessment. This section will therefore focus on only the residential properties listed above. When assessing residential amenity, likely noise, shadow flicker and visual impact resultant from the proposed development must be considered. The likely visual impacts have been assessed based on site visits and the wireframes submitted by the Applicant.

VISUAL AMENITY

141. A Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) was undertaken by the Applicant and submitted as part of the EIA Report. Site visits were undertaken to assess the wirelines presented within the RVAA to determine whether or not these properties would be likely to experience unacceptable visual impacts. The Applicant did not provide photomontages to assess residential visual impacts, however, the wirelines provide a ‘bare earth’ representation of views, without any built or vegetative screening. The properties assessed would experience varying degrees of visual impact, with some only viewing a limited number of tips whilst others would see the majority of proposed turbines, with some of those being visible to hub height including much of the towers. The majority of properties within the RVAA are generally located at elevations of approximately 230m – 250m AOD. The turbines are located on more elevated land to the east of the RVAA properties, up to approximately 360m AOD.

142. Some observations can be made from the RVAA wirelines. Despite some of the turbines being located on more elevated land up to 360m AOD, these turbines feature far less prominently in views from the nearby properties than those on less elevated land around 290m – 320m AOD, where turbines 13 – 16 are located. The RVAA found just over half the assessed properties would face significant effects though ultimately concluded that no property would experience unacceptable impacts, such that a property would become an unattractive place to live. The Council’s landscape consultants, Ironside Farrar Ltd, concurred with that finding. Whilst the Council would agree with this conclusion, it is apparent from the majority of viewpoints that the most easterly/north-easterly turbines (13 – 16) cause some of the most significant impacts of all the proposed turbines, much more so than those set further back.

110

SHADOW FLICKER

143. Shadow flicker is generally recognised through Scottish Government guidance of May 2014 as having the potential to impact on properties within a distance of ten rotor diameters of any turbine. As the rotor diameter of the proposed turbines is 136m, then shadow flicker could affect properties up to a distance of 1.36km from each turbine, and this is the distance across which the Applicant has assessed shadow flicker. Shadow flicker is only possible at up to 130 degrees either side of north. The Applicant has noted that one property (Muirdyke) would fall within their assessed area of potential shadow flicker and has noted that this property may experience 3 hours of shadow flicker per year.

144. Whilst this may not appear to be a significant amount, as the Applicant points out, there is no adopted guidance within the UK, or specifically Scotland, with respect to the amount of shadow flicker which is considered acceptable and therefore efforts to mitigate shadow flicker will be required. Such mitigation often takes the form of either screening or shutdown protocols to ensure the necessary turbines are shut down during periods when they are likely to cause shadow flicker. It is considered that any mitigation which would effectively block out light from a receptor’s property is not reasonable and instead, a shutdown protocol would be an appropriate means of mitigation. Other than Muirdyke there are a number of other properties which fall out with the 10 x rotor diameter distance though by relatively short distances. The Council has experience of shadow flicker affecting a property at another site where the property lies beyond a distance of ten rotor diameters from the turbine. Given the Scottish Government guidance is just that, guidance, and it does not guarantee shadow flicker will not be an issue beyond ten rotor diameters’ distance, the Council would also seek a condition to ensure that where a report of shadow flicker affecting a property is received, this is assessed and appropriate mitigation measures adopted to mitigate for the impacts. Subject to appropriate conditions to mitigate shadow flicker impacts, shadow flicker will not be an issue.

NOISE

145. With regards to potential noise impacts on residential amenity, the Council’s noise consultant, Accon, has reviewed the relevant information within the EIA Report and has made a number of observations. Accon did note a couple of instances of baseline monitoring potentially not being carried out in full accordance with the Institute of Acoustic Good Practice Guidance (IOA GPG). Responses to these concerns were provided to Accon who are satisfied any corrections for the deviations are unlikely to make any significant differences to the noise assessment results or conclusions. The Applicant has undertaken a cumulative noise assessment, taking into account nearby consented and application stage wind farms (these are Enoch Hill, Overhill, Polquhairn, South Kyle and North Kyle). Accon are satisfied with the assumptions made and explanations provided by the Applicant within the cumulative noise assessment, noting these are in line with good practice. The approach undertaken by the Applicant with regards to operational noise limits was to determine, after taking into account the cumulative noise levels of the other wind farms, what remaining noise levels remained from ETSU-R-97 noise limits to determine what budget or ‘apportioned noise limits’ remained available to the proposed Greenburn wind farm. Table 15.9 sets out the apportioned noise limits for 111

Greenburn. The predicted operational noise levels are also shown in Table 15.10 which shows they all fall within the apportioned noise limits. Accon consider that the noise limits set out in the EIA Report could form the basis of limits for any noise condition if the proposed development is consented.

146. It is noted that the Applicant considers that due to the separation distance between proposed infrastructure and the nearest receptor (Wellhill Steadings) that due to the separation distance between proposed infrastructure and the nearest receptors, there is no reasonable prospect of significant construction noise impacts. Whilst a distance of 400m is mentioned, the access track formation into the site is less than 300m from Wellhill Steadings. The access track formation at this point, however, would be limited in extent and duration, with noise reducing as works progress deeper into the site. The Applicant reports in Chapter 15 of the EIA Report that construction noise at Wellhill Steading is assessed as being 55dB LAeq, day which is below the daytime construction noise significance level identified within British Standard BS 5228, so would not be significant. Mitigation proposed includes having construction times limited through planning conditions, employment of best practicable means to reduce construction vehicle and machinery noise, and utilising a phased working pattern to reduce the combined effects of construction noise. Full details of construction noise mitigation should be sought through the submission of a Construction Noise Management Plan, which could be required through an appropriate condition, to provide full details of how construction noise will be mitigated. Accon considered that it might have been appropriate to consider the change in noise level during construction rather than simply the noise impact, though accept that construction noise (including that of construction traffic) would be unlikely to result in a significant effect.

147. With regards the battery storage element of the proposed development, this will be located approximately 2km away from the nearest noise sensitive receptor (identified by the Applicant as Dalricket Mill). The Applicant notes that other than possible air cooling units, all other equipment associated with the battery storage will be located within a building, and therefore, given the low noise levels of the cooling units, it is unlikely this will cause any significant impacts. Accon concurred with this conclusion. Blasting may be required to extract stone from the proposed on-site borrow pit. The Applicant has not provided details of this but does set out at paragraph 15.6.3 of the EIA Report processes which they will follow to ensure impacts of blasting and vibration can be controlled. Accon consider that a Blasting Management Plan including such aspects as well as requirements for monitoring vibration should be required through a suitably worded planning condition. The Planning Authority would be content for such a condition to be attached to any consent, if granted, which would also restrict periods during which blasting can take place and this would ensure blasting is suitably controlled and impacts mitigated.

148. Given the proximity of other wind farms (consented and in planning), Accon have recommended that a condition be attached to any consent, if granted, requiring a protocol to set out how complaints of noise nuisance will be investigated and this should be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. Accon have also recommended periodic post-commissioning noise monitoring be undertaken and that Amplitude Modulation should be controlled through an appropriately worded condition. The Applicant’s assessment of 112

construction, operational and decommissioning noise has found there to be no significant effects likely to occur at any of these three stages and Accon consider these conclusions to be appropriate. Accon consider that subject to the adoption of appropriate noise limits, there would be no over-riding reason for refusal in respect of noise. The Planning Authority would seek that the conditions noted throughout this noise assessment be attached to any consent, if granted, which would enable potential noise impacts to be controlled alongside vibration from blasting.

IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION

149. In terms of potential tourism and recreational impacts which could arise from the proposed wind farm, the application site itself is currently used as a commercial forestry plantation and rough moorland/peatland so doesn’t have a particular tourism offer at present, particularly given the surrounding opencast operations which have only ceased relatively recently. That being said, there are nearby Rights of Way (RoW) and Core Paths which could be impacted as a result of the proposed wind farm. Two RoW are located near to the eastern edge of the application site: one from Bankglen, travelling in a north-west direction beyond Auchincross, terminating approximately 500m from the application site; and from Lochside Hotel travelling westwards towards Glaisnock Road, terminating approximately 600m from the application site. Viewpoint 20 (Figures 7.46-7.46h) provides a representative view of what could be considered similar sorts of views as might be available from such rights of way. It is clear the location and scale of the turbines are likely to result in prominent views of turbines from these paths. Even considering Overhill and North Kyle, the scale of the Greenburn turbines, due to their location on the eastern edge of this landscape and in closer proximity to the rights of way, would appear comparatively larger and their impact on such views greater as a result.

150. Considering Core Paths, there are three within relative close proximity to the proposed development which the EIA Report considers would face significant effects as a result of the proposed development. Core Path C10 (Coalfield Cycle Route from Cumnock to Dalmellington) is located approximately 1.8km east of the nearest turbine (T16). Core Path C12 (New Cumnock Circular) is located approximately 2.9km south-east of the nearest turbine (T16). Core Path C11 (Knockshinnoch Lagoons) is located approximately 4.5km east, south-east of the nearest turbine (T16). All three routes will experience varying degrees of significance, from different parts of the routes, depending on screening but where there is no or only limited screening, views are likely to be prominent and significant, particularly when walking in directions facing towards the wind farm, although cumulative impacts would mean that these paths would have an increasing sense of views being influenced by wind turbine development in most directions. It is considered that Viewpoints 4 (Burnside) and 7 (New Cumnock) provide visualisations which could give a sense of the sorts of views users of the core paths, particularly C12 and C11, may experience. These viewpoint visualisations demonstrate the prominence of the turbines in such views and whilst distance from the proposed turbines would alter their prominence, they remain conspicuous. Whilst no detailed cumulative assessment has been made of the core paths within the EIA Report, the Council’s consultants, Ironside Farrar Ltd, consider that, much like the significant standalone effects found, cumulative impacts on these core paths would also be significant. Cumulative effects would be both in combination, where Greenburn is seen in the same views as other wind farms, and 113

sequentially where Greenburn would be seen in some views, and other wind farms seen in other views.

151. Other tourism and recreational receptors in the area include Lochside Hotel. Viewpoint 3 (Figures 7.29-7.29f) provides a representative viewpoint of the effects from this receptor. Adjacent to the hotel is New Cumnock Golf Course which would have similar views to those represented in Viewpoint 3. The visualisations show the scale contrast which would result between the smaller scale features of the Upland Basin, across the loch to the containing skyline, where farm buildings provide scale references against the larger turbines proposed. The Greenburn turbines would be the closest of all turbines to the Lochside Hotel at approximately 3.8km to the nearest turbine (T16) and would introduce a prominent wind farm influence in a view which would have very limited turbine influence, even if North Kyle were to be consented (although if not, Overhill has a negligible impact on views from here). This receptor would experience cumulative views in all directions other than north, with the majority of public areas of the hotel located such that views across the loch, and particularly towards the Southern Uplands are the main aspect for guests. The EIA Report assesses significant impacts on the Lochside Hotel and New Cumnock Golf Course, primarily as a result of the scale and proximity in the setting of the Loch o’ th’ Lowes view from these receptors and due to the successive cumulative effects with other wind farms. The Planning Authority would agree that these impacts are significant.

152. The Moffat Report (The Economic Impacts of wind farms on Scottish Tourism, March 2008) found that the value of scenery had an impact on the prices people are willing to pay for hotel rooms, with a reduction in price where wind farms are visible in views. Such an issue, if the Moffat Report’s findings can be attributed to this case, would suggest there could be a negative impact on the appeal of this tourist destination and its resultant profitability as a business given the significant adverse landscape and visual impacts (discussed previously in this report and mentioned herein) which would result from the proposed wind farm. The Lochside Hotel is promoted as an ‘event venue’ with weddings particularly advertised on its website. The website also actively promotes the landscape and its views of the Ayrshire countryside as one of its key selling points. It is considered that the significant landscape and visual impacts posed by the proposed development may have an impact on the experience of guests at the hotel and reduce its ability to attract events such as weddings, which could harm the success of the business in the long term.

153. Other tourism destinations in the wider area include Dumfries House and Craigengillan which are inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes located approximately 3.5km and 10km from the application site respectively. Viewpoint 5 (Figures 7.31-7.31d) provides a visualisation from Dumfries House itself, whilst Viewpoints 23 and 24 (Figures 7.49-7.49b and 7.50-7.50b) provide visuals from parts of Craigengillan Estate. These visuals all show there to be very limited visual impacts on these receptors such that their tourism appeal is not considered to be significantly affected. It is worth noting, however, with regards to Dumfries House GDL that northern parts of the estate will have greater opportunity to view turbines associated with this proposed development, including cumulatively with others. Whilst the EIA Report concludes impacts would be minor and not significant in EIA terms, their matrix within the EIA Report suggests the impacts would actually be moderate which 114

would be significant in EIA terms. Scottish Ministers will have to satisfy themselves with the accuracy of the assessment undertaken in the EIA Report with regards to such matters when considering their opinion on impacts on this receptor. The closest landmark hills to the application site are Corsencon to the east and Blackcraig to the south-east. Viewpoint 12 provides indicative visuals from Blackcraig Hill, although Corsencon Hill wasn’t chosen as an assessed viewpoint. It is considered that other turbine development in closer proximity to both these landmark hills are such that, even taking into account Greenburn, the visual impacts from other schemes would result in comparatively greater impact such that impacts from Greenburn, though adverse, are not considered to unacceptably impact on the recreational value of these hills.

154. No mitigation is possible for the significant adverse impacts resulting on tourism and recreational receptors, these impacts a result of the location, scale and design of the wind farm. In terms of other cultural heritage features (discussed elsewhere within this report), mainly Martyrs’ Grave, the Applicant is proposing enhancement in the form of improved signposted access to Martyrs’ Grave and the Covenanter’s Cross. Historic interpretative boards are also proposed to provide further information about these features, alongside maintenance works for the Martyrs’ Grave monument and a bench. Whilst these would be positives and could aid access to such heritage features as recreational receptors, it is considered the significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, mainly confined to the Covenanters’ Cross, would actually detract from the enjoyment of this feature as a recreational destination. Viewpoint 22 (Figures 7.48-7.48m) provide indicative visuals from this new landscape feature and demonstrate that at a distance of 376m to the nearest turbine, the proposed Greenburn wind farm would be visible in views from the south-west around to the north-east and would form highly prominent features given their close proximity.

155. In all cumulative scenarios, the EIA Report finds that significant impacts would result from the Greenburn turbines and this is due to the close proximity views of the turbines on the immediate skyline, increasing the vertical scale, and eastward spread of turbine development, with successive views of other wind farm development also clear. Given the end of opencast mining in the Foothills landscape, it is hoped that tourism and recreation can be encouraged, something the Covenanters’ Cross monument is intended to provide – a destination for walkers to appreciate and attract more people into this area. The adverse landscape and visual impacts resulting from the proposed development, including cumulatively, mean that any aims of encouraging tourism and recreation into this area again are likely to have limited success. Given the impacts discussed within this section, it is considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on tourism and recreation as a result of the adverse landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative, resulting from the proposed development.

Public access, including impacts on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes identified in National Planning Framework 3;

156. No long distance walking, cycling or scenic routes identified in NPF3 would be unacceptably affected by the proposed development. The Darvel to Muirkirk route would be the closest of the identified long distance routes to the proposed development, with the nearest turbine, T13, approximately 10km to the south of the 115

B743 at its nearest point to the route. This extends to approximately 21km from Darvel whilst Muirkirk is approximately 17km north-east of the nearest turbine, T16. Figure 7.12a of the EIA Report provides a ZTV out to 40km from the application site. This figure indicates that from Muirkirk the number of turbines theoretically visible tends to increase in the settlement when moving northwards. Darvel would not have visibility of the turbines. Depending on the route taken views would be very different. From Darvel, if travelling eastwards then south on the B743 descending into Muirkirk, views would not be possible until a relatively short distance north of Muirkirk, on the approach to the settlement. If travelling westwards from Darvel and south on the B7037 then views are theoretically far more likely although this doesn’t take into account vegetative screening such as trees and hedges, or buildings. Views on the B743 between Sorn and Muirkirk would be possible, though these tend to decrease in extent towards Muirkirk. Whilst views in the westerly direction would be more likely, these would be at distances of approximately 10 – 20km from the site so the apparent scale would be reduced to an extent, albeit they are likely to appear quite prominent on the horizon. At these distances views, where possible, due to intervening screening, are unlikely to be of a magnitude which would unacceptably detract from the recreational value of the route.

157. In terms of public access, the site at present is used for commercial forestry and rough grazing with peatland across much of the site. There are no rights of way or other formal access routes across the site. The proposed access tracks would allow for easier public access across this site.

Net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities;

158. The Applicant has provided an assessment of socio-economic impacts within Chapter 19 of the EIA Report. The Applicant predicts the proposed development would create, during the development phase (legal, project management, etc.), up to 63 full time equivalent jobs across the UK, with 34 of these specific to Scotland and 6 within East Ayrshire. The EIA Report indicates that this would be considered a negligible impact. During the construction period of the proposed wind farm (likely to be approximately 20 months in duration) the Applicant predicts construction costs will be approximately £95.2 Million with 53% of this being spent outside the UK, 24% in Scotland alone and 12% in East Ayrshire. The construction phase is estimated to generate approximately 204 full time equivalent jobs across the UK, taking into account on-site and off-site jobs. For Scotland specifically this would equate to 32 on-site and 78 off-site jobs, with East Ayrshire specifically seeing 16 on-site and 39 off-site jobs being created. As a result of supply chain impacts (and through the additional expenditure in the local economy from the construction workforce) a multiplier has been applied to the 55 East Ayrshire construction jobs to account for the additional effects which would result in approximately 66 full time equivalent jobs in East Ayrshire during the 20 month construction period. This is assessed within the EIA Report as a minor beneficial impact.

116

159. During the proposed 35-year operational period of the wind farm, routine or unscheduled maintenance will be required. It is estimated, based on averaged maintenance costs of wind farms applied to the capacity of the proposed development (77.2 MW in this case when taking into account the battery storage) that there would be an average annual maintenance cost of £4.6 Million, equating to a total of £161 Million over 35 years. Approximately 42% of this spend would be within East Ayrshire, equating to approximately 16 full time equivalent jobs created over the 35-year operational period. This is reported in the EIA Report as a minor beneficial impact. In terms of Decommissioning impacts, assuming a 6-month period for such works, this is estimated to generate the equivalent of 2 – 8 full time equivalent jobs in East Ayrshire, 4 – 16 across Scotland specifically and 1 – 5 throughout the rest of the UK. This is reported to be a negligible employment impact.

160. The Applicant is proposing to set up a community benefit fund in line with Scottish Government and East Ayrshire Council guidance. This will be £5,000 per MW of installed capacity (16 turbines x 4.2MW capacity each) equating to £336,000 per year or £11.76 Million over the 35-year lifetime of the proposed wind farm. The Applicant considers this a minor beneficial impact. This fund is not a material consideration, as clarified within SPP and the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments.

161. Based on all of the above, but excluding those matters which are not material, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development is likely to provide a net economic benefit to the local and regional area, though this will be limited and not significant in EIA terms.

Impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording;

162. With regards to aviation and defence interests, the Ministry of Defence (MOD), National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) have all provided comments to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit during its consultation on the proposed development. The MOD have responded to confirm they have no objection to the proposal but would request aviation safety lighting be fitted (infrared light is acceptable to them and would avoid the need for visible lighting, something which the Council would seek) and they wish to be notified of a number of matters relating to the proposed development. These issues could be dealt with by way of appropriate planning conditions. NATS carried out a Technical and Operational Assessment (TOPA) and found that there would be impacts on the Lowther Hill Radar as the available terrain screening would not adequately attenuate the signal, resulting in the development being likely to cause false primary plots. A reduction in the radar’s ability to detect real aircraft is also anticipated. The impact has been deemed by NATS to be unacceptable. GPA responded to advise that all 16 turbines would be visible on their primary radars (S511 and Terma Scanter 4002) and will generate unacceptable clutter on the displays which would require mitigation. GPA note that there are ongoing discussions with the Applicant regarding an Instrument Landing System (ILS) Safeguarding Assessment and the need for an Instrument Flight Procedures Assessment, however, advises that until such discussions have concluded and a mitigation agreement secured for the lifetime of the proposed wind farm, they must object to the proposed development.

117

163. The Applicant discusses aviation impacts in Chapter 16 of the EIA Report and notes, specifically with regards to Instrument Flight Procedures issue, that they have agreed with GPA that this can be undertaken after planning permission has been granted and can be the subject of a planning condition. This has not been expressed in GPA’s formal consultation response to the Scottish Government. In respect of the radar impacts on GPA, The EIA Report indicates that the Terma Scanter radar recently installed at GPA is capable of maintaining the required probability of detection of aircraft in the vicinity of the site, subject to the findings of a ‘Terma Study’. It is reported that the Terma Study and radar mitigation process will require to be the subject of a planning condition. It should be noted that unless and until this Terma Study and mitigation process has been undertaken, it remains unknown whether or not the Terma Scanter radar will in fact achieve the necessary ability to detect aircraft, thus mitigating the impacts. With regards to NATS’ concerns about the impacts on the Lowther Hill Radar, the EIA Report indicates in paragraph 16.6.5 that NATS have decided to install a new ‘wind farm tolerant’ radar at Lowther Hill which is expected to become operational at some point by the end of 2021. That paragraph goes on to note that once the contract for the new radar has been signed, NATS will be in a better position to advise on the necessary mitigation.

164. The Applicant acknowledges the need for infrared lighting, satisfying one of the MOD’s requirements, and notes that restricting the turbines to below 150m is part of the designed mitigation of the wind farm to avoid the need for visible aviation lighting. In terms of the impacts on NATS and GPA radars, the Applicant suggests suspensive conditions would be appropriate to deal with these matters, if the issues have not been resolved by the time of determination. The Scottish Government’s Guidance on Dealing with Aviation Objections and Associated Negative Conditions in Wind Turbine Consents notes that the existence of theoretical technical mitigation in itself would not represent a solution to an aviation objection if it cannot be realised. The guidance then highlights that the use of suspensive conditions to overcome aviation objections could have impacts on other developments being consented due to cumulative impacts. There is now considerable pressure in this part of East Ayrshire for wind energy developments with other proposed sites immediately adjoining this site and in the wider area. The guidance highlights that planning authorities should take into account the views of the relevant aviation consultees on these matters, including evidence of a technical solution being realised within a reasonable timeframe. The consultation response from GPA does note that discussions are ongoing, whilst NATS have not made any comment regarding a replacement radar at Lowther Hill or other possible mitigation within its consultation response. As it stands, the proposed development results in aviation impacts which have yet to be mitigated. As the Planning Authority is not the determining authority in this case, it will be for Scottish Ministers to decide how best to deal with the outstanding aviation impacts and objections from the consultees and whether or not, given the location of the site and cumulative pressure, suspensive conditions would be appropriate in this case.

118

Impacts on road traffic including during construction and decommissioning;

165. Road traffic generated as a result of the proposed wind farm will include delivery of the turbine components and related construction materials, construction vehicles and associated staff travel. Chapter 13 of the EIA Report (and Figure 13.2) indicates that turbine components will arrive at King George V dock in Glasgow before making their way down the M77/A77 in a south-westerly direction towards Kilmarnock before then travelling in a south-easterly direction on the A76 towards Cumnock. Once at the Netherthird area of Cumnock, delivery vehicles will then use the C36 and ultimately U719 roads to access the site.

166. The EIA Report notes that the proposed development, particularly during the construction period, would result in a significant increase in the volume of traffic using this route. The most significant of traffic movements are expected to occur between months 9 – 12 of the proposed 20-month construction period, when up to 61 HGVs and 42 light vehicle movements are predicted. This is a considerable volume, although is based on the Applicant’s considered worst-case scenario (25% of stone being delivered from off-site quarries with the remaining 75% of stone required being sourced from the proposed onsite borrow pit). Chapter 13 of the EIA Report indicates that only the C36 road and U719 would see total or HGV traffic volume percentage increases of over 30% compared to the future baseline (assumed in the assessment to be 2023 for construction) and these roads were assessed further for potential impacts. The significance of effect found for impacts such as driver/pedestrian delay, fear and intimidation and accidents/safety amongst others was found to be minor given the relatively low levels of pedestrian use of these roads, and the fact the road was not near its capacity.

167. Mitigation for the traffic impacts is proposed. This includes, amongst others, the establishment of a Community Liaison Group for information and feedback sharing regarding the proposed development and construction activities. Restrictions on construction vehicles to ensure they only travel north upon exiting the site on the U719 and C36 roads and a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) are also proposed. The CTMP will include a number of measures such as safety briefings for site staff, delivery lorries to be sheeted to reduce dust and spillage, wheel wash facilities, traffic management measures – including on Glaisnock Road, and a limit on working hours of 7am – 7pm Mondays to Fridays. Whilst the Applicant suggests construction will continue until 7pm on Saturdays with deliveries prohibited after 1pm, the Planning Authority considers that development should cease at 1pm on Saturdays. The Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) were consulted as part of the assessment of the application and consider the resultant traffic impacts of the proposed development would be low and could be managed through an appropriate CTMP. ARA have set out a number of requirements, including a requirement for road surveys to be undertaken and costs necessary to cover the repairs of any damage to the road surface resulting from the development traffic will be borne by the Developer. Such measures will form a suite of mitigation measures which could be delivered through a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) which could be sought by planning condition. The Ayrshire Roads Alliance has raised no objections to the proposed development, subject to conditions, and therefore it is considered that road traffic impacts are acceptable.

119

Impacts on adjacent trunk roads;

168. Transport Scotland has raised no objections to the proposed development in relation to trunk roads, subject to conditions, and therefore the proposed development raises no unacceptable impacts on such matters.

Impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised;

169. The Energy Consents Unit undertook consultation with all relevant bodies with a relevant remit in such matters and no significant impacts to telecommunications and broadcasting installations are predicted to result from the proposed development, except for one turbine (T11) which could interfere with BT’s current and planned radio network. This issue was raised during scoping when turbines 11, 12 and 13 were highlighted as falling within their link path and would cause interference. The Applicant, through the iterative design process, sited turbines 12 and 13 out with the clearance buffer required by BT though not so with turbine 11. The Applicant has stated within Chapter 18 of the EIA Report that they are committed to micrositing this turbine outside the buffer area to avoid encroachment. It is not clear why this was not done as part of the design layout of the wind farm, given it was a known issue and the other two turbines were relocated to avoid conflict with BT’s network. Nevertheless, appropriate planning conditions would be required to ensure turbine 11 is microsited to avoid conflict with BT’s network. The Applicant is committed, through an appropriate planning condition, to mitigate any unacceptable levels of television interference should such issues occur.

The appropriate siting and design of turbines and ancillary works;

170. As discussed in the previous sections, the landscape and visual impacts resulting from the proposed development are considered to be unacceptably adverse and therefore are not considered appropriate. Whilst the scale of the turbines at 149.9m in height has been selected to reflect those of nearby schemes (Overhill, consented, and North Kyle, application stage) due to the location of the proposed development, quite often the scale appears different, with the Greenburn turbines appearing far larger in views. The siting within the north-eastern and eastern edges of the Foothills LCT and extending into the Upland Basin makes these turbines the closest to and most prominent in views from New Cumnock and throughout the majority of the Upland Basin LCT. Their location in the north-eastern section of the Foothills LCT results in an increased cumulative impact over and above those that may be experienced with Overhill and North Kyle taken into account (although North Kyle is at application stage so would carry less weight in the assessment than Overhill). Greenburn would extend the wind turbine influence eastwards across the western containing foothills, significantly contributing to the potential sense that the Upland Basin and New Cumnock are encircled by wind farm development. The full discussion of landscape and visual impacts can be found elsewhere within this report so this summary herein is merely that, a summary.

120

171. With regards to other infrastructure, whilst access tracks may be visible from certain viewpoints, particularly more elevated ones to the south of the application site, views of such tracks are not considered to unacceptably impact on the site’s appearance. Whilst the substation compound and battery storage areas are sizeable features (64m x 50m x 6.8m in height and 58m x 40m x 4.2m in height respectively), they would generally appear as utility or even agricultural buildings, subject to specific finishes, such that from most views they would appear comparatively small and not so prominent as to detract from the area. Whilst there are no buildings in this specific site area at present, the wider area features many agricultural buildings throughout so these features on the site would not appear out of place in this rural area. In summary, the ancillary infrastructure is generally considered to be appropriately sited, however, as summarised in this section and discussed in full elsewhere within this report, the proposed wind turbines themselves are considered to cause unacceptable landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts, and therefore cannot be considered to be appropriately sited and designed.

The need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration;

172. Conditions relating to decommissioning and restoration would be required as the proposed development is of a temporary nature. It is recommended an Outline Decommissioning and Restoration Plan (ODRP) be secured through conditions and agreed before commencement of development, except for site investigation works. For the avoidance of doubt, the ODRP shall outline appropriate aftercare following site restoration and how and when reviews and, if necessary, updates to the ODRP will take place. It is recommended such reviews take place every 5 years, to coincide with the financial guarantee reviews. This will provide a document that can be utilised by the Council, if required, during the lifetime of the consent and will help to inform the restoration quantum value. No later than 1 year prior to the consent expiring or decommissioning of the development, whichever is earlier, the Applicant would then require to submit a full Decommissioning, Restoration and Aftercare Plan, based on the ODRP but updating and fully detailing it. A planning condition should be used to secure this detailed Decommissioning, Restoration and Aftercare Plan. This two-stage approach is advocated by the SNH guidance document ‘Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for wind farms.’

The need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration;

173. The Applicant has agreed to undertake a Section 75 with the Council and landowners on the heads of terms set out by the Council and agreed by the Applicant. Whilst no decommissioning report has been provided to date, the Applicant has advised that they are intending to submit such a report to the Council and Scottish Government soon, at which point the Council will review this document. The Council’s consultation response to the Scottish Government should make this requirement clear and stipulate that the legal agreement be concluded before consent is issued or that other arrangements to secure a legal obligation are agreed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Currently no agreement on the financial quantum has been reached, however the Applicant has agreed that further discussions will take place to seek agreement. 121

The scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets;

174. The proposed wind farm has a maximum generating capacity of 67.2 MW, based on an assumed candidate turbine model of 4.2 MW. This does not include the 10 MW capacity of the proposed battery storage element. Ambitious renewable energy generation targets from the Scottish Government seek the generation of the equivalent of 100% of Scottish demand from renewable sources by 2020. The proposed development would make a useful contribution towards this target.

Opportunities for energy storage.

175. The Applicant proposed to include a battery storage compound to provide approximately 10MW of electricity storage.

176. In summary, whilst the proposed development would be considered to positively reflect many of the Schedule 1 criteria assessed above, often subject to mitigation or compliance with appropriate conditions, significant adverse impacts would remain. Landscape and visual impacts, including cumulatively and resultant tourism and recreation impacts are a result of the wind farm’s location, scale and design and cannot be mitigated further. Given these unacceptable adverse impacts, the proposed development does not accord with Policy RE3.

Policy RE5: Financial Guarantees

177. Where necessary in terms of the scale and complexity of the proposal, and the consequences of any failure to restore the site, the Council will require an appropriate financial guarantee in respect of wind energy, waste management, landfill and electrical infrastructure projects, to ensure that all decommissioning, restoration, aftercare and mitigation requirements attached to planning consents can be met in full.

178. Any planning permission granted for such developments will be appropriately conditioned and/or subject to a Section 75 obligation to ensure that an appropriate financial guarantee is put in place to the satisfaction of the Council. No development will be permitted on site until any legal obligation and planning conditions have been discharged by the Council.

179. The financial guarantee mechanism and the amount covered will be reviewed at regular intervals by an independent party. The developer will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that the guarantees continue to be of a sufficient level to cover all potential restoration, aftercare, decommissioning and mitigation costs.

180. Supplementary Guidance on Financial Guarantees supports policy RE5 by providing further detail on: why financial guarantees are required; different types of financial guarantees that are available on the market; the approach to securing financial guarantees in terms of the process the Council will undertake, and how financial guarantees will be monitored and reviewed. 122

181. The proposed development is a large-scale and complex wind energy development, which would be time-limited, requiring all turbines and associated infrastructure be removed at the end of the consent period, unless otherwise agreed. As a result, the proposed development requires a financial guarantee. The Applicant has confirmed in written correspondence to the Council and Scottish Government, agreement to the provision of a financial guarantee through a Section 75 legal agreement, although the value of such a guarantee will need to be further discussed with the Applicant to reach agreement. On the basis of the agreed provision of a financial guarantee, the proposed development would meet the terms of Policy RE5.

Policy ENV8: Protecting and Enhancing the Landscape

182. The protection and enhancement of East Ayrshire’s landscape character as identified in the Ayrshire Landscape Character Assessment will be a key consideration in assessing the appropriateness of development proposals in the rural area. The Council will require that:

(i) Development proposals are sited and designed to respect the nature and landscape character of the area and to minimise visual impact. Particular attention will be paid to size, scale, layout, materials, design, finish and colour.

(ii) Where visual impacts are unavoidable, development proposals should include adequate mitigation measures to minimise such impacts on the landscape.

(iii) Particular features that contribute to the value, quality and character of the landscape are conserved and enhanced. Development that would result in the loss of valuable landscape features, to such an extent that character and value of the landscape are unacceptably diminished, will not be supported. Such landscape features include:

a. Settings of settlements and buildings within the landscape;

b. Skylines, distinctive landform features, landmark hills and prominent views;

c. Woodlands, hedgerows and trees;

d. Field patterns and means of enclosure, including dry stone dykes; and

e. Rights of way and footpaths

183. Development that would create unacceptable visual intrusion or irreparable damage to landscape character will not be supported by the Council.

184. Landscape and visual impacts have been discussed in more detail earlier within this report under Policy RE3 where significant landscape and visual impacts have been identified. In terms of part (i) the proposed development results in landscape and visual impacts which are considered to be unacceptable, primarily as a result of the design, scale and layout of the wind farm within a part of the landscape considered particularly sensitive to wind turbine developments of the scale proposed, resulting in 123

prominent and widespread visual impacts on sensitive receptors. Visual impacts are unavoidable given the scale and nature of the proposed development, and there is a resultant degree of conflict with criterion (ii), above. There is limited mitigation available to deal with visual impacts, given the nature of wind energy development. The Applicant has suggested the design of the proposed wind farm provides mitigation for visual and landscape impacts, however SNH consider the development to lack cohesion with turbines T13-16 forming distinct outliers and being particularly prominent. The same scale of turbine is proposed (149.9m high) as of the consented and application stage wind farms of Overhill and North Kyle respectively, however from many viewpoints, the location of the Greenburn turbines and their resultant prominence ensures that they do not readily appear similar in scale but larger than those of the other nearby schemes. Due to the unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts, the proposed development is not considered to comply with Policy ENV8.

Policy T4: Development and Protection of Core Paths and Nature Routes

185. The Council will not be supportive of development which disrupts or adversely impacts on any existing or potential core path, right of way, bridle path, or footpath used by the general public for recreational or other purposes, particularly where the route concerned forms, or has the potential to form, part of the network of circular routes or footpath links between settlements, actively promoted by the Council.

186. Where such disruption or adverse impact is demonstrated to be unavoidable, the Council will require developers, as an integral part of the proposed development, to provide for the appropriate diversion of the route in question elsewhere within the development site or to put in place appropriate measures to mitigate and overcome the adverse impacts expected.

187. As has been discussed previously within this report, the proposed development is considered to have significant adverse impacts on a number of core paths as a result of the significant adverse visual impacts that would result from the wind farm. Core Path C10: Coalfield Cycle Route Cumnock to New Cumnock, C11: Knockshinnoch Lagoons, and C12: New Cumnock Circular will all experience wide, open views of the turbines from many parts, albeit some sections of these routes will have reduced visual impacts due to screening. The location on the western skyline from these paths would extend visual impacts across wide face-on views, particularly on those paths which are located to the south-east of the proposed development (C10 extends north-westwards beyond the application site, where the turbines would then be viewed in south-westerly views).

188. Policy T4 requires that where an adverse impact is demonstrated to be unavoidable, mitigation is required to overcome the adverse impacts. The adverse impacts facing the recreational routes within this area are due to significant adverse visual impacts which are a direct result of the scale, location and design of the proposed wind farm and therefore cannot be mitigated further, so the adverse impacts remain. The proposed development, due to the significant adverse visual impacts and resultant impacts on the recreational value and perceptual enjoyment of these paths/routes, is considered not to accord with Policy T4.

124

Overarching Policy OP1

189. All development proposals will require to meet the following criteria in so far as they are relevant, or otherwise demonstrate how their contribution to sustainable development in the context of the subsequent relevant policies in the local development plan and Scottish Planning Policy would outweigh any lack of consistency with the relevant criteria:

(i) Comply with the provisions and principles of the LDP vision and spatial strategy, all relevant LDP policies and associated supplementary guidance and non-statutory guidance;

190. The full assessment of the proposed wind farm against the relevant LDP policies has been undertaken, preceding this paragraph. The proposed development would contribute towards a low carbon economy and does not, or would not subject to mitigation, unacceptably impact many relevant considerations such as ornithology or ecology. Landscape and visual impacts are significant, particularly within distances of up to approximately 8km and throughout the Upland Basin, and these have been found, even when considering the benefits of the development, to be unacceptable. In terms of the spatial strategy, wind energy development is to be located in the rural area and its appropriateness will be assessed against the framework for wind energy development. Whilst impacts on Group 2 areas of significant protection can be overcome through mitigation, the remaining area of the site falls within Group 3 areas which are only likely to be acceptable subject to detailed consideration at the development management stage against the identified policy criteria listed in Schedule 1. As detailed previously within this report, the proposed development is not considered acceptable when assessed against the Schedule 1 criteria set out in Policy RE3 due to significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts, and tourism and recreation impacts. As noted previously within the report, the proposed development has been found to accord with some relevant LDP policies, however there are a number of policies which it fails to accord with.

(ii) Be fully compatible with surrounding established uses and have no unacceptable impacts on the environmental quality of the area;

191. As demonstrated through the detailed assessment, above, the proposed development is considered to result in unacceptable landscape and visual, including cumulative, impacts considered unacceptable in terms of their impact on the environmental quality of the area.

(iii) Ensure that the size, scale, layout, and design enhances the character and amenity of the area and creates a clear sense of place;

192. This criterion is not particularly relevant to wind energy development as due to the scale and nature of such developments, significant landscape and visual impacts are generally unavoidable. Consequently, no such development would ever be able to achieve the aim of ‘enhancing the character and amenity of an area’. Nevertheless, the proposed development would conflict with this criterion, particularly given the layout which results in clear outlying turbines and stacking of turbines and a highly prominent visual impact. 125

(iv) Where possible, reuse vacant previously developed land in preference to greenfield land;

193. This is not applicable to wind energy development as a preference for brownfield over greenfield sites does not form part of the wind energy spatial framework.

(v) Be of the highest quality design by meeting with the provisions of SPP, the Scottish Government’s policy statement Designing Streets, the Council’s Design Guidance and any master plan/design brief prepared for the site;

194. This criterion is not particularly applicable to wind energy development, with SPP being the only relevant document. The assessment against SPP is detailed further below in this report although it has been found that the proposed development would not tend to positively reflect all the provisions of SPP.

(vi) Prepare Master Plans/Design Statements in line with Planning Advice Notes 83 and 68 respectively where requested by the Council and/or where this is set out as a requirement in Volume 2 of the LDP;

195. This criterion is not applicable to wind energy development.

(vii) Be compatible with, and where possible implement, projects shown on the LDP placemaking maps;

196. This criterion is not applicable to wind energy development.

(viii) Ensure that there is no unacceptable loss of safeguarded areas of open space/green infrastructure and prime quality agricultural land;

197. The application site is not designated as any of those safeguarded areas listed above.

(ix) Protect and enhance natural and built heritage designations and link to and integrate with green infrastructure where possible;

198. The resultant impacts on natural and built heritage designations have been assessed in detail previously within this report. To summarise, based on the submission materials and consultation responses from the appropriate consultees, it would appear there would be no unacceptable impacts on natural heritage designations. SNH, the Scottish Government’s advisors on natural heritage, have advised that the peatland restoration plan should be a commitment as part of the mitigation for the impacts of the development and that this restoration should encompass the entire Glaisnock Moss/Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site, rather than only areas within the application site. The Council supports this advice. With regards to built heritage designations, the proposed wind farm would not appear to have any unacceptable impacts on such features, although Scottish Ministers are advised to seek further clarity on impacts on Dumfries House as the Applicant’s assessment matrix within the EIA Report indicates impacts would be moderate and significant in EIA terms, contrary to what is concluded within the EIA Report. 126

(x) Ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on the landscape character or tourism offer of the area;

199. As has been discussed previously within this report, the proposed development is considered to have unacceptable adverse impacts on tourism and recreational resources, which are likely to detract from the enjoyment and experience of those assets by users, due to the significant landscape and visual impacts resulting from the location, scale and design of the proposed wind farm.

200. In terms of the landscape character impacts, the proposed development would be sited in an area highlighted as particularly sensitive to turbines of this scale and would have a significant impact on the character of this part of the Foothills with Forest and Opencast Mining LCT. Impacts are also evident on the adjacent Upland Basin LCT, where the significant visual impacts of the proposed turbines and cumulative impacts would result in unacceptable impacts on landscape character in isolation and in combination with other nearby existing, consented and application stage wind farms.

(xi) Meet with the requirements of all relevant service providers and the Ayrshire Roads Alliance, and

201. The Ayrshire Roads Alliance has not raised any objections to the proposed development, subject to appropriate planning conditions.

(xii) Be accessible to all.

202. Given the nature of the proposed development, such a criterion is not especially applicable to wind energy developments. The development site is currently used for commercial forestry and rough moorland grazing which would, to a slightly lesser extent, remain to be the case were the proposed development to be constructed. It is worth noting that the proposed formation of access tracks across the site could effectively improve access to some parts of the site.

203. The full assessment of the proposed development against all relevant LDP policies and material considerations can be found elsewhere within this report. The assessment of each criteria listed above (which can be further supported by reading the full assessments in the relevant part of this report) indicates the proposed development would result in significant adverse and unacceptable landscape and visual impacts, including cumulatively and impacts on tourism and recreational resources. Therefore the proposed development does not accord with the assessment criteria of Overarching Policy OP1 (i), (ii), (iii) (v) and (x). The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy OP1.

204. In terms of Policy OP1, it is possible that development can be deemed acceptable, despite not complying with the criteria listed above, where development proposals demonstrate how their contribution to sustainable development in the context of the other relevant LDP policies and SPP outweighs any lack of compliance with the criteria of OP1. As discussed in greater detail in the relevant sections of this report, the proposed development, due to its significant adverse landscape, visual and 127

cumulative impacts, is not considered to constitute development contributing to sustainable development. Furthermore, the detailed assessment against the relevant LDP policies has found the proposed development to be contrary to a number of other LDP policies. Therefore, in the context of the relevant LDP policies and SPP, the proposed development does not demonstrate its contribution to sustainable development would outweigh its lack of compliance with the relevant criteria of Policy OP1.

205. The following policies are also relevant to the proposed development to varying degrees, however detailed consideration of the aspects relevant to each of these policies has been undertaken within various sections of the Schedule 1 assessment under Policy RE3. Given that the outcome of the assessment of Schedule 1, of those considerations relevant to the policies listed below, indicates the proposed development does not unacceptably impact on those elements, then it can be considered that the proposed development also complies with the following policies:

 Policy RES 11: Residential Amenity;

 Policy ENV1: Listed Buildings;

 Policy ENV2: Scheduled Monuments and Archaeological Resources;

 Policy ENV6: Nature Conservation;

 Policy ENV9: Trees, Woodlands and Forestry;

 Policy ENV10: Carbon rich soils;

 Policy ENV12: Water, air and light and noise pollution, and

 Policy T1: Transport requirements for new development.

Adopted East Ayrshire Minerals Local Development Plan (MLDP)

206. As the proposed development involves an element of mineral extraction and the application site falls within the Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership Area, then the MLDP will be used in addition to the EALDP to guide, assess and determine this application. The relevant policies are considered below:

Policy MIN SS2: Minerals Restoration and Placemaking

207. All development should:

(i) Progressively restore the land to the highest possible standard which is suitable for other appropriate uses; and (ii) Identify opportunities for environmental improvement in restoration and incorporate these where practicable.

128

These principles will provide the foundation to provide appropriate future development and encourage growth and placemaking within the area.

208. Whilst not a minerals application itself, the application does propose the provision of a borrow pit which would be a relevant consideration for this policy. Given the comparatively small nature of borrow pits (relative to an opencast or aggregates extraction site) it is not possible to progressively restore them as they are worked, however upon completion of the construction period of the wind farm, the proposed borrow pit will then be restored. This approach is considered appropriate in such cases. The restoration of the borrow pit will not necessarily result in environmental improvement, as the restoration will likely involve regrading of the final pit profile and use of overburden and topsoils to try to encourage revegetation. Nevertheless, the Applicant is proposing wider environmental improvements on site such as the improvement to Glaisnock Moss, so this will represent a positive and as such the proposed development is considered to comply with Policy MIN SS2.

Policy MIN SS3: Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership

209. The Council will encourage and support developments that contribute to the vision and aims of the Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership, as a key means of regenerating and rejuvenating the former coalfield area.

210. The vision of the Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership (CCLP) is that, “Thriving Coalfield Communities will share in their benefits of a renewed and resilient landscape, welcoming visitors from afar to celebrate their unique heritage, promote stewardship of the land and create new opportunities to enjoy the landscape, shaped by understanding of the past and needs of the future.” The aims are as follows:

 Conserve and enhance the natural, built and cultural heritage for the benefit of people in the landscape;  Create and expand opportunities for learning, recreation and wellbeing within the landscape for people with a range of abilities and backgrounds;  Reveal and explore the past lives of the communities, drawing upon their close relationship with the land, thereby connecting people with their heritage and inspiring stewardship;  Foster and equip people with the skills and knowledge to manage their landscape sustainably, building capacity and making it a successful place for residents and visitors alike, and  Communities will be connected through, rather than separated by, their landscape, culture and heritage

211. The MLDP provides a full list of projects proposed at stage 1 application within Annex 4. At this point in time, there are no CCLP site specific projects within the application site. Wider projects include ‘Strategic and local access routes’ which ties in with the last aim noted above, to improve existing and create new path networks throughout the area. Two access projects being undertaken by the CCLP are along the Lugar Water and through the Doon Valley, neither of which are in immediate proximity to the site. Whilst the proposed access tracks and interpretive information boards associated with the Greenburn application will not contribute to these specific projects, there is potential for any such interpretive work to link to the wider 129

interpretive work being undertaken by the CCLP and any improvement in access to the countryside would contribute to the overall vision and aims of the CCLP.

212. The application site falls outside the eastern boundary of the North Kyle Forest Masterplan area which itself is located within the Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership boundary. The EIA Report mentions the North Kyle Forest Masterplan in Chapter 7 (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) between paragraphs 7.2.33 and 7.2.42 and highlights how the proposed development has the potential to contribute to the objectives of the masterplan. Other than the proposed interpretive information boards and improved signage for Martyrs’ Grave and a bench, alongside the improved access into the site, which would result from the construction of access tracks for the development, there is no further commitment as part of the application to help deliver or achieve any of the masterplan objectives which are listed.

213. Though the application site is not itself a specific project site, the proposed enhancement of Glaisnock Moss/Carnivan Hill LNCS has the potential to complement peatland enhancement projects being undertaken elsewhere by the CCLP for the ‘Perfect Peatlands’ project. Overall, the proposed development has the potential to make some positive contributions towards the Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership vision and aims, although only limited benefits are actually committed at this stage. Given the significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, discussed elsewhere within this report, are likely to have an adverse impact on existing recreational routes, it is questionable whether the proposed development would expand opportunities for recreation within the landscape. Nevertheless, as the application site does not overlap with, and therefore does not directly impact, any specific project areas, and given the strategic nature of the vision and aims of the CCLP, it is considered, on balance, that the proposed development has the potential to draw some support in principle from the CCLP and could be considered to comply with Policy MIN SS3.

Policy MIN SUP2: Borrow pits

214. Borrow pits will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:

 there are significant environmental or economic benefits compared to obtaining material from local quarries;  they are time-limited;  they are tied to a particular project; and  there are appropriate reclamation measures in place.

215. All borrow pits will be required to be within the planning application boundary of the project the mineral is to be used for. The requirement for the information of an additional borrow pit will need to be justified in terms of insufficient (fit for purpose) supplies in the first borrow pit.

130

216. In addition to being assessed against the broader provisions of the plan, proposals for borrow pits will be considered in relation to:

(i) The needs of particular construction projects; (ii) The distance of the project from suitable quarries; (iii) The number of vehicle movements which will be avoided; (iv) Carbon assessments; (v) The duration of the excavation (vi) Site specific proposals for restoration and aftercare; (vii) Environmental considerations such as impacts on water environment including watercourses and GWDTEs; and (viii) Potential disturbance to wildlife.

217. The Council will require applicants to submit supporting evidence in respect of the above criteria to accompany any application which involves the creation of borrow pits.

218. The Applicant is proposing to use one borrow pit during construction of the wind farm. Given the relatively remote location of the site, this will reduce the need for HGV deliveries to the site, therefore reducing the consequent noise, traffic and pollution impacts on the environment, particularly nearby receptors on the delivery route. The borrow pit would be utilised for a short time period, coinciding with the construction period of the wind farm, after which it would be restored. The EIA Report has assessed the proposed development against a number of environmental considerations such as hydrology and peatland and it is considered that impacts on such features could be appropriately mitigated, with such mitigation secured by condition as necessary. Chapter 13 of the EIA Report indicates that the borrow pit would be capable of providing 75% of the stone required on site so the traffic assessment has taken these factors into account. Conditions would be attached to control blasting and ensure the acceptable restoration of the borrow pit is achieved. Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposed development would comply with Policy MIN SUP2.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

219. The following are relevant material considerations in the determination of this application:

National and Scottish Government Energy Policy

220. The White Paper on Energy 2007 committed the UK Government to the delivery of a low carbon economy. Subsequent legislation and policies have sought to increase the proportion of energy that is derived from renewable sources and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These measures are in response to legally binding European targets that require 15% of the UK’s energy to be derived from renewable sources by 2020 and for there to be a 16% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the same deadline. In June 2015 the UK Energy Secretary announced an end to public subsidy for onshore wind farms and noted that the UK has made significant progress towards meeting its climate change targets.

131

221. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 sets out the Scottish Government’s key commitments in terms of environmental legislation promoting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Part 1 of this Act forms the statutory framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland by setting interim targets of a 56% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 from baseline (1990) levels.

222. The Scottish Government’s Renewable Electricity Generation Policy Statement (REGPS) June 2013, sets out the Scottish Government’s plans for renewable energy generation and fossil fuel thermal generation in future electricity mixes. The EGPS highlighted the Scottish Government’s revised target for delivering the equivalent of at least 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables by 2020. The EPGS confirms that target does not mean Scotland will be 100% dependant on renewables generation, rather that renewables will form part of a wider, balanced electricity mix, with thermal generation continuing to play an important role.

223. In response to the UK Energy Secretary, the Scottish Government Chief Planner wrote to Scottish Heads of Planning to, “re-emphasise that the Scottish Government’s Scottish Planning Policy (2014) and Electricity Generation Policy Statement (2013) set out the Scottish Government’s current position on onshore wind farms and that this remains the case,” and that the target of 100% gross electricity consumption from renewables is not a cap on supporting such developments, including on shore wind, once the target has been reached. They advise that decisions should be informed by relevant development plan policies, themselves informed by Scottish Planning Policy.

224. In December 2017, the Scottish Government published the Scottish Energy Strategy and Onshore Wind Policy Statement. The Scottish Energy Strategy (SES) sets out a 2050 vision for energy in Scotland. The strategy is intended to support the achievement of long term climate change targets and address the impact of poor energy provision. It sets out six energy priorities in supporting the 2050 vision which includes continuing support for renewable and low carbon solutions to meet local and national heat, transport and electricity needs, helping to achieve emissions reduction targets. The Strategy promotes a ‘whole system view’ which intends to broaden the Scottish Government’s focus to include heat, transport, electricity and energy efficiency to create an integrated approach.

225. The SES does not provide certainty about how a future energy system might evolve, however it is clear, that in order to achieve climate change goals, Scotland needs to build on the progress made to date in decarbonising electricity production and to see associated progress in the decarbonisation of heat and transport whilst maintaining affordable, secure and reliable supplies.

226. Although the SES does not give any certainty over the future energy systems, it does set out two targets for the Scottish energy system by 2030: The equivalent of 50% of the energy for Scotland’s heat, transport and electricity consumption to be supplied from renewable sources, and an increase by 30% in the productivity of energy use across the Scottish economy. The SES is a high level document, intended to set out the potential scenarios in relation to the 2050 vision. Nevertheless, it clearly offers 132

continued support for a range of forms of renewable energy generation in order to meet climate change targets.

227. The Onshore Wind Policy Statement (OWPS) accompanies the SES and reaffirms the Scottish Government’s continued support for onshore wind energy development in aiding the achievement of goals within the SES and in growing the economy. It is clear that there is a continuing need to ensure a balance is struck between securing the benefits of onshore wind and consideration of any environmental and other impacts. As is enshrined in previous energy policy documents – onshore wind is supported in the right places and achieving appropriate environmental protection means that the relevant planning and consenting processes must remain aligned with the policy context and desired outcomes.

228. Appropriately sited onshore wind farms will continue to receive Scottish Government support to achieve the targets set by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act and the SES at the lowest cost but it is noted that the Scottish Government does not support such development at any cost. Additionally the Scottish Government has highlighted that it wants to see a significant increase in shared ownership and has indicated an ambition with a commitment to ensure that by 2020 at least half of newly consented renewable energy projects will have an element of shared ownership.

229. National energy policy in Scotland, through the planning framework, indicates that the aim of national planning policy is to develop Scotland’s renewable energy potential whilst safeguarding the environment and communities.

230. The proposed wind farm would go some way to meeting Scotland’s renewable energy generation targets whilst reducing greenhouse gases and therefore, if it is found that the proposed development is acceptable when assessed against all other relevant policies, it would be supported through the Scottish Government’s National Energy Policy. In this case, however, the proposed development has not been found to be acceptable when assessed against other relevant policies.

National Planning Framework (NPF3)

231. NPF3 is the spatial expression of the Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy and its plans for infrastructure investment. With the transition to a low carbon economy, it advises the ambition is to achieve at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and looks to achieve the generation equivalent of at least 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables by 2020. NPF3 recognises there will be a continued need for an energy generation mix.

232. Section 3.23 of NPF3 states that, “onshore wind will continue to make a significant contribution to diversification of energy supplies.” Further highlighting that wind farms shall not be located in National Parks or National Scenic Areas. The required approach to spatial frameworks to guide new wind energy developments to appropriate locations, whilst taking account of important features, is set out in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

233. Whilst NPF3 is generally supportive of onshore wind in contributing towards Scotland’s energy mix, it does highlight that there are some areas where such 133

development is unacceptable and, through the SPP spatial strategy, areas where they may be appropriate whilst ‘taking into account important features’. Therefore NPF3 does not offer unequivocal support to onshore wind energy proposals but rather, requires the full consideration of all developments against appropriate criteria take place.

234. The proposed development would contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and will generate renewable electricity given the installed capacity of the proposed development, though this would come at a price of significant adverse landscape and visual impacts. NPF3 highlights that SPP sets out the required approach to spatial frameworks, guiding new development to appropriate locations and taking into account important features. Therefore detailed consideration for site specific compliance will take place against this document.

235. Given the strategic scope of NPF3 and its general support for a low carbon economy, including renewable energy developments, the proposed development draws support in principle from NPF3.

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)

236. SPP sets out national planning policies which reflect Scottish Ministers’ priorities for the operation of the planning system and for the development and use of land. It is a statement of Scottish Government policy on how national land use planning matters should be addressed across the country.

237. SPP indicates at paragraph 154 that the planning system should support the transformational change to a low carbon economy, consistent with national objectives and targets. It should support the development of a diverse range of electricity generation from renewable energy technologies – including the expansion of renewable energy generation capacity and should guide development to appropriate locations and advise on the issues that will be taken into account when specific proposals are being assessed.

238. In respect of onshore wind, paragraph 161 of SPP requires planning authorities to set out in the development plan a spatial framework identifying those areas that are likely to be most appropriate for onshore wind farms as a guide for developers and communities. SPP includes a spatial framework made up of three area ‘groups’. Group 1 areas are places where wind farms will not be acceptable and includes National Parks and National Scenic Areas.

239. Group 2 areas require significant protection although wind farms may be appropriate in these areas in some circumstances with a need to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. Group 3 areas are where wind farms are likely to be acceptable, subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria.

240. The spatial framework is complemented by a more detailed and exacting development management process where the merits of an individual proposal will be carefully considered against the full range of environmental, community and cumulative impacts (paragraph 169). Paragraph 164 states that, “Individual 134

properties and those settlements not identified within the development plan will be protected by the safeguards set out in the local development plan policy criteria for determining wind farms and the development management considerations accounted for when determining individual applications.”

241. Paragraph 169 sets out the likely considerations which should be taken into account in the determination of energy infrastructure proposals, noting that considerations will vary relative to the scale of the proposal and area characteristics.

242. Paragraph 170 observes that areas identified for wind farms should be suitable for use in perpetuity. Consents may be time-limited but wind farms should nevertheless be sited and designed to ensure impacts are minimised and to protect an acceptable level of amenity for adjacent communities. Paragraph 173 also advises that where a proposal is acceptable in land use terms, and consent is being granted, local authorities may wish to engage in negotiations to secure community benefit in line with the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments.

243. SPP introduces a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. Paragraph 33 of SPP states that, “where relevant policies in a development plan are out-of-date or the plan does not contain policies relevant to the proposal, then the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. Decision- makers should also take into account any adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in this SPP.”

244. The Council’s Development Plan is less than 5 years old, and it contains policies relevant to onshore wind development that are not out of date. The presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development is therefore considered to be a material consideration rather than a significant material consideration. Paragraph 32 asserts that the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point of decision making. There are thirteen guiding principles set out in paragraph 29 of SPP which must be examined to determine whether or not the development contributes to sustainable development. These criteria will be examined further below:

i) giving due weight to net economic benefit;

The Applicant has not provided any specifics as to the economic benefit of the proposed development although the EIA Report does note within Chapter 19, some estimates of the likely investment and possible jobs created over the lifetime of the proposed development. Whilst it is difficult to determine with certainty the level of economic benefit, it is likely that the proposed development would result in a net economic benefit and negative economic benefits are not expected.

135

ii) responding to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, as outlined in local economic strategies;

The East Ayrshire Council Economic Development Strategy 2014-2025 sets out six strategic priorities which are: to integrate East Ayrshire with the regional economy; to facilitate economic restructuring; to improve the vibrancy of our town centres; to improve the quality of the tourism on offer; to increase economic participation in our communities, and to accelerate the pace of infrastructure improvements. The proposed wind farm offers the potential for local employment in construction and residual economic benefit for local services so it could help support economic restructuring as well as increasing economic participation in the local communities. It would be questionable whether the proposal would improve the quality of the tourism offer though, given the significant visual impacts which may deter some from visiting the area, particularly walkers, though this is difficult to quantify. iii) supporting good design and the six qualities of successful places;

The six qualities of successful places include two which could be particularly relevant to this assessment and these are ‘distinctive’ and ‘resource efficient’. In this case, it is considered that the proposed wind turbines represent development which does not complement the local landscape and would cause significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, including cumulatively. In terms of resource efficiency, the proposed development would employ renewable sources for electricity generation, preventing future resource depletion of fossil fuels. iv) making efficient use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure including supporting town centre and regeneration priorities;

The proposed wind farm requires relatively limited land take within the application site for infrastructure, whilst the remainder of the site could continue to an extent to provide commercial forestry land. Compensatory planting would offset forestry loss, although this is limited. Enhancement of the existing peatland, Glaisnock Moss/Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site, would benefit that area of the site, although SNH advise it would be appropriate to restore the entire LNCS, therefore the proposals represent a reasonably efficient use of the land. v) supporting delivery of accessible housing, business, retailing and leisure development;

The proposal does not fall within any of the above listed categories. vi) supporting delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water;

The proposal would deliver infrastructure to generate renewable energy with a total installed capacity of approximately 67.2MW along with battery storage for 10MW. 136

vii) supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation including taking account of flood risk;

The proposed wind farm would directly help tackle climate change by producing electricity from a renewable source, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and thus the effects of climate change. viii) improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation;

The nature of the proposed development means that such opportunities are not available. ix) having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy;

The Land Use Strategy for Scotland document sets out ten principles of sustainable development, reflecting Scottish Government policies on the priorities which should inform land use choices and should be used when taking significant decisions affecting the use of land. The principles of particular relevance to this development include: c. Where land is highly suitable for a primary use (for example food production, flood management, water catchment management and carbon storage) this value should be recognised in decision making. d. Land use decisions should be informed by an understanding of the functioning of the ecosystems which they affect in order to maintain the benefits of the ecosystem services which they provide. e. Landscape change should be managed positively and sympathetically, considering the implications of change at a scale appropriate to the landscape in question, given that all Scotland’s landscapes are important to our sense of identity and to our individual and social wellbeing. f. Land use decisions should be informed by an understanding of the opportunities and threats brought about by the changing climate. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use should be reduced and land should continue to contribute to delivering climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives, and h. Outdoor recreation opportunities and public access to land should be encouraged, along with the provision of accessible green space close to where people live, given their importance for health and wellbeing.

The proposed development would constitute a use of the land to provide a source of renewable energy, contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whilst also committing to improve the peatland on site to improve the existing functioning of the ecosystem on the site (as a carbon store). The studies 137

undertaken by the Applicant to inform the EIA Report have not given cause for relevant consultees, such as SNH, to raise objections on ecological matters. As discussed within previous paragraphs of this report, it is considered that the proposed development would cause unacceptable landscape impacts both individually and cumulatively with other existing, consented and application stage wind farm development and could not be considered a positive or sympathetic change in the landscape. x) protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment;

The proposed development will not protect, or enhance cultural heritage although improved signage and information boards are proposed for existing features such as Martyrs’ Grave. Potential impacts on such features are not considered unacceptably adverse. xi) protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment;

As discussed previously within this report, the proposed development is considered to have significant, unacceptable impacts on the landscape character of this area. Whilst the development itself would not restrict access to the natural heritage (including landscape), impacts on the value of existing recreational routes, deemed to be impacted by the proposed development, would mean it may not be possible to argue the proposed development would enhance or promote access to the landscape, when it would negatively impact on its character which could deter people from visiting / accessing the landscape in this area. xii) reducing waste, facilitating its management and promoting resource recovery, and

This criteria is not particularly relevant to this proposal. Areas of commercial forestry within the application site will require to be felled to make way for any proposed infrastructure, however, this would have happened in time anyway as part of the forestry workings. Timber waste is proposed to be utilised wherever possible on site (such as for brash matting). Much of the peat removal is proposed to be used for restoration of some construction elements. xiii) avoiding over-development, protecting the amenity of new and existing development and considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality.

The scale, layout and siting of the proposed development in the sensitive part of the landscape is considered to impact on the landscape. The proposed development would result in considerable landscape and visual impacts, which, individually and cumulatively, could be argued to represent over-development, especially in views from the settled Upland Basin LCT, including its main settlement of New Cumnock. Residential amenity would be impacted by shadow flicker, however, this could be mitigated through a shutdown protocol 138

secured by condition if consent is granted. The proposed development is not considered to unacceptably impact upon water, air or soil quality, subject to appropriate mitigation which could be controlled through planning condition.

245. Summarising these thirteen principles, it would appear that the proposed development does not positively reflect the aims of those principles which are relevant to this proposal due to the significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, and as such this proposal may not be described as contributing to sustainable development.

246. SPP provides in Table 1: Spatial Frameworks, groupings to direct wind energy developments to suitable areas. The following is documented:

247. Group 2: Areas of significant protection: Recognising the need for significant protection, in these areas wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further consideration will be required to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. Other nationally important mapped environmental interests: carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat.

248. The proposed development falls within the Group 2 Area associated with Class 1 peatland covering Glaisnock Moss. Spatial Framework impacts have been discussed under Policy RE3, above, and the findings of that assessment are considered to be applicable to this assessment under SPP also. Due to the relatively limited infrastructure impacts on Class 1 peat, and resultant limited peat volumes required to be extracted, impacts on the Class 1 peat will be limited. There is an impact however, and this requires to be mitigated, either through siting, design or other mitigation. Siting and design have not protected the Class 1 peat given the infrastructure is located across the peatland. The proposed habitat enhancement, however, representing 100ha of peatland enhancement associated with the Glaisnock Moss/Carnivan Hill Local Nature Conservation Site is considered, on balance, to outweigh the negative impacts on this Class 1 peat representing the Group 2 Area. The Council agrees with SNH’s comments that the whole LNCS should be restored, not just those areas located within the application site boundary, given the nature of peatlands.

249. In summary, whilst many of the provisions of SPP largely apply favourably to the proposed development, the considerations raised in paragraph 169 which include cumulative impacts, landscape and visual impacts, impacts on communities (including visual impact), impacts on tourism and recreation and aviation impacts are, ultimately, not complied with as there remain significant, adverse unacceptable impacts on such aspects. The proposed wind farm is therefore, not considered to comply with the provisions of SPP.

East Ayrshire Council Supplementary Guidance: Planning for Wind Energy

250. On the basis of the level of demand for wind energy developments in East Ayrshire, the need for a robust and clear policy approach for wind energy is a fundamental element of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan (2017). In line with the requirements of SPP, the Supplementary Guidance: Planning for Wind Energy 139

(SG:PWE) sets out the Council’s approach to wind energy development and provides further details on the criteria which all medium and large-scale wind energy proposals will be assessed, underpinning Policy RE3 of the Local Development Plan.

251. Given the context of the Scottish Energy Strategy and its 2030 target of 50% of Scotland’s energy consumption being met by renewable energy, the Council’s SG:PWE notes the expectation, at paragraph 3.3.7, “that all local authorities adopt a positive approach to renewable energy and support proposals that can help contribute to the national targets without resulting in unacceptable adverse impacts.” This Supplementary Guidance sets out the Council’s position, in section 1.3 that, “Further wind energy developments will be supported where they can be accommodated in appropriate locations, assessed as acceptable against the Local Development Plan and material considerations.” Whilst EAC are not the determining authority this is still a material consideration.

252. The topics covered by the Supplementary Guidance provide further information or clarity on those policies within the LDP, relevant to wind energy proposals, namely Policy RE3. Given the detailed assessment of the proposed development against the LDP policies already detailed previously in this report, this will not be repeated here with respect of the Supplementary Guidance.

253. Paragraph 3.1.1 Landscape and Visual Impacts (within SG:PWE) highlights the need for the Applicant to be able to demonstrate how they have responded to the key sensitivities of the landscape area in which their development is proposed in their site selection and design process. The Supplementary Guidance also confirms the status of the East Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study (now updated in 2018) as a material consideration to help assess applications for all wind energy development. For the reasons set out in full, elsewhere within this report, the proposed development has been judged not to be in accordance with SG:PWE.

254. Cumulative impacts are discussed in section 3.1.2 of SG:PWE. Cumulative impacts can be in the form of landscape and visual impacts, noise impacts, lighting impacts and others such as ecology, aviation impacts and traffic impacts. Whilst many such cumulative impacts have been found to be acceptable (or acceptable subject to mitigation), issues relating to landscape and visual impacts, including impacts on recreational routes, have been found to be unacceptably impacted which is a function of the proposed wind farm’s siting, design and scale. Such negative impacts mean the proposed development is not considered to be in accordance with Policy RE3 and consequently is not considered to reflect the provisions of the SG:PWE which supplements Policy RE3, amongst others.

255. SG:PWE notes that the safety of air travel is considered to be of paramount importance in the assessment of applications for wind energy developments. With regards to aviation, both NATS and Glasgow Prestwick Airport have found the development would result in unacceptable impacts on air safety. It will be for Scottish Ministers to consider whether the Applicant is capable of mitigating such impacts when considering the application.

140

Scottish Government Guidance – Onshore Wind Turbines

256. This guidance is periodically updated by the Scottish Ministers and is an online resource which provides planning authorities with guidance in the consideration of proposals. It advises that planning authorities more frequently have to consider turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, where design elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed.

257. Amongst others, this Government guidance lists criteria to be considered in the determination of planning applications for onshore turbines. In this case, the significant criteria to be assessed are: landscape and visual impacts; wildlife, ecosystem and biodiversity impacts; impacts on communities; aviation matters; historic environment impacts; road traffic impacts, and cumulative impacts.

258. With regards to landscape and visual impacts, these have been assessed and judged to result in unacceptable impacts, both individually and cumulatively, in combination with other wind energy development, which is a function of the wind farm’s design, scale and siting which cannot be mitigated further. Impacts are deemed to be most significant within approximately 8km of the proposed wind farm. The prominent skyline position, lateral expanse of the turbines and close proximity to the more settled Upland Basin (even extending into it) means the proposed development would result in significant adverse landscape and visual impacts and would be the most prominent of all wind farms (operational, consented and application stage) in views from New Cumnock.

259. The impacts on nearby communities have been assessed elsewhere within this report. This guidance also makes reference to paragraph 190 of SPP (now superseded with the 2014 SPP which still makes reference to the 2km maximum guideline separation zone – Table 1: Spatial Frameworks, p.39) with regards to the guideline separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search for groups of wind turbines and the edges of towns, cities and villages to reduce visual impact, and notes that individual development should take account of specific local circumstances and geography.

260. There are no communities located within 2km of any turbines. Whilst the proposed turbines do not impact on communities specifically due to this 2km buffer, the development nevertheless results in significant visual impacts which will be evident from nearby settlements, most notably New Cumnock, but even from parts of Cumnock, Auchinleck and Ochiltree (where both IFL and SNH suggest impacts could be significant). Settlements such as New Cumnock will see the proposed turbines forming laterally expansive skyline features in face-on views whose scale and proximity to these settlements make them prominent in views from the settled Upland Basin LCT, especially when considering their position on the skyline of the western containing landform. With regards to individual dwellinghouses considered within the RVIA, the impacts on these 19 properties have been assessed as facing varying degrees of significant impacts (the degree of significance largely a result of turbines T13-16), although none of the properties are considered to face unacceptably adverse visual impacts such that they would be overwhelmed or become unattractive places to live. There are not expected to be any noise or light pollution impacts on residential amenity, although this would be subject to mitigation 141

secured by condition to mitigate shadow flicker and ensure compliance with any noise limits. There remain outstanding objections from aviation bodies due to aviation safeguarding impacts which have yet to be mitigated.

Accon UK Ltd – Noise Assessment

261. The Council’s noise consultant, Accon UK Ltd (Accon), assessed the noise chapter (Chapter 15) within the EIA Report submitted by the Applicant, alongside the relevant detailed appendices. Accon consider there would be no overriding reason to refuse the application in respect of noise, subject to the adoption of appropriate operational noise limits.

262. Accon considers the Applicant has determined site-specific noise limits by subtracting the predicted cumulative noise levels from all relevant developments (other than the proposed development) from the ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits to apportion limits to the proposed development. Adopting such limits should ensure that the proposed Greenburn wind farm should still meet the cumulative noise limits and Accon consider these could form the basis of limits for any noise condition, if consent is granted. Accon note that the dwellings to the south of the proposed development, which include properties expected to experience some of the highest predicted noise levels, would have wind turbines located to their north, west and south should all consented and proposed wind farm be developed. Accon note that due to the prevailing wind conditions, this will give little respite for residents from wind turbine noise, and this issue of dwellings being affected by noise from wind turbines in multiple directions may not have been something the authors of ETSU-R- 97 envisaged at the time of writing. Due to the proximity of other wind farms, Accon recommend that a condition be attached to any consent, if granted, requiring a protocol be submitted to the Council setting out what sequence of actions / investigations will be undertaken to investigate noise complaints to identify which wind farm is responsible for the potential breach of the limits.

263. Whilst it is noted that amplitude modulation was scoped out of the EIA Report, Accon consider it would be appropriate to include a condition to control amplitude modulation (which could be based on a model condition published in an Institute of Acoustics Bulletin article from November/December 2017). The Planning Authority would suggest this is an appropriate consideration for Ministers to include, given that amplitude modulation seems to be a characteristic feature of wind turbine noise which is capable of causing considerable disturbance (which this Authority has experience of at a different site), and given the potential for nearby properties to experience wind turbine noise from multiple directions. The Planning Authority would not, however, raise an objection if this is not to be applied as it is acknowledged that ETSU-R-97 has not been updated since its original publication to account for any control of amplitude modulation.

Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) – Landscape Assessment

264. The Council has secured the services of Ironside Farrar Ltd to assess the landscape and visual impact section of the Applicant’s submitted Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Further Environmental Information (FEI). The purpose of this assessment is to determine the overall adequacy of the Applicant’s assessment, 142

whether any conclusions reached are reasonable and to highlight any potential issues relating to the overall acceptability of the development from a landscape and visual impact perspective. The overall conclusions of Ironside Farrar in relation to the proposed development are:

“The proposed Greenburn windfarm is mainly located in the large scale, extensive Foothills with Forest & Opencast Mining LCT; a landscape character type in which, potentially, large scale wind energy development is supported by East Ayrshire’s current landscape capacity guidance. It is close to areas already affected by operational and consented wind energy schemes and legacy opencast mining. The site fulfils some of the constraints and opportunities criteria but there are also significant constraints.

The key concern is the position of the proposed turbines on the northeastern edge of this extensive upland LCT. This has resulted in the scheme appearing generally prominent on the skyline when seen from lower, settled areas in the east through northeast to the north. The prominence is further exacerbated by the design of the windfarm, in which the four most north-easterly turbines appear separated from the remaining twelve turbines that appear to lie slightly further back from the skyline seen from these directions and/or visually overlap with Over Hill and North Kyle turbines in cumulative scenarios. These matters are also noted by SNH who recommend their removal, potentially along with turbine 7.

Our review of the applicant’s LVIA concurs that there would be fairly extensive significant effects across settled and lowland landscapes from the east through to the north in particular. We have assessed slightly more widespread significant effects, particularly in relation to the Upland Basin LCT and settlements to the north. The significant effects are carried through into the cumulative scenarios in which extensive consented and proposed windfarm development would be present further west and south within the Foothills with Forest & Opencast Mining LCT.

The significant effects result from the prominent position of the turbines on the northeastern edge of the Foothills with Forest & Opencast Mining LCT. The potential for this to occur is highlighted in East Ayrshire’s wind energy guidance as a key factor limiting capacity for larger turbines in this otherwise extensive upland landscape.”

265. The findings of the Council’s landscape consultant are considered to generally concur with those detailed within the EIA Report. Where Ironside Farrar have found a greater extent of significant impacts, these findings have largely been adopted by the Planning Authority as being reasonable and more accurate than that of the Applicant.

East Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study 2018 (EALWCS)

266. The EALWCS is a study to inform strategic planning for wind energy development and to provide guidance on the appraisal of individual wind energy proposals. It provides a sensitivity assessment related to landscape character and visual amenity and offers guidance on the constraints and opportunities for wind energy development within the landscape character types. 143

267. Based on the landscape character types within the EALWCS, the proposed development would predominantly be located in LCT 17a: Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining, although some of the proposed infrastructure, including turbine T3, would be located in the adjoining LCT 15: Upland Basin. The assessment will, therefore, focus initially on LCT 17a, before considering any impacts on LCT 15 and any other LCTs. With regards to LCT 17a, the EALWCS states (p.76), “This upland landscape is fairly large in extent. It forms a long, low backdrop to the settled East Ayrshire Lowlands (7c) with a gradual transition occurring between the character types in the north-west. It also forms a simple containing edge to the Upland Basin (15) to the east and the Upland River Valley (10) of the Upper Doon to the west, where Benquhat Hill forms a more prominent backdrop. The higher and more rolling hills of the Southern Uplands with Forest (20c) lie to the south of this generally simpler and lower-lying plateau.”

268. Despite the simple, expansive nature of this landscape, which would generally have more potential to accommodate large-scale, and even to some extent very large- scale turbines, the positioning of the turbines, particularly on the eastern edges of this LCT, extending into the Upland Basin LCT, means the proposed turbines would be highly visible from the Upland Basin (where theoretical visibility extends across the majority of this LCT). The turbines would also be highly visible to the north across the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT.

269. The EALWCS identifies LCT 17a as having a high-medium sensitivity to very large scale typology turbines (>130m high) and considers there to be very limited scope for such turbine typologies to be accommodated within this landscape. Opportunities within the landscape for turbines are highlighted on page 80 of the EALWCS as follows:

 “Less visually prominent lower hills and shallow basins within the core of these uplands which could provide a degree of visual containment for wind turbine development and minimise intrusion and cumulative effects on adjoining more settled smaller scale landscapes.”

270. Constraints and potential cumulative issues are listed on pages 79 - 80 and include the following:

 The more visually prominent outer slopes and pronounced hills of this landscape which form the containing edges to settled and smaller scale Upland River Valley (10) of the Doon valley to the south-west, the Upland Basin (15) to the east and the East Ayrshire Lowlands (7c) and Lowland River Valley (9) of the Lugar Water to the north-east.

 Areas of spoil and excavations from current and former mining operations where wind turbines could exacerbate clutter and fragmentation of this landscape, where it may be difficult to achieve an integrated development of multiple turbines in more complex disturbed areas and where extensive wind farm developments could inhibit restoration of the landscape.

 The less modified pockets of remnant moss and associated mixed woodlands. 144

 Potential perceived ‘encirclement’ of the Upland Basin (15) character type should further wind farm development be sited within this character type and the East Ayrshire Southern Uplands (20a), the Southern Uplands with Forest (20c) and Plateau Moorlands (18a) and prominent on immediately containing skylines.

 Exacerbation of the fragmentation of this landscape which may occur if multiple developments and/or a range of different heights and types of turbine were to be sited in this character type and seen in conjunction with past and current opencast mining operations.

271. Visual amenity impacts would affect the area due to the scale and prominence of the proposed turbines. Whilst the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT itself is sparsely populated with some restricted access due to opencast mining activities, very large-scale turbines such as those proposed would be prominent, particularly given their proposed location close to the outer edges of this landscape. Whilst the EALWCS notes that recreational use of this landscape is likely to be inhibited due to opencast mining operations, active mining has now concluded in this area, with only the remaining restoration and aftercare works taking place. As these conclude, the area will become more available for recreational use, indeed the Covenanters’ Cross land feature (LVIA viewpoint 22) is located immediately south of the application site and is intended to provide a recreational / tourist destination to encourage people to visit the area. The EALWCS notes there are relatively close views into LCT 17a from the surrounding landscape, including that of the Upland Basin and the East Ayrshire Lowlands to the east and north. These surrounding settled landscapes are sensitive to visual impacts, particularly in this case given the prominence of the proposed turbines due to their location on the outer edges of LCT 17a, extending into the Upland Basin.

272. In terms of the Upland Basin LCT (15), the EALWCS states on page 66, with regards to its landscape context, “This character type is limited in extent but strongly contained by the uplands of the Plateau Moorlands (18a), Foothills with Forest and Opencast Mining (17a) and Southern Uplands (20a).” Furthermore, it is considered that turbines of 70m in height and above would result in this LCT having a high sensitivity, page 66 also stating, “There would also be cumulative effects with wind farms sited in adjacent uplands due to the openness of this landscape.” The EALWCS considers there to be no scope for large or medium typology turbines (>50m high) to be located in this landscape. Where it does find there to be some opportunity for turbines, at the less disturbed hillslopes at the transition with the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a) only turbines lower than 50m in height are considered could be accommodated. Key constraints associated with this landscape are the farms and woodlands which provide ready scale references, which are evident in some of the viewpoint visuals submitted with the Greenburn application, where the scale references exacerbate the sense of scale of the proposed turbines.

273. In respect of cumulative effects, the location of further wind farm development within the Southern Uplands (LCT 20a) and new developments in the surrounding uplands of the East Ayrshire Plateau Moorlands (LCT 18a) and the Foothills with Forestry 145

and Opencast Mining (LCT 17a), when seen together with operational and consented wind farms, may be perceived as ‘encircling’ the Upland Basin LCT and dominating skylines formed by the hills which contain this basin.

274. Considering the proposed development against the above guidance and constraints / opportunities, there appears to be both a degree of compliance and non-compliance with the guidance. The majority host landscape (LCT 17a: Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining) is an expansive landscape with a simple landform, which would tend to relate well to large-scale turbines. The location of the proposed wind farm, however, within one of the most sensitive parts of the LCT, in the eastern and north- eastern edges, means the turbines would be highly prominent on the skyline of this upland landscape which in part, defines the adjoining Upland Basin landscape character type. Within this location, and given the very large scale typology proposed (turbines >130m high as defined within the EALWCS), the turbines would be very prominent on the western containing skyline when viewed from the Upland Basin LCT to the east, and the southern skyline when viewed from the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT (7c) in the north. Less visually prominent lower hills and shallow basins within the core of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a) are highlighted as having more opportunity for wind farms within this LCT, however it is evident that the proposed Greenburn wind farm is not located within the core of this landscape.

275. Cumulative impacts are a key constraint, particularly on the visually prominent outer slopes of this LCT 17a due to it forming the containing edge to the settled smaller scale Upland River Valley (LCT 10) to the south-west, the Upland Basin (LCT 15) to the east and the East Ayrshire Lowlands (LCT 7c) to the north and north-east. The visuals provided with the application show just how prominent the proposed turbines would be on the eastern and northern adjoining landscapes to LCT 17a, particularly from the Upland Basin where the turbines form a highly prominent lateral expanse across the containing landform. The ELAWCS highlights the cumulative situation as one requiring close monitoring where wind farms are proposed in the surrounding upland landscapes to ensure a dominant ‘encircling’ effect on the skylines which contain the Upland Basin landscape is avoided. As has been discussed previously within this report, it is considered the proposed Greenburn turbines would extend wind farm influence into north-westerly views from the Upland Basin, which, when considered alongside all other operational, consented and application stage wind farms, would contribute significantly to the potential sense of encirclement of this landscape and the settlements within it. Whilst it is true that northerly views would not feature any wind farm development, Lethans to the north-east and Greenburn to the north-west would mean that turbines would be on the periphery of northerly views, which would contribute to this potential overall sense of encirclement by significantly increasing the extent of turbines on the skyline, particularly given the substantial wind farm influence in the other containing skylines, and due to the close proximity and prominence of the Greenburn turbines in such views.

Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Onshore Renewable Energy Developments

146

276. This document sets out the Scottish Government’s view that shared ownership should be offered as standard on all new renewable energy projects, including repowering and extensions to existing projects. This is to support the Scottish Government’s ambition for increased levels of local ownership, with the partnership working benefitting all stakeholders, and building community capacity and strengthening corporate responsibility.

277. The document states (page 22), “Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 29 lists net economic benefit as one of a number of guiding principles supporting development that contributes to sustainable development.” It is then clarified that something funded from a development or offered by a renewable energy business would not be sufficiently connected to a proposed development to be considered a material consideration in determining an application. Page 24 then states, “If the development is to receive planning permission, it should be acceptable in planning terms and without taking into consideration the shared ownership element.”

278. No offer of shared ownership has not been reported within the EIA Report, however very limited weight would be placed on such an offer of shared ownership in any event.

Planning History

279. There are a limited number of applications within or partially the planning application red line site boundary. The most relevant application to the current assessment is:

 18/0642/PP – Installation of a temporary 90m high wind monitoring mast and ancillary equipment – approved with conditions on 28/01/2019.

280. This is the anemometer mast on site to measure wind speeds within the site which informed the wind farm application. There are a number of adjacent mining consents and associated applications with some of the boundaries of these sites overlapping with the eastern-most section of the application site where access is taken from Dalgig road. Given these do not directly affect land within the application site, these will not be listed as they are not relevant to the site specifically. Other applications overlap more substantially with the south-western corner of the application site, though these have no discernible impact on the current wind farm application. One of these relates to an extension to the Greenburn surface mine (06/0538/FL) which was withdrawn on 09/09/2013, and the other was an application for the extraction of coal by opencast methods (06/0548/FL) which was withdrawn on 07/10/2013. A further application for the recovery of coal and associated fireclay using surface mining techniques with restoration to moorland habitats and nature conservation (Carsgailloch Hill, Greenburn Opencast) (11/0980/PP) was also withdrawn on 09/09/2016.

Impacts on Amenity

281. As discussed in detail in previous paragraphs within this report, the proposed development is considered to have significant adverse impacts on many parts of New Cumnock and settlements along the B741, where the proposed development would form a prominent development across the western skyline, which SNH 147

suggest could give rise to the perception of increasing encirclement and dominance of the Upland Basin and its settlements by wind farm development. Some significant effects would also be experienced on elevated and edge of settlement areas of the more distant settlements of Cumnock and Auchinleck within the East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT. Whilst there are considered to be significant adverse impacts faced from private and public spaces around the settlements, in terms of any individual properties facing an overbearing or dominant effect such that it would make that property an unattractive place to live, this has not been found when assessing the RVIA.

282. Cumulative visual impacts are apparent when considering the number of different operational, consented and application stage wind farms throughout the area. The design, scale and location in close proximity to and extending into the Upland Basin LCT means the proposed development would be a key contributor to cumulative impacts.

283. Shadow flicker has been found to occur for a limited period of time which would require to be mitigated. Mitigation measures such as a shutdown protocol to ensure that, in the conditions when shadow flicker occurs, the turbine(s) responsible would be shutdown, can be put in place which would adequately mitigate this impact. With regards to noise impacts, noise limits can be attached via conditions which would ensure that, subject to compliance with those limits, this would protect residential amenity, including cumulatively when considering other wind farms. Although Wellhill Steadings, the property nearest the proposed site access track may face a greater risk of noise impacts from construction noise, it is considered that mitigation measures coupled with the relatively short term duration of the worst impacts likely to be faced there (during the works on the access track closest, which will diminish as development progresses deeper into the application site) means the impacts would not be unacceptable.

Consultation Responses

284. The Planning Authority has consulted a number of internal Council departments, external agencies and Community Councils. None of the bodies consulted by the Council have raised any objections to the proposed development. Given the Council was consulted on the application during the nationwide Coronavirus lockdown, it is possible that the lack of response from some consultees contacted by the Council may be due in part to that. Comments from the Ayrshire Roads Alliance and Environmental Health will require to be addressed by appropriate conditions, ensuring that appropriate additional submissions are made to address the relevant matters raised. New Cumnock Community Council has agreed an extension with the Energy Consents Unit to provide its response in October 2020.

285. The responses provided by the Scottish Government consultees have generally indicated that subject to appropriate mitigation, micrositing, or further information, generally secured by planning conditions, the proposed development would be considered acceptable. Aviation bodies have, however objected to the proposed development on aviation safety grounds and SEPA has objected due to the position of turbine 11 and associated infrastructure, although has advised that if a revised plan is provided to show that this infrastructure has been moved away from the 148

GWDTE then they would remove their objection. Scottish Forestry and SNH have highlighted some issues, involving forestry amongst others, which they would like further information on or possibly further commitments in terms of mitigation/enhancement. This will be for the Applicant to consider further and the Scottish Ministers to consider in assessing the application. It is worth pointing out that SNH recommend the removal of turbines T13-16 (and possibly T7) to reduce to some degree the significant landscape and visual impacts resulting from the proposed development.

286. With regards to the peat probing audit carried out by Ironside Farrar, a number of issues regarding the full assessment of peat landslide hazard risk were highlighted which the Applicant has been able to address in further comments to the Energy Consents Unit. Ironside Farrar noted that proposed mitigation and good practice measures appear to be generally appropriate. Based on the information within the EIA Report and the consultation comments, including the view of Ironside Farrar, it would appear risk of peat landslide is not likely to be high and the Council would accept the recommendations made by Ironside Farrar as appropriate and do not raise any concerns regarding peat landslide hazard risks.

Reports to Council dated 24th May 2013, 19th September 2013 and 28th January 2014 and the Report to Cabinet on 21st May 2014 on decommissioning, restoration, aftercare and mitigation financial guarantees

287. The reports mentioned above to Council and Cabinet collectively set out an approach for the submission, agreement, implementation and monitoring of financial guarantees that are required in respect of the decommissioning, restoration, after care and mitigation of inter alia onshore windfarms (also including single wind turbines).

Review by Independent Assessor (Ironside Farrar Ltd) on behalf of the Council:

288. The Applicant has not submitted the requested decommissioning, restoration and aftercare report to detail the works associated with those activities and the likely costs as yet, although have advised that they hope to submit such a report to the Council and Scottish Government soon. Ironside Farrar Ltd have therefore to date, not been provided with any document to review and have subsequently not been able to advise the Council of the likely costs for undertaking such works.

Applicant’s Decommissioning Costs

289. As noted above, the Applicant has not yet provided the required information or an estimation of what they consider to be the likely costs of undertaking decommissioning, restoration and aftercare on the site, although such information is anticipated to be submitted to the Council and Scottish Government in due course.

290. Whilst there has been no assessment or agreement of the costs associated with decommissioning, restoration and aftercare, it is welcomed that the Applicant agrees to continue discussions with the Council to seek agreement. The Applicant’s willingness to agree to a Section 75 legal agreement on this matter is also welcome. 149

This should be in place prior to the grant of any consent by the Scottish Ministers, or agreement, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, of another arrangement to secure a legal obligation, to ensure that these matters are properly secured.

FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

291. Financial Implications: There are potential financial implications for the Council in coming to a view on this application. Should the Planning Committee be minded to formally object to the proposed Greenburn development this will trigger a Public Local Inquiry in terms of Section 62 and Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act 1989 unless the Council withdraws its objection. The financial implications associated with such a position include the potential for costs to be incurred in engaging expert external advice, support or representation including expert witnesses to give evidence on the Council’s behalf at the Inquiry. Furthermore, if the Council is considered to have acted unreasonably in its objection to the proposed development, a claim for an award of expenses could be made by the Applicant.

292. If the Council is minded to raise no objection to the proposed development, there are financial implications for the Council in negotiating and concluding a Section 75 legal agreement as well as the detail of the planning conditions. This will primarily relate to Council officer time but may also involve the further input of the Council’s consultants for decommissioning and restoration matters in the pursuit of a mutually agreeable financial guarantee quantum.

293. There are also financial implications for the Council in relation to the financial guarantee to ensure that decommissioning and restoration of the development takes place.

294. In accordance with the Council’s revised arrangements for the consideration of Financial Guarantees relative to certain types of development, Planning, Finance and Legal Services have all been involved in the process of assessing the Applicant’s proposed arrangements for securing their decommissioning and restoration obligations prior to sign-off, in this case by the Depute Chief Executive. In this case, no agreed position in terms of what would comprise the financial guarantee for the decommissioning and restoration of the proposed development has been reached between the Applicant and the Council.

295. In compliance with the Council’s Cabinet Report on Decommissioning, Restoration, Aftercare and Mitigation of Financial Guarantees dated 21 May 2014, any wind farm proposal will require to comply with the terms of this report in relation to the submission, agreement, implementation and monitoring of financial guarantees. It will also be expected to be in accordance with the assessment of costs from Ironside Farrar (and allowing for the effects of inflation and the addition of costs for other reasonable matters not currently costed by Ironside Farrar), subject to any agreed modifications which might be justified on cause shown by the Applicant during further negotiation at the appropriate stage.

150

296. Legal Implications: The matters set out in the bullet points below should be addressed with a Section 75 Legal Agreement under the 1997 Act. Whilst agreement in principle between the Council and the Applicant exists on each of these matters it will be for Scottish Ministers to determine whether consent is issued and thereafter the timing of this. The Council’s desire to secure such matters through legal agreement and for that agreement to be concluded before consent is issued should be made clear to Scottish Ministers.

 An independent Planning Monitoring Officer (PMO) to be appointed by the Planning Authority, with the cost of providing this service being met by the developer. Such appointment would address suspensive and ongoing environmental planning condition advice, on site monitoring and reporting during the construction period and any restoration period following construction and during the decommissioning and restoration period.

 The provision of a suitable decommissioning, restoration and aftercare guarantee by the developer, agreed by the Planning Authority as being sufficient and acceptable in value and risk, to secure the decommissioning of the turbines and the restoration and aftercare of the site, that appropriate review periods and mechanisms to alter the guarantee are agreed and that the Council’s costs in reviewing the value are paid by the developer.

POLICY / HAR / EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS

297. There are no policy, HR or equality implications resulting from this application.

COMMUNITY PLAN / TRANSFORMATION IMPLICATIONS

298. Section 2: Vision and Spatial Strategy of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, referred to above, states that it takes account of and embeds the main themes and vision of the Community Plan.

CONCLUSIONS

299. The development plan is a significant material consideration in the assessment of Section 36 wind farm developments. Given that the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan is up to date, it therefore also reflects current national planning policy. It is therefore a useful document against which to base the Council’s assessment.

300. Policy RE3 is the primary policy for the assessment. The application site is located in a Group 2 area due to mapped Class 1 peat. Otherwise, the remainder of the site would be a Group 3 area. Group 2 areas can be acceptable for wind farm development provided that siting, design or other mitigation can substantially overcome significant adverse effects of the environmental aspects for which the Group 2 area is designated. In this case, impacts have not been avoided due to siting and design, however the impacts are relatively limited and mitigation in the form of peatland habitat enhancement, alongside potential micrositing further out of the Class 1 peatland, would be considered mitigation to substantially overcome the 151

impacts and therefore the proposed development satisfies that element of Policy RE3.

301. The second part of the policy relates to a number of criteria of Schedule 1 which relate to the proposed development to a greater or lesser extent.

302. The Planning Authority considers that the expansive nature of the landscape hosting the application site is capable of accommodating some wind turbines of the scale proposed, however, given their location within a sensitive part of LCT 17a, and extending into an adjoining landscape (Upland Basin) which is considered to have no scope for the scale of turbines proposed, the proposed wind farm would not be located in a part of the host landscape(s) capable of accommodating the turbines proposed. The Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT (17a) would be significantly impacted within the eastern parts of this LCT whilst the visual impacts and impacts on the defining character of the Upland Basin (the containment provided by adjoining landscapes) would impact on the Upland Basin LCT as a whole.

303. The scale, location and design of the proposed wind farm would result in significant impacts on receptors out to approximately 8km from the site. The most significant visual impacts will be faced by the Upland Basin and settlements within it, particularly the largest of these, New Cumnock. Wider settlements to the north, including Cumnock and Auchinleck would experience highly prominent views of the turbines on the southern skyline from settlement edges and elevated parts of these settlements. SNH consider that significant visual impacts would occur widely across the Upland Basin LCT, including at the Lochside Hotel, recreational areas and on parts of Cumnock, Auchinleck and potentially also Ochiltree. The observations of SNH are similar to the views of IFL and the Council. Transport routes, notably the A76, B741 and Kilmarnock to Dumfries railway line will face significant visual impacts along much of the routes when travelling through the Upland Basin, with successive cumulative impacts particularly an issue when travelling northwards from neighbouring Dumfries and Galloway, through the Nith Valley towards New Cumnock and beyond towards Cumnock. The B741 would also face significant adverse cumulative impacts, particularly in the application stage scenario, when this road would face the effect of driving through a wind farm landscape, with consented and application stage wind farms located in close proximity to both the northern and southern edge sides of the road. Recreational routes and tourism receptors would also face significant visual impacts as a result of the proposed wind farm, such that the value and enjoyment of these tourism and recreation assets is likely to be negatively impacted. Some of these landscape and visual impacts have been found to be unacceptable.

304. Cumulative landscape and visual impacts have been considered, and as hinted at above, these have been found to be significant, to varying extents in the different cumulative scenarios assessed. The scale of the turbines (149.9m high) has been selected to try to provide consistency, given the other consented and application stage wind farms in closest proximity to the Greenburn wind farm (Overhill and North Kyle, consented and application stage respectively, and both 149.9m high). The location within the landscape means that the Greenburn turbines often appear larger in scale and far more prominent in views than those associated with Overhill and even North Kyle, despite the latter having considerably more turbines proposed. In 152

some views, particularly from the north, the proposed Greenburn turbines do not overlap with Overhill or North Kyle, but are instead viewed in combination with more distant and generally smaller scale turbines located in the Southern Uplands. The scale differential only making the Greenburn turbines appear even more prominent by comparison. Even when viewed in combination with Overhill and Greenburn, the Greenburn turbines often appear larger in scale than those nearby which it is seeking to reflect for consistency. Cumulative impacts, particularly those affecting the Upland Basin LCT are considered to be unacceptable. SNH also advise that the proposed development would exacerbate cumulative impacts, likely to give rise to a perception of increasing encirclement and domination of the Upland Basin LCT. Cumulative noise impacts, however, would be acceptable subject to appropriate noise limits being secured by appropriate planning conditions.

305. There would be no unacceptable impacts on communities or individual properties nearest to the proposed development as indicated within the Residential Visual Impact Assessment, although shadow flicker will require to be mitigated. No property would face overbearing visual effects as a result of the proposed development, despite some significant impacts being evident, more often than not as a result of turbines T13-16. Appropriate conditions should be attached to any consent granted to control operational and cumulative wind farm noise within acceptable limits. The recommendations of the Council’s noise consultant should be advanced as best residential protection. Some individual properties will face short term significant impacts during the construction of the site access, however conditions can be attached which would help mitigate these impacts to a level judged to be acceptable. Trunk and local road impacts have been found to be acceptable, subject to appropriate planning conditions.

306. The Planning Authority has no in-house expertise on natural heritage matters, however, the position taken by SNH with respect to natural heritage matters should be adopted by the Council. This would indicate that impacts on natural heritage features are not unacceptable, subject to appropriate mitigation and habitat enhancement.

307. The proposed development would bring a number of benefits, most notable of which would be the generation of electricity from a renewable source and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed development is likely to have a degree of positive net economic benefit, though this is unlikely to be a significant benefit.

308. Aviation safety impacts remain outstanding issues which have yet to be mitigated, though this is discussed in the following paragraphs. All other matters assessed in the Schedule 1 assessment are considered to be satisfactorily addressed provided appropriate planning conditions and/or legal agreement is secured, and the Applicant has agreed to undertake a Section 75 legal agreement with the Council to secure the appropriate financial guarantee for decommissioning, restoration and aftercare.

309. Given the significant adverse and unacceptable landscape and visual impacts, including cumulatively, and subsequent impacts on tourism and recreation assets, these are considered to be of a level such that they would make the development contrary to some individual criteria of Schedule 1. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not accord with Policy RE3 of the LDP. As a 153

consequence, and based on assessment against other LDP policies, the proposed development is also not considered to accord with policies, ENV8, T4 and Overarching Policy OP1. The proposed development would though, accord with other relevant policies of the EALDP and MLDP for the reasons detailed in the assessment of such matters under Policy RE3 and assessment under the MLDP. As such, the proposed development is not considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan.

310. Looking at other material considerations, it is judged that the proposed development draws broad support from NPF3 although it would not positively reflect the aims of SPP. In addition, the proposed development is not considered to represent development that contributes to sustainable development.

311. The contribution of up to 67.2MW of renewable energy towards renewable energy generation targets would draw support from Scottish Government energy policy.

312. The Council’s landscape consultant concludes that there are three key issues relating to the proposed development, these being: the design and location of the wind farm in relation to topography, landscape features, landscape character and strategic landscape guidance; the potential for significant landscape and visual effects on sensitive receptors, and the potential for significant cumulative landscape and visual effects, particularly when considering existing and consented schemes within the main host landscape and within the Southern Uplands to the south and south-east. Ultimately, the landscape consultant highlights that the significant effects result from the prominent position of the turbines on the north-eastern edge of the Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT. The potential for this to occur is highlighted within the EALWCS as a key factor limiting capacity for larger turbines in this otherwise extensive upland landscape.

313. Whilst the majority of consultation responses would indicate the proposed development could be acceptable, subject to various mitigation measures which could be secured by appropriate conditions and legal agreements, Glasgow Prestwick Airport and NATS both object to the proposed development due to unacceptable adverse impacts on radar and consequent aviation safety impacts. Due to the lack of mitigation for the aviation impacts, the proposed development could be contrary to both the Development Plan policies by way of the Schedule 1 criteria and SPP paragraph 169 criteria. Whilst this has been noted within the report, as this is a Section 36 application and the Council is merely a consultee, it will be for Scottish Ministers to consider whether aviation impacts can be made acceptable through the use of planning conditions or whether this would be inappropriate to do so and therefore the proposed development would be unacceptable in terms of aviation impacts. On this basis the Planning Authority has not attributed any great weight to aviation matters in its assessment of the development including in its findings against the Development Plan and SPP. Whilst SEPA object due to the position of turbine 11 and associated infrastructure in relation to a GWDTE, they will reconsider their objection if a revised plan is submitted showing this infrastructure is moved away from the GWDTE. SNH also recommend the removal of four turbines (possibly five) from the development to reduce the significance of some of the landscape and visual impacts.

154

314. In conclusion, it is recognised that renewable energy generation and the benefits associated with such development are afforded strong weighting in Government energy policy and also land use policy. The proposed development would attract strong positive weighting from these matters. Such support, however, is caveated and detailed assessment is required against a range of matters. In this case the proposed development is considered to have unacceptable landscape and visual impacts and cumulative landscape and visual impacts which also result in tourism and recreational impacts. For these reasons the proposed development does not, on balance, comply with the Development Plan or SPP. In this case the benefits of the proposed development are not considered to outweigh the harm that would be caused and as a result it is recommended that the Council object to this proposed development.

RECOMMENDATION

315. It is recommended that the Council objects to the development and that this committee report and the minutes of the Planning Committee be forwarded to the Scottish Ministers as presenting this Council’s formal response to the consultation.

316. In addition, it is also recommended that the Council:

 Informs the Scottish Ministers that should Ministers be minded to grant consent for the Greenburn Wind Farm, that the Planning Authority is to be involved in discussions with the Scottish Government and the Applicant concerning appropriate planning conditions for the deemed planning consent to ensure that the matters noted throughout this report are properly addressed and recognising that such conditions are returned to the Planning Authority for discharge.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTICE

317. Should the Committee decide not to object to the application, contrary to the recommendation of the Interim Head of Planning and Economic, the application will not require to be referred to Council as the scheme of delegation does not include provision for this to take place where a view is being sought on a Section 36 consultation.

David McDowall Interim Head of Planning and Economic Development

155

Background Papers 1. Application documentation including Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Further Environmental Information 2. East Ayrshire Local Development Plan (2017) 3. East Ayrshire Local Development Plan Supplementary Guidance: Planning for Wind Energy 4. East Ayrshire Local Development Plan Supplementary Guidance: Financial Guarantees 5. East Ayrshire Local Development Plan Non-statutory Planning Guidance: East Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study (2018) 6. East Ayrshire Minerals Local Development Plan 7. National Planning Framework 3 8. Scottish Planning Policy 9. Scottish Government Guidance – Onshore Wind Turbines, May 2014 10. Circular 2:2003 ‘Safeguarding of Aerodromes, Technical Sites, Meteorological Technical Sites, and Military Explosives Storage Areas: The Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites, Meteorological Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) (Scotland) Direction 2016 11. CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines CAP 764 12. The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish Tourism – Moffat Report (March 2008) 13. Scottish Government Guidance on Dealing with Aviation Objections and Associated Negative Conditions in Wind Turbine Consents (2012) 14. Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance: Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments, March 2012 15. Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance: Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Version 3, February 2017 16. PAN 1/2011: Planning and Noise 17. ACCON Ltd Noise Assessment 18. Ironside Farrar Ltd Greenburn Wind Park Audit of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, August 2020 19. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 20. Scottish Energy Strategy: The future of energy in 156

Scotland (December 2017) 21. Onshore Wind Policy Statement (December 2017) 22. The Energy White Paper 2007 23. Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Onshore Renewable Energy Developments (May 2019) 24. Scottish Government Electricity Generation Policy Statement 2013 25. East Ayrshire Council Report to Cabinet, 21 May 2014, Independent Review of the Regulation of Opencast Coal Operations in East Ayrshire – The Council’s Response 26. East Ayrshire Council Report to Council, 19 September 2013 27. East Ayrshire Council Report to Cabinet, 24 May 2013 28. Circular 4/1998: Planning Conditions 29. Circular 3/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements 30. SNH Guidance: Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for wind farms, Version 2 February 2016 31. Ayrshire and Arran Forestry and Woodland Strategy 2014 32. Ayrshire & Arran Tourism Strategy 2012/17 33. New Cumnock Community Action Plan 2014 – 2019 34. North Kyle Forest Masterplan 35. East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative Peatland Restoration Survey & Plan June 2016 36. Consultation responses to EAC 37. Consultation responses to Scottish Government 38. Statutory Notices and Certificates

Person to Contact: Graham Mitchell Senior Planning Officer Email: [email protected]

Implementation Officer: Craig Iles Interim Operations Manager: Building Standards and Development Management Email: [email protected]

157

TP24 East Ayrshire Council TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997

Application No: 20/0001/S36

Location Proposed Greenburn Wind Park New Cumnock

Nature of Proposal: Application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and operate the proposed Greenburn Wind Farm

Name and Address of Tony Young Scottish Government Applicant: Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit

Officer’s Ref: Graham Mitchell

Summarised reasons for the recommendation to object to the development: 1. The proposed development results in significant and unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impacts. These impacts result from scale, design and the location of the turbines along the western containing skyline, prominently positioned along the ridge and descending towards and into the Upland Basin LCT. Impacts affect areas to the south, north and most notably to the east of the development and affect a range of receptors within the Upland Basin LCT and East Ayrshire Lowlands LCT including (although not limited to) parts of Cumnock, Auchinleck, New Cumnock, and smaller settlements along the B741, the local road and rail network and tourism and recreational locations. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the Development Plan and Scottish Planning Policy.

2. The proposed development results in significant and unacceptable adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts. The addition of Greenburn wind farm brings the wind farm influence on the western containing skyline of the Upland Basin much closer to the Upland Basin and settlements within it. In addition, the proposed development further significantly contributes to the potential for encirclement of the Upland Basin, and intensifies cumulative impacts with similar development within the 158

Foothills with Forestry and Opencast Mining LCT, in combination with schemes in the Southern Uplands, Southern Uplands with Forestry and East Ayrshire Plateau Moorlands LCTs.

3. The proposed development results in significant and unacceptable impacts on tourism and recreational receptors as a result of the significant unacceptable landscape and visual impacts resulting from the scale, design and location of the proposed development

159

160

161