PLANNING APPLICATION: 07/02375/EIA

In the event that a recommendation on this planning application is overturned the Committee is reminded of the advice contained on the front page of the agenda for Reports on Applications

The Proposal

To construct a windfarm consisting of 13 turbines, one at 90m and the remaining twelve at 110m in height. Turbines to have a blade diameter no greater than 80m. The 90m turbine (turbine No. 8) will have a hub height of 64m and rotor diameter of 52m. One permanent wind monitoring mast (70m in height). Each turbine to be placed upon 16m x 16m reinforced concrete foundation pads, which will be backfilled with earth. A permanent area of hardstanding will also be required adjacent to each turbine location also. A 70m x 70m electricity substation compound which will a electrical switchgear, control building, workshop and welfare provision. Two temporary borrow pits to the west end of the site. Approximately 22km of access road, of which 17km is existing or upgraded forestry tracks. A temporary 50m by 50m temporary site compound and concrete batching plant will be required during construction. Export of the power from the substation will be via poles leading approximately 1.5km westward to link into the existing pylons which lie on the west side of the B9018.

The Site

Occupying a raised plateau of land across several flat topped summits within Aultmore Forest. The site lies between the summits identified as Old Fir Hill (260m), Hill of Clashmadin (259m) and Leomond Hill (268m). Access to the site from the B9016 to the west travels along existing and proposed forestry tracks (and proposed tracks) leading to the site. A secondary access to the site from the B9018 to the east at Balnamoon would utilise an existing forestry track (non heavy vehicles only). The site is almost entirely occupied by existing or felled forestry plantation. The site is not covered by any national or local environmental designations. The site lies within the Moray Onshore Wind Energy guidance 'Area of Search' for medium turbines (50m to 80m) but outwith the search area for larger wind turbines.

Policy / Objections-Representations / Consultations - See Appendix

History

Planning history for this site

03/02383/S36 - Original proposal for 31 wind turbines at Aultmore stretching westward to include an area also covering the Hill of Stonyslacks. The size of the application meant it was a Section 36 application determined by the Scottish Government Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (under the Electricity Act) rather than a planning application to Moray Council. The Moray Council were therefore consultees and following consideration by Committee the Council objected to the proposal to the Scottish Government in 2004. The Section 36 application was subsequently withdrawn prior to public enquiry and a revised and reduced proposal submitted to the Moray Council in 2007.

11/001491/APP - Renew previously planning application to erect one 70m wind monitoring masts at Old Fir Hill Aultmore Forrest Deskford Buckie Moray. Temporary consent which expired on 7th December 2013. This mast has now been removed but was located on the current application in the middle of the current grouping of turbines proposed.

06/01854/FUL - Renewal of previous temporary permission for a 40m guyed, steel tubular wind monitoring mast at Millstone Hill, Aultmore, Keith. Expired and removed in 2008.

To the south

10/02092/EIA - Formation of windfarm comprising of 6 wind turbines (125m in height total capacity up to 21mW) and associated infrastructure including access tracks, control building housing switchgear equipment and buried cables at Edintore, Keith. Located approx 13km south of the Aultmore, this application was approved at Appeal by the DPEA in 2012.

02/02099/EIA - Planning approval allowed on appeal for the erection 21 wind turbines (100m to tip) and 2 wind masts at Hills of Towie, Knockan and McHattie's Cairn, Drummuir on 2nd Feb 2005. These have been erected and are located 16km south west of Aultmore.

12/01388/APP - Erection of 1 no. wind turbine (48m rotor diameter) with a maximum blade tip height of 79 metres and ancillary infrastructure including crane-hardstanding, substation, temporary construction compound and new and upgraded access track at Drodland, Newmill, Keith, Moray, AB55 6UJ. This application was refused by the Council but allowed at appeal. Yet to be constructed, this turbine would lies approx 2km south west of the current application.

12/01194/APP - Installation of meteorological mast for 3 year period at Drodland, Newmill. Permitted.

11/01509/APP - Planning application to erect 4 no. wind turbines (110 tip heights) at Mains of Bodinfinnoch. Located adjacent to Hill of Towie (02/02099/EIA) this windfarm was dismissed at appeal in November 2013.

12/01694/APP - Planning approval (allowed on appeal by Scottish Ministers) to erect 1 no. 800kw wind turbine (74m to tip) at Garralhill, Newmill. This lies check 2.8km to the south west and has yet to be constructed.

04/02472/FUL - Planning approval to construct 1 no. wind turbine (70m to tip height) at Balnamoon, Crossroads, Keith. This is operational and lies 3.5km to the south (allowed on appeal by Scottish Ministers).

To the west

11/01384/APP - Erection of 1 no. wind turbine (56m rotor diameter) with a maximum height of up to 78 metres and ancillary infrastructure at Followsters, Newmill, Keith, Moray, AB55 6UY. Approved 6.5km west of the current application has yet to be constructed. To the east

12/00928/APP - Planning approval to erect 1 no. 400kw wind turbine (51m to tip) at Langlanburn, Deskford. This lies 1.5km east of the current application. A further application 13/01790/APP to amend the approved turbine model (48m to tip) was approved in October 2013.

07/01102/FUL - Planning approval to install 1 no. 750kw wind turbine (79 m to tip) at Myreton, Crossroads, Keith. This is operational and lies 4km to the east of the current proposal and forms part of the Lurg Hill grouping.

09/00763/FUL - Planning approval to erect 2 no. 2.3 MW wind turbines (92.5m to tip height) at Netherton of Windyhills, Grange Crossroads, Keith. These have yet to be erected and would be located 3km to the east of the current proposal and form part of the Lurg Hill grouping.

09/00247/FUL - Planning approval (allowed on appeal by Local Review Body) to install 2 no. 800kw wind turbines (79m and 89m to tip heights) at Myreton, Crossroads, Keith. These are operational and lie 4km to the east of Aultmore and also form part of the Lurg Hill grouping.

12/01165/APP - Planning approval (allowed on appeal by Scottish Ministers) to erect 1 no. turbine (80m to tip) at Edingight, Grange, Keith next to Knock Hill. This lies 6.5km to the east and has yet to be constructed.

There are a number of small domestic scale wind turbines surrounding Aultmore, to the north, east and south, but while they are not specifically listed, their presence and cumulative effect have been taken into consideration.

There are also a number of larger wind turbines to the east within Aberdeenshire, which the applicant has identified within the applicants original Environmental Statement and updated Supplementary Environmental Information, which have been taken into consideration.

Pending consideration

12/01507/APP - Planning application for 1 no. 2.3MW wind turbine (99.5m to tip) at Netherton of Windyhills (and would in effect create a 6th turbine at the Lurg Hill grouping 3-4km east). Application currently under consideration and is to be considered at the same committee as the proposal subject of this report.

13/02057/S36 - Erect 16 wind turbines at Hill Of Towie II Wind Farm Drummuir Keith Moray (adjacent to and associated with the operational Hill of Towie Windfarm 02/02099/EIA) Section 36 application currently under consideration and is to be considered at the same committee as the proposal subject of this report. This site is located 18km south west of Aultmore.

13/00638/APP - Erection of 1no Enercon E-48 800Kw 79m wind turbine (Rotor 48m) access road and associated infrastructure on Broomhill Farm, Newmill, Keith, Moray. Application currently under consideration and is to be considered at the same committee as the proposal subject of this report. This site is located 3.5km south west of the current site towards Newmill. 13/00615/EIA Erection of eight wind turbines (Rotor diameter 80m) 110m turbines high and associated infrastructure at Kellas House, Kellas, Elgin. Application still pending consideration and is located west of Elgin.

Observations

The main planning considerations are:

Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan i.e. the approved Moray Structure Plan 2007 and the adopted Moray Local Plan 2008 unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the main planning issues are considered below.

In compliance with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 the application is supported by an Environmental Statement. The Environmental Statement, Supplementary Environmental Information and other supporting information have been taken into consideration. As part of the original submission and scoping consultation was carried out with various community councils and associations. Public consultation events were also carried out prior to submission of the application in 2007.

Policy ER1outlines that wind energy development should be located within a "preferred search area" as originally defined within the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Wind Energy Planning Guidance (WEPG) (2005) but now superseded by the Council's Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance: Moray Onshore Wind Energy (MOWE) (March 2013) where "preferred search areas" are now referred to as "Areas of Search" (see below). As material considerations, National Planning Framework (NPF2), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2010 sets out national policy regarding renewable energy proposals, and separately, the Scottish Government web-based renewable advice identifies a number of factors to be taken into account in determining the location of turbines. These criteria are related or are similar to those identified in adopted local plan policy ER1, which require to be met and ensure any renewable energy proposal can be considered favourably (see Appendix).

At the local level, and as material considerations agreed by this Council, the MOWE (March 2013) sets out guidance including a spatial framework for considering turbine developments, including regard to four typologies of turbines (i.e. small, small/medium, medium and large) and other detailed information to be considered in assessing wind energy developments; and the Council's Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study (LCS) (May 2012), prepared in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage, considers mainly landscape and visual capacity issues associated with turbine developments.

Background

The application has been under consideration by Moray Council for some time, due largely to allow for negotiation between the applicant and the MoD to allow for resolution of possible conflict between the turbines and the RAF Lossiemouth radar. After discussion, the MoD agreed that the application could be approved subject to a mitigation condition in early 2012. Since then, in order to update the application and bring other assessments up to date, supplementary environmental information was submitted in 2012 and re-consultation and neighbour notification carried out.

Following that consultation period and the adoption of the Council's Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance: Moray Onshore Wind Energy (MOWE) (March 2013) it became clear that the proposed scheme needed modified, which led to the latest and final round of consultation and neighbour notification in Autumn 2013 following amendments to the layout and reduction in height of one of the turbines.

Until the use of the current LCS came into use in 2012 the site had been located within a "preferred search area" as originally defined within the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Wind Energy Planning Guidance (WEPG) (2005).

At a national level there is strong Scottish Government support from NPF2, SPP and online advice to promote further renewable energy proposals to achieve specified targets. The proposed wind farm would be consistent with the UK and Scottish Government's energy policy. Delivery of the proposed capacity around 26 MW would make a positive and valuable contribution towards achieving objectives for greater diversity and security of energy supply including UK and Scottish Government energy targets, in particular the target of the Scottish Ministers to generate 100% of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This factor is a material consideration in the determination of the application. Moray Structure Plan 2007 (strategic policies)

The relevant strategic policy is (21) which aims to promote opportunities for sensitive development of renewable energy. Compliance with these strategic aims is assessed primarily through the Local Plan policies IMP1 and ER1 all of which seek to establish the criteria by which a windfarm can be acceptably accommodated into a rural setting.

Moray Onshore Wind Energy: Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance 2013 (MOWE) In accordance with SPP advice, the MOWE sets out firstly, the Council's approach to considering and determining planning applications or making observations on proposals to Scottish Government including detailed information requirements and issues expected to be addressed at the pre-application stages and secondly, it sets out the Council's overall strategy for wind turbine development including spatial frameworks for different typologies of turbine development based upon heights rather than output or number of turbines. Whilst acknowledging the approach is not a perfect "fit" with that set out in SPP based upon power generation, the Council considers that for Moray, the critical issue in determining the landscape and visual impact of proposals is turbine height rather than power generated.

The MOWE explains the methodology and spatial framework has been informed by the MLCS (2012) and its consideration of the capacity of the four turbine typologies (sizes) relative to identified landscape character areas. The MOWE expects developers to demonstrate how their proposals can be integrated into the Moray landscape and requires them to assess their proposals against the MLCS/MOWE guidance.

Moray Wind Turbine Landscape Capacity Study 2012 (MLCS)

On 3 July 2012 the Council agreed the MLCS as a material consideration in the determination of applications both in its own right, and subsequently as an integral part of the MOWE guidance (see above).

The MLCS identifies considers the landscape and visual capacity of the four typologies of turbines (based on blade tip height), whether for single turbines or groups of turbines: Large 80 - 130m Medium 50 - 80m Small/Medium 35 - 50m Small 20 - 35m

It considers the landscape and visual capacity of the four typologies for various landscape character types. These are based upon (and refine) the landscape character types identified in SNH's Moray and Nairn Landscape Character Assessment 1998. The MLCS therefore represents the most up-to-date landscape character assessment for Moray and has been prepared in partnership with SNH.

The sensitivity of each landscape character type or sub-type to the different types of turbine development is based on key landscape and visual characteristics and cumulative landscape and visual effects to develop an overall sensitivity rating for each character type relative to the four turbine typologies. For each landscape character type, the sensitivity assessment takes account of existing/consented wind farm developments, a summary of the capacity of the landscape type, cumulative issues, constraints, opportunities and guidance on development.

Landscape/ Visual Impact (ER1, IMP1, MOWE and MLCS)

In line with the above Moray Local Plan 2008 policies and guidance the assessment below looks at the impact the development would have on a wide range landscape and visual considerations. Windfarms are undoubtedly notably visible features on the landscape due to their height, but an assessment needs made to whether their impact is unacceptable or detrimental to the visual character of the landscape and amenity.

The Environmental Statement (and Supplementary Environmental Information) submitted by the applicant provides a detailed landscape and visual assessment of the likely impacts and concludes that there will be no significant impact upon the wider landscape surrounding Aultmore. This analysis was updated in 2012 with the supplementary information to take account of additional wind energy developments which have been approved/submitted since the application was originally considered.

The MLCS divides Moray into a number of Landscape Character types and considers the capacity of each for 4 typologies of turbine (i.e. small, small/medium, medium and large), using a range of sensitivity criteria. The current proposal falls within the category of large typology/turbine (i.e. between 80-130m) and lies within Landscape Character Type 8a Broad Forested Hills and Upland Farmland. This landscape has an overall high-medium sensitivity to the large development typology (relevant to current turbines ranging in height from 90 - 110m).

The MLCS does identify a medium sensitivity towards medium size turbines, 50m to 80m and the MOWE guidance does identify Aultmore as an 'Area of Search' with potential scope to accommodate medium turbines. It states that the medium typology of turbines should be set well back into the interior of the more extensive undulating upland plateau where gentle undulations in landform would provide a degree of containment and allow for adequate separation to occur, thus minimising intrusion on adjoining well-settled character types.

The MOWE guidance and MLCS state that there was no scope to accommodate the large typology within the landscape character type 8a due principally to the limited extent of these upland landscapes which increases the potential for impacts on adjacent settled landscapes. The MOWE guidance does however define the areas of search as being where the greatest scope for investigating the feasibility of developing a windfarm. While the guidance says that proposals outwith the Areas of Search will be considered as departures from policy, for the reasons identified below, the latest revised proposals are considered to comply with the guidance and relevant structure and local plan policies.

Following a specific appraisal of the proposed windfarm against the MLCS undertaken by the Council's commissioned landscape architect (in conjunction with Council Officers) it was concluded that the overall aims of the Council relating to windfarm development could only be satisfied if the application underwent modification and amendment. With the publication also of the MOWE guidance in March 2013, the applicant was asked to consider what modifications or amendments might be agreed to bring the application into compliance with the councils updated MOWE guidance.

Following discussions and consideration of various alternatives, the amended layout was submitted which brought the proposed turbines further into the interior of Landscape Character Type 8a away from the settled valleys and upland farmland to the north, south and east. The northern most turbine has also been reduced in height to 90m. The results of these amendments are as follows.

The distances between the windfarm and residences would be increased, most notably on the north side of the windfarm. See viewpoint 18 where repositioning of turbines formerly 7 and 13, and reduction in turbine 8 reduces views from minor public road and Hill of Maud crofts. The revised layout further increases the distance of the turbines from the transitional boundaries of the landscape character type in which it is set and the surrounding landscape character types below Aultmore. The turbines would be less visible or have a less significant impact on the landscape when viewed from the coastal farmland and rolling hills (landscape character types 4 and 4a). Viewpoint 5 from south of Buckie illustrates. Views from and between the site and the landmark hill Bin of Cullen to the north of the windfarm will change and their magnitude decreased slightly such that the impact on the landscape feature will be reduced to an acceptable level. Notably the north most turbine will be reduced in height by 20m and have a blade diameter up to 28m smaller, which will again lessen the visual impact between the north end of the windfarm and the Bin of Cullen. See viewpoint 3. The scale and distribution of turbines when viewed from key sensitive locations, even at 110m, does not dominate the locality. Even with the typology higher than envisaged the rounded hilltops, and flanks of Black Hill, Leomond Hill and the Hill of Clashmadin all provide a sufficient containment of the windfarm. In accordance with the MOWE guidance the turbines comply with the minimum distances sought from both rural residential properties (1km) and rural communities (2km). The closest distances are 1.3km to residences and 2.7km to the settlement of Berryhillock. From some views, such as Lurg Hill the horizontal extent of the windfarm has been slightly reduced by revision of the turbine positions.

In relation to the nearby landmark hills as defined within the MOWE, particularly the Bin of Cullen, which is the closest to the north, there is sufficient distance from the windfarm (4.5km) sufficient not compromise or diminish the distinct character of the hill. Any negative impact upon the Bin of Cullen is further diminished by the fact that there are few public roads or static views from which both the windfarm and the Bin of Cullen would be seen. The most significant views from north of the windfarm generally lie south and west of the Bin of Cullen, thereby offering further perceptive separation from the landmark hill.

In the assessment of the amended layout (again in conjunction with the Councils commissioned landscape architect) it has become clear that the extensive, uninhabited plateau of Aultmore forest has the capacity to accommodate the larger typology. Whilst a relatively flat and indistinct hill, the area and scale of Aultmore forest ensure the turbines remain relatively unobtrusive in the wider landscape. The distances involved in viewing the windfarm from most commonly observed locations (roads, residences and settlements) is such that the grouping of turbines would not occupy a wide angle on the horizon, thereby reduces the significance of its visual impact for most observers. The revised layout has not necessarily altered the extent of visibility of the windfarm, but will reduce it prominence.

Excluding views from landmark hills, the extent of visual impact of the turbines is reduced north of Bin of Cullen such that the windfarm would not be visible from the coast from Portessie to Portknockie. Lurg Hill and Knock Hill to the east has a similar effect in blocking views of the windfarm from large areas of Aberdeenshire.

With the exception of the B9018 Grange road, there are few classified roads that come within several km of the site. Views from the A96 (T), A95 (T), A942 and A98 will occur, but the distances involved are such that windfarm would not be a prevalent feature in itself. Its impact in terms of sequential cumulative impact travelling those routes is assessed below. The windfarm will be most commonly viewed from vehicles northbound on the B9018 Grange Road who will get closer to the windfarm as they approach its eastern side. At its closest point the B9018 will within 1.5km of the eastern edge of the windfarm, and any turbines visible will be notable features. The valley does however soon narrow north of Balnamoon, with views of the windfarm becoming interrupted or obscured from the roadside by topography and woodland. This is borne out when looking at the Zone of Theoretical Variation (ZTV) plan where some views become obscured on the B9018 east of Aultmore.

In terms of local plan policy ER1 (d) the amended development, for the reasons outlined above, would not result in an unacceptable impact in terms of visual appearance and landscape character by virtue of proposals compliance with the guidance identified in the MOWE guidance. The proposal is therefore not considered to depart from the local plan in relation to landscape and visual impact.

Cumulative Issues (ER1(e))

The baseline survey for the LCS carried out in January 2012 acknowledged the existence of other wind turbines near Aultmore on the landscape character type 8: Upland Farmland at Lurg Hill and Balnamoon, but does still identify a substantial area within the inner plateau of Aultmore hill as an 'Area of Search' having some potential for wind energy development (albeit for a medium typology of a height of up to 80m). This is in recognition of not only the characteristics of Aultmore, but also of its relative distance to settlements, residences and public roads. While the area of most concentrated wind energy development indisputably lies to the south east of Aultmore along the B9018 corridor at Grange, the proposed turbines would still lie 3-4km away from both Lurg Hill and Balnamoon, with a distinct change in landscape character in between.

A cumulative visual effect occurs in a succession of different views and upon sight of several developments within one view so the sequential effect experienced by road users, particularly on the B9018 near Grange Crossroads and on other minor public roads south and south east of the site are significant. The scheme has however undergone various amendments (the latest as recently as September 2013) to better confine the development into the Area of Search plateau and increase the distance of the turbines from other wind energy development and the settled valleys and upland farmland surrounding Aultmore.

The latest revision seeks to keep the turbines away from the transitional areas between 'broad forested hills' within landscape character type 8a and the 'upland farmland' covered by landscape character type 8. This increase containment within the plateau of the hill away from the valley sides does fortify the visual distinction between the generally small to medium scale turbines present in Grange and Glen of Newmill and the larger turbines characteristic of wind farms (e.g. comparable to Hill of Towie windfarm). This has the effect of lessening the cumulative clutter that might otherwise have occurred had the turbines been closer too or more similar in size to the turbines consented to the south, south east and east in the Upland Farmland landscape character type.

More distant and less significant cumulative effects are present from Keith 10km to the south. It is acknowledged that cumulative effects would be present when viewing the site from Knock Hill and Bin of Cullen, although the latest amendment does seek to reduce the impact from Bin of Cullen (see above). The wind farm would also be sufficiently distant from other larger windfarms such as Hill of Towie (16km plus) and Edintore (13km)

The ZTV map shows that the A96(T) and A95(T) west of Keith are generally outwith the visible range of the proposed windfarm (certainly for views within 15km of Aultmore). There will be views from the land character type 4 Coastal Farmland from Portgordon along to Lossiemouth but these views will increasingly less significant the further west along the coast travelled. From coastal locations there is comparatively little wind energy development that would result in a cumulative impact.

On balance, and in recognition that the proposed turbines at Aultmore have for a number of years now been a material consideration for the Moray Council and Scottish Government Reporters in determining other wind energy planning applications in the wider locality, the overall cumulative impact is not so adverse as to warrant refusal for the reasons outline above. The development is therefore considered to comply with policy ER1(e) regarding cumulative impact.

Effects on Natural Heritage (Policy 2, ER1, E1, E2, IMP1)

MSP Policy 2(a) seeks to protect international, national and local nature conservation designations from inappropriate development and 2(b) seeks to protect the wider natural environment and local biodiversity from inappropriate development and promote opportunities for environmental enhancement and restoration where possible.

MLP2008 Policy ER1(a) and (d) require that renewable energy proposals are compatible with policies to safeguard the natural environment and do not result in unacceptable impacts on local ecology.

Policy E1 presumes against development proposals that would adversely affect national nature conservation designations, and requires appropriate assessment for proposals likely to have a significant effect upon on Natura 2000 sites.

Policy E2 provides that any development proposal that would adversely affect Sites of Interests to Natural Science, wetlands or other valuable local habitats, will be refused unless it is demonstrated that local public benefits clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site and there is no suitable alternative site for development.

Policy IMP1(i) seeks developments to demonstrate conservation of natural environmental resources.

The site is not covered by any international, national or local environmental designations, but a full assessment of environmental, wildlife and other impacts has been submitted with the planning application. As much of the site has been or is under commercial forestry plantation since the late 1960's/early 1970's, the biodiversity of the site is relatively low compared to less intensively forested locations.

Scottish Natural Heritage, the RSPB, Scottish Environment Protection Agency have commented upon environmental issues surrounding the proposal. The applicant‟s submission shows a range of measures proposed as part of the overall development to mitigate the environmental impact of developing upon the site. Both SEPA and SNH have sought a condition relating to provision of an Environmental Management Plan in particular to ensure that mitigation is applied to the development during and post construction.

Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement acknowledges the need for a Habitat Management Plan to be developed in conjunction with the landowners, the Forestry Commission. Such a plan would have potential to improve habitat if positively managed post tree felling and a condition to allow the Council and SNH to review the finalised Habitat Management Plan is recommended.

Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement addressing ornithology has proposed a Capercaillie Management Plan (CMP) following discussion with the RSPB, SNH and the Forestry Commission. This document has again been the subject of a recommended condition to allow for consideration of it by the Council in consultation with SNH.

SEPA have identified that since they previously commented on the supporting Environmental Statement, legislation addressing peat management has changed, such that a revised assessment of peat on site and a Peat Management Plan need to be considered (preferably prior to determination of any planning application). A Peat Management Plan has now been prepared, which concludes the proposed windfarm would be unlikely to result in the unnecessary excavation of peat, or the creation of surplus peat needed exported from site as waste. SEPA have now agreed on a finalised Peat Management Plan submitted by the applicants, so a condition is recommended to cover this issue.

Subject to the conditions recommended, the proposal would have a manageable and acceptable impact on natural heritage.

Shadow flicker

Shadow flicker refers to the optical effect caused by the intermittent obstruction of a light source by a moving object: Scottish Government Renewables advice and the MOWE guidance recommend/require that a turbine be no nearer to neighbouring properties that ten times the rotor diameter. In this case this would mean for a maximum rotor diameter of 80m, a minimum distance of 800m should be provided. As the closest residences are 1.3km away from the windfarm, shadow flicker will not be an issue.

Chapter 20 of the Environmental assessment addresses the issue of shadow flicker and demonstrates that no houses should be affected. The Environmental Health Manager has however recommended a condition be attached to afford the Council some means of control in the event a complaint is received.

Effects on Hydrology inclusive of drainage issues and private water supplies (Policy 2, ER1, EP5, EP6, EP7, EP8, EP9, IMP1)

MSP Policy 2(k) seeks to safeguard the area from pollution and contamination and 2(i) seeks to promote SUDS in all new developments.

MSP2008 Policy ER1(d) seeks to ensure that wind farm proposals do not result in unacceptable impacts in terms of pollution, hydrology and on peat land.

Policy EP4 seeks to ensure safe water supplies where a private source is used.

Policy EP5 provides that all sites should be drained by a SUDS system or equivalent.

Policy EP6 seeks to ensure that new developments do not result in significant impacts on the management or ecology of watercourses.

Policy EP7 provides that new developments should not take place if it would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or would materially increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere.

Policy EP8 seeks to ensure that new developments do not create pollution in the form of run-off into water courses.

Policy EP9 requires proposals to address contamination of land.

Policy IMP1(e) provide that sites should be drained by a SUDS system or equivalent; (j) requires that appropriate provision to deal with flood related issues must be made; (k) requires that pollution including ground water must be avoided and (l) requires that arrangements for waste management must be made.

SEPA have commented upon a range of issues and the council has a role in terms surface water drainage (through the Moray Flood Risk Management Team) and private water supplies (through the Environmental Health Section) to comment upon some aspects of the above topics. The Environmental Health Section also deal with contaminated land issues and consultation was carried out with the Contaminated Land Officer.

Environmental Health (on water supply and contaminated land grounds) have raised no objections to the planning application. The Moray Flood Risk Management Team have requested conditions be imposed regarding surface water drainage, but it is noted there are no flood susceptible areas within the site. The response from the Flood Risk Management Team has been incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan condition requested by both SEPA and SNH. The various environmental, habitat and peat management method statements will include measures required to protect ground water relevant to allay concerns about private water supplies.

The applicants have identified a potential source of unexploded World War 2 ordnance on the site, and the means of its removal has been agreed with the Contaminated Land Officer within Environment Health. A condition is recommended binding the developer to deal with the issue in accordance with a specific remediation strategy.

Economic Impact

One of the strategic aims of the Moray Structure Plan is to promote economic opportunities and diversify the local economy, which is reflected in the policies of the Moray Local Plan 2008 which generally seeks to promote economic development.

It is acknowledged that a project of this scale would create local economic benefits, particularly during construction where local businesses, trades, suppliers, construction firms and hoteliers would see increased trade. The wider benefits of diversifying the sources of power generation into the national grid (particularly non fossil fuels) is seen to be of economic as well as environmental benefit to the nation as it helps toward meeting increased demand in the future.

The economic benefits of the scheme have to be balanced against the other requirements of the Moray Development Plan.

Given the development relates to generation of renewable energy, the benefits would not need to rest on economic benefit or job creation and it acknowledged the development would not generate local long term employment.

Effects on tourism/recreational interests (Policy 1, 2, ER1, T7, CF3, ED9 and IMP1)

Tourism interests

MSP Policy 1(b) aims to encourage tourist development opportunities and (e) support local communities and rural businesses through well designed development in the countryside.

MLP2008 Policy ER1(c) seeks to ensure that renewable energy proposals are compatible with tourism/ recreational interests and facilities and policy ED9 tourism facilities and accommodation.

There may some impact on tourists walking in the vicinity, but this will be addressed under recreational interests below.

By virtue of the sites relatively distant location from main tourist routes, urban and rural distillery tourist attractions and the fact the site has been used primarily for commercial rather than recreational forestry use, a negligible impact upon tourism will occur. The proposal does not therefore conflict with policy ER1(c).

Recreational interests (CF3)

From Appendix 1, MSP2008 Policy ER1(c) seeks to ensure that renewable energy proposals are compatible with tourism/recreational interests and facilities.

Policy T7 provides that proposals that adversely impact on cycling, walking, equestrian and motorised sport path networks and cannot be adequately mitigated will not be acceptable. Priority is given to the protection of path networks and to long distance routes such as the Speyside Way.

Policy CF3 provides that development proposals will not be permitted which prejudice Rights of Way, identified paths and trails for non-motorised public access inclusive of routes from the statutory Moray Core Paths Plan.

Policy IMP1(c) requires that adequate provision for roads, cycling and footpath provision must be made available.

The applicants own assessment of recreational interests in the vicinity of Aultmore and the consultation response from the Councils own Access Manager, confirms that there are a number of hill top walks, public paths and cycle ways. These will be of use by both residents and tourists alike. The Moray Core Paths plan identifies the 'Fishwives Road' which run from Glen of Newmill north through Aultmore Forest towards Letterfourie. This lies over 1km to the west of the nearest turbines (turbine 6) and other than the crossing of the existing forestry road taking access to the site from the B9016, little interference with this route will occur.

Attention has been drawn to the use of paths within and north of the forest by walkers/cyclists (including the Clashmadin Trail). As most of the forest tracks to be used in conjunction with the development are existing forestry tracks, access to these routes post construction will remain unrestricted. Temporary limitations during construction would occur. The required Traffic Management Plan covering both the construction and operational phases of the development address pedestrian safety at the site. Users of these paths would come within close proximity to the operational turbines.

The Council Access Manager was consulted on the application, and has not objected. He has commented that contributions could be made to upgrading or linking paths in the wider area, but as community benefit is now a matter separated from the planning system, any scope to invest local in path networks would need to be done separately.

Built Heritage and Archaeology (BE1, BE2, ER1 and IMP1)

Local plan BE1 will seek to refuse developments which have an adverse effect on Scheduled Ancient Monuments or local archaeological sites.

Policy BE2 states that development proposals will be refused where they would have a detrimental effect on the character, integrity or setting of the listed building(s).

Both ER1 and IMP1 require new developments to respect the built environment, which is inclusive of heritage.

It is noted that Historic Scotland nor the Aberdeenshire Council Archaeologist (commissioned by Moray Council) have not objected to the application. Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement assesses the cultural heritage and archaeology of the site and the impact the development would have. The photomontages taken from close to listed properties such as Letterfourie House and from Kirkton of Deskford (St John Church) demonstrate that the turbines would be sufficiently far (approximately 3.5km) so as not to detrimentally affect the setting of key listed buildings closest to the site.

The applicants in conjunction with the local authority archaeologist conducted an archaeological survey of the entire site in 2007. Nineteen archaeological features were identified within the site boundary but there are not thought to be any specific features near the turbines locations. A condition is recommended requiring an archaeological watching brief to be in place for all ground breaking exercises.

Impact upon Woodland (ER3 and E3)

MLP2008 policies E3 Tree Preservation Orders and Control of Trees and ER3 Development in Woodlands requires the effect on biodiversity, recreational value and management of the forest resource to be taken into consideration.

Much of the Forest of Aultmore was commercial forestry which has already been felled and the proposal is designed to re-use much of the forestry tracks already in situ. The site is identified as being under the ownership of the Forestry Commission so they would retain their remit in terms of woodland management and compensatory planting. The area covered by the windfarm has largely been felled, and once constructed, management of the forest would revert to the Forestry Commission who would replant throughout the on the area between turbines as part of a revised forest design plan.

Other conditions recommended such as the Habitat Management Scheme will trigger the land owner into defining how they intend to manage and replant the site.

Impact upon farmland (ER6)

There is no prime agricultural land affected by the application site as it relates to Forestry Commission land.

Electromagnetic interference (ER1(d))

Local plan policy ER1 (d) seeks to ensure that renewable energy proposals do not result in unacceptable impacts in term of electro-magnetic interference.

Consultation with the relevant bodies including Ofcom and relevant radio operators in the area has confirmed no likely impact on services. A condition is recommended affording the Council the means of control in the event of a complaint is received about the loss of television reception which also obligating the applicant to resolve any issues.

Aircraft Activity (ER1(c))

Local plan policy ER1(c) seeks to ensure that renewable energy proposals do not interfere with aircraft activity.

The National Air Traffic Service (NATS) has been consulted on the proposal and has raised no objection on air safeguarding grounds.

The Ministry of Defence has objected to the proposal on the grounds that the turbine will be 25.2km from, detectable by, and will cause unacceptable interference to the Air Traffic Control and Range Control Radars at RAF Lossiemouth. Following an extended period of consultation and negotiation directly between the applicant and the Ministry of Defence, a revised consultation was received in 2012 agreeing to a condition requiring radar mitigation scheme to be approved by the MoD prior to development occurring. This will involve investment in technical mitigation equipment by the developer and modification to the RAF Lossiemouth Primary Surveillance Radar and Precision Approach Radar.

Subject to compliance with the conditions recommended, the development no longer departs from policy ER1(c)

Decommissioning (ER1)

Local Plan Policy ER1 requires decommissioning arrangements to be made for wind energy proposals following lifetime of the windfarm being operated (typically this is a 25 year period). Several conditions are recommended requiring the developer to have in place (with the Councils agreement) a legal bond to ensure funds are in place to remove turbines, reinstate the site etc. Furthermore a condition is recommended requiring a review of the bond 10 and 20 years into the lifetime of the permission, to review if the fund is still sufficient to achieve the necessary decommissioning works.

Access issues (T2, T7 and CF3)

In addition to the main Environmental Statement a Design and Access statement was submitted which identifies the measures that would be used to protect existing infrastructure particularly during construction. It is unclear at this stage whether the turbines would be delivered from either Inverness or Aberdeen.

A number of conditions have been recommended should the application be approved to safeguard or re-instate any parts of the public road network affected by the proposed development. These conditions have come forward from both the Councils own Transportation Manager and Transport Scotland and cover the roads authority road network and trunk roads network respectively. A Traffic Management Plan is also conditioned to cover the transportation implications of the development, particularly at the construction stage.

In line with the MOWE guidance the turbines would be well away from any public roads, so the minimum safeguarding distance is observed (1.5 x turbine height away from public roads). The proposed permanent and temporary compounds would have sufficient space for vehicular parking.

The proposals therefore comply with the above access and parking related local plan policies.

Developer Contributions (IMP3)

No developer contribution has been sought on the proposal in light of the decision of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee on 18th October 2011. Accordingly, consideration of the proposal in terms of any required/proposed "Community benefit" now requires to be given separate consideration from the planning merits of the proposal.

It is understood that some discussion have already taken place with the local community about contributions to the local community.

Conclusions

Policy ER1 Renewable Energy proposals does presume in favour of wind energy developments where they meet a range of criteria listed elsewhere in this report. The wider development plan and national aims of finding alternatives to fossil fuel is also a met through this proposal. The large number of representations received (most opposed to the development) raise issues which are addressed in the above observations and where many of the grounds for objection can be addressed/mitigated. On balance, the benefits and mitigation measure proposed outweigh any adverse impacts of the proposal.

On this basis approval is recommended.

REASON(S) FOR DECISION The Council's reason(s) for making this decision are:-

The proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the Moray Development Plan and where no material considerations or consultations outweigh or prevented approval.

Author/Contact Officer: Neal MacPherson Ext: 01343 563266 Principal Planning Officer

Beverly Smith Manager (Development Management)

APPENDIX

POLICY

Moray Structure Plan 2007 and/or Moray Local Plan 2008

Policy 1: Development and Community

The policy set out below identifies the strategic community development requirements for the delivery of the structure plan strategy-

The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: a) the identification within the local plan of the business and industrial land allowances set out in Schedule 1 and the provision of strategic business locations at Elgin and Forres Enterprise Park and business park opportunities at Buckie, Keith and Lossiemouth; b) the encouragement of tourism development opportunities; c) the identification within the Local Plan of the housing allowances set out within Schedule 2; d) the provision of affordable housing in association with new housing development where a demand is identified in the Local Housing Strategy; e) the encouragement of low impact, well-designed development in the countryside to support local communities and rural businesses; f) sustaining the vitality and viability of town centres through the support of opportunities and proposals for retail and commercial development in accordance with the sequential approach; g) promotion of the strategic transport links as set out in Proposal 2; h) the protection and enhancement and new provision of facilities for community use, healthcare, sport and recreation; i) the inclusion within Local Plans of a policy requiring appropriate developer contributions towards healthcare and other community facilities.

Policy 2: Environment and Resources

The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: - a) protecting international, national and local nature conservation and scenic designations from inappropriate development; b) protecting the wider natural environment and local biodiversity from inappropriate development and promote opportunities for environmental enhancement and restoration where possible; c) working in partnership with the Cairngorms National Park Authority and other interested parties to implement the objectives of the National Park; d) restricting development within coastal areas outwith settlements to only that in which social and economic benefits outweigh environmental impact; e) providing protection from development to the countryside around the towns of Elgin, Buckie, Keith, Forres and Lossiemouth; f) conserving and enhancing the areas built heritage resources and their settings; g) supporting proposals aimed at regenerating the area‟s natural and built environment including good design; h) providing waste management facilities to deliver Area Waste Plan and National Waste Plan objectives and ensuring that new development is designed to facilitate waste management practices and promotes the minimisation of waste; i) promoting sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in all new developments; j) promoting schemes to alleviate flooding in a sustainable and sensitive way using natural ecosystems and features where possible and also restricting development within flood risk areas following the guidance set out in the Risk Framework in SPP7: „Planning and Flooding‟ and promoting flood risk management schemes to tackle flooding that threatens existing development and considering development proposals against the Flood Risk Framework set out in Table 5; k) safeguarding the area from pollution and contamination; l) promoting opportunities for the sensitive development of renewable energy and promoting renewable energy in new development; m) safeguarding resources for the production of minerals, preferred forestry areas, and prime agricultural land.

ED9: Tourism Facilities and Accommodation

The Council will generally support, proposals which contribute towards Moray‟s role and image as a tourist area. Proposals will require to:- a. be compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and natural environment, b. provide adequate infrastructure arrangements (e.g. roads, parking, water, drainage), and c. demonstrate a locational need for a specific site.

Developments built as holiday accommodation (e.g. caravans or chalets) should be retained for that purpose and not become permanent residences. Conditions will be applied to planning consents to control this aspect.

For caravan and chalet parks in countryside areas, visual impact and access arrangements will be important considerations. Proposals must demonstrate what landscaping measures will be taken to assist integrate the site into its rural setting, in addition to providing on-site amenity. Rigid formal arrangements should be avoided with stances/units separated to provide discrete locations/surroundings

Policy T2: Provision of Road Access

The Council will require that a suitable and safe road access from the public highway is provided to serve new development and where appropriate any necessary modifications to the existing road network to mitigate the impact of development traffic, and the provision of appropriate facilities for public transport, cycling, and pedestrians. Access proposals that have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape and environment that cannot be mitigated will be refused.

SPP17 details that there will be a presumption against new accesses onto a trunk road, and that the Scottish Executive will consider the case for such junctions where nationally significant economic growth or regeneration benefits can be demonstrated.

T5: Parking Standards

Proposals for development must conform with the Council‟s policy on parking standards.

CF3: Countryside Recreation: Access and Trails

Development proposals will not be permitted which prejudice rights of way, identified paths and trails for non-motorised public access, inclusive of routes from the statutory Moray Core Paths Plan and the wider Moray Local Access Development Plan. Continued monitoring of impact will be required in environmentally sensitive areas.

E1: Natura 2000 Sites and National Nature Conservation Sites

Natura 2000 Designations

Development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site will be subject to an appropriate assessment. Where an assessment is unable to conclude that a development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, development will only be permitted where:- a. there are no alternative solutions; and b. there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest. These can be of a social or economic nature, except where the site has been designated for a European priority habitat or species. Consent can only be issued in such cases where the reasons for over- riding public interest relate to human health, public safety, beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or other reasons subject to the opinion of the European Commission (via Scottish Ministers).

National Designations

Development proposals which will adversely affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI‟s) or National Nature Reserves will be refused unless the developer proves that: a. the objectives of designation and overall integrity of the site will not be compromised, or b. any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the site has been designated are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance

E2: Local Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity

Development proposals which will adversely affect Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Interest to Natural Science, Ancient Long Established or Semi Natural Woodland, raised peat bog, wetlands, protected habitats or species or other valuable local habitats or conflict with the objectives of Local Biodiversity Action Plans will be refused unless it is demonstrated that; a. local public benefits clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, and b. there is no suitable alternative site for the development.

Where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat or species of importance exists on the site, the developer will be required at his own expense to undertake a survey of the site‟s natural environment.

Where development is permitted which could adversely affect any of the above designated sites the developer must put in place acceptable mitigation measures to conserve and enhance the site‟s residual conservation interest.

Development proposals should protect and where appropriate, create natural and semi natural habitats for their ecological, recreational, landscape and natural habitat values.

E3: Tree Preservation Orders and Controls on Trees

The Council will serve Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on potentially vulnerable trees which are of significant amenity value to the community as a whole, or trees of significant biodiversity value.

Within Conservation Areas the Council will only agree to the felling of dead, dying, or dangerous trees. Trees felled within Conservation areas or subject to TPO protection should be replaced, unless otherwise agreed with the Council.

The Council may attach conditions on planning consents ensuring that existing trees and hedges are retained or replaced. An applicant will be required to survey and identify those trees to be protected within the development site. A safeguarding distance should be retained between mature trees and proposed developments.

When imposing planting or landscaping conditions on certain developments especially in rural areas, the Council will specify the use of native species of trees and will prioritise the re- establishment and extension of hedgerows and/or shelterbelts.

BE1: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and National Designations

National Designations

Development proposals will be refused where they will adversely affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments and nationally important archaeological sites or their settings unless the developer proves that any significant adverse effect on the qualities for which the site has been designated are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.

Local Designations

Development proposals which will adversely affect sites of local archaeological importance, or their settings, will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that; a. local public benefits clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site, and b. there is no suitable alternative site for the development, and c. any adverse effects can be satisfactorily mitigated at the developers expense.

Where, in exceptional circumstances, the primary aim of preservation of archaeological features in situ does not prove feasible, the Council shall require the excavation and researching of a site at the developers expense.

The Council will consult Historic Scotland and the Regional Archaeologist on development proposals which may affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological sites.

BE2: Listed Buildings

The Council will encourage the protection, maintenance, enhancement and active use of listed buildings.

Development proposals will be refused where they would have a detrimental effect on the character, integrity or setting of the listed building(s). Alterations and extensions to listed buildings or new developments within their curtilage must be of the highest quality, and respect the original structure in terms of setting, scale, materials and design.

The demolition of listed building(s) will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of retaining the building and that the community would benefit from the redevelopment. All applications for the demolition of listed buildings should be supported by a report on the condition of the building, a study on the viability of retaining the building in active use, a report on the steps taken to advertise and market the building and, the proposals to recycle existing building materials into the future use of the site. Any proposed replacement of a demolished listed building should be of comparable quality in terms of construction and design.

Buildings which are allowed to fall into a state of disrepair may be placed on the Buildings at Risk Register and remedial works to buildings in disrepair may be enforced in the public interest.

Proposals should be in accordance with guidelines laid out in Historic Scotland‟s Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings with regard to listed building consent applications.

EP4: Private Water Supplies

The Council will require all applicants who propose to use a private water supply, to mark the supply (and all works associated) to the site e.g. the well, holding tank, and supply pipe, accurately on the application plan to enable the appropriate authorities to advise on the environmental impact, adequacy, wholesomeness, capacity of supply for existing and proposed users and pollution risks.

EP5: Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)

Surface water from development should be dealt with in a sustainable manner that avoids flooding and pollution and promotes habitat enhancement and amenity. All sites should be drained by a SUDS system or equivalent. A Drainage Assessment will be required for developments of 10 houses, or greater than 100 sq metres for non residential proposals. Applicants must agree provisions for long term maintenance to the satisfaction of the Council, SEPA and Scottish Water.

EP7: Control of Development in Flood Risk Areas

Proposals for development in areas considered to be at risk from flooding will only be permitted where a flood risk assessment to comply with the recommendations of National Guidance and be satisfactory to both SEPA and the Council is provided by the applicant. The assessment must demonstrate that any risk from flooding can be satisfactorily mitigated without increasing flood risk elsewhere. New development should not take place if it would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or would materially increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere. Due to continuing changes in climatic patterns, the precautionary principle will apply when reviewing any application for an area at risk from inundation by floodwater. The following limitations on development will also be applied to take into account the degree of flooding as detailed in National Guidance; a. in areas of little of no risk (less than 0.1%) there will be no general constraint to development. b. areas of low to medium risk (0.1% to 0.5%) will be considered suitable for most development. However, these areas will generally not be suitable for essential civil infrastructure such as hospitals, fire stations, emergency depots etc. Where such infrastructure has to be located in these areas or is being substantially extended, they must be capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events. c. in areas of medium to high risk (0.5% or above)

i. in built up areas most development may be acceptable if flood prevention measures exist, are under construction, or are planned.

ii. essential civil infrastructure will generally not be permitted.

iii. undeveloped and sparsely developed areas are generally not suitable for additional development. Exceptions may arise if a location is essential for operational reasons.

Policy EP8: Pollution

Planning applications that are subject to significant pollution such as noise, including RAF aircraft noise, air, water and light will only be approved where a detailed assessment report on the levels, character and transmission of the potential pollution is provided by the applicant to show how the pollution can be appropriately mitigated. Where the Council applies conditions to the consent to deal with pollution matters these may include subsequent independent monitoring of pollution levels.

EP9: Contaminated Land

Development proposals on potentially contaminated land will be approved if: a. site specific risk assessments are undertaken by the applicant to identify any actual or possible significant risk to human health or safety, or to the environment and that any previous historic uses are not continuing to cause significant pollution to the water environment, and b. effective remediation measures are agreed to ensure the site is made suitable for any new use granted consent, and c. appropriate measures for the disposal of any contaminated material is agreed with the Council.

The Council will consult SEPA in respect of pollution of controlled waters and licensing issues arising from remediation works.

ER1: Renewable Energy Proposals

Renewable energy proposals will be considered favourably where they meet the following criteria: a. they are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and natural environment b. they do not lead to the permanent loss or permanent damage to, prime agricultural land, c. they are compatible with tourism/recreational interest and facilities, they do not interfere with aircraft activity, d. they do not result in an unacceptable impact in terms of visual appearance, landscape character, noise, electro-magnetic disturbance, watercourse engineering, peat land hydrological impacts, pollution, traffic generation or damage to the local ecology, and e. they do not result in an unacceptable cumulative impact.

Proposals are required to provide “decommissioning arrangements” to illustrate how the site will be reinstated if and when the plant ceases to operate. This may be enforced through a section 75 agreement.

Commercial wind energy developments should be located within a Preferred Search area identified in the Wind Energy Policy Guidance and meet the above criteria.

Policy ER3: Development in Woodlands

Development proposals within woodlands will be refused where this development would adversely affect the biodiversity or recreational value of the woodland or prejudice the management of the forest.

ER4: Forestry Consultations

All new woodland planting proposals will be guided by the Moray Forestry Strategy.

The Council will submit observations on planting proposals based upon the following:- a. conformity to the Moray Forestry Strategy, b. an assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the planting Scheme, taking particular account of contouring edges and species mix, c. the effect on water quality and water quantity, d. the likelihood of hillside tracks being formed and the implications of future forestry management on road and path access, e. the effect on natural vegetation and bird life (if identified as a SINS) and areas of significant biodiversity importance, and f. opportunities for recreational use, access to agreed forestry extraction routes.

IMP1: Development Requirements

New development will require to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced appropriate to the amenity of the surrounding area. It must meet the following criteria: a. the scale, density and character must be appropriate to the surrounding area, b. the development must be integrated into the surrounding landscape, c. adequate roads, public transport, and cycling and footpath provision must be available, at a level appropriate to the development, d. adequate water, drainage and power provision must be made, e. sustainable urban drainage systems should be used where appropriate, in all new developments f. there must be adequate availability of social, educational, healthcare and community facilities, g. the development should, where appropriate, demonstrate how it will incorporate renewable energy systems and sustainable design and construction. Supplementary Guidance will be produced to expand upon some of these criteria, h. provision for the long term maintenance of public landscape and amenity areas must be made, i. conservation of natural and built environment resources must be demonstrated, j. appropriate provision to deal with flood related issues must be made, including the possibility of coastal flooding from rising sea levels and coastal erosion, k. pollution, including ground water must be avoided, l. appropriate provision to deal with contamination issues must be made, and m. the development must not sterilise significant workable reserves of minerals, prime quality agricultural land, or preferred areas for forestry planting. n. where appropriate, arrangements for waste management should be provided.

Policy IMP2: Development Impact Assessments

The Council will require applicants to provide impact assessments in association with planning applications in the following circumstances: a. an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required for all developments that are likely to have significant environmental affects under the terms of the EA regulations. b. a Transport Assessment (TA) is required for developments that raise significant transport implications such as additional peak hour traffic, traffic late at night in a residential area or road safety concerns. The indicative thresholds contained in the related guidance to SPP17 will be used. However it should be noted that Transport Assessments could be required no matter the size of the site. Moray Council will develop its own thresholds and promote these through Supplementary Guidance which will be subject to stakeholder consultation before adoption. Moray Council's Roads Service can assist in providing a screening opinion on whether a Transport Assessment will be sought. c. a full Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) will be required for all retail proposals of 1000 square metres gross or more outwith designated Town Centres. For smaller developments the Council may require a retail statement to be prepared by the applicant. d. where appropriate, applicants will be asked to carry out other assessments e.g. noise; air quality; flood risk; badger or bat surveys to confirm the compatibility of the development proposal.

Policy IMP3: Developer Contributions

Contributions will be sought from developers in cases where, in the Council‟s view, a development would have a measurable adverse or negative impact on existing infrastructure, community facilities or amenity, and those contributions would have to be appropriate to reduce, eliminate or compensate for that impact.

Where the necessary contributions can be secured satisfactorily by means of planning conditions attached to a planning permission, this should be done, and only where this cannot be achieved, for whatever reason, the required contributions should be secured through a planning agreement.

OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS

The application having taken some time to determine, has seen three separate periods of public notification and advertisement allowing for representations to be received. These periods for representation ran in 2007, 2012 and finally again 2013 following the submission of further information and amendment of the application. All representations from these periods have been taken into consideration in finalising a recommendation on the application.

A large number of representations have been received (which predominantly oppose the application with a smaller number in support). Those parties who submitted representations (many objected twice or multiple objections from the same household) are listed below. Where several letters where received from one individual there name will only be listed once. Where no address is given this may reflect an online submission where no address was offered.

There have been 239 objections and 154 representations in favour or neutral towards the proposal.

Those grounds raised in support of the application are summarised at the end the objections/representations below.

A, A and G Burgess of Soughs Buckie Moray AB56 5JJ Bruce and Anne McLaren of Deskford Schoolhouse Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5UD Andrew and Patricia Strachan of High Blantyre Blantyre Farm Cullen Moray AB56 4UF W R Graham of Craigsview, Inchberry Orton Moray IV32 7QH Angela M Cowie of Strathspey Lower Inchberry Orton Fochabers Moray IV32 7QH R I Scott of Braco Hill House Grange Keith Moray AB55 6SJ Allan J Tubb of 20 Shore Street Golspie KW10 6TY Michael Young of East Balnamoon Grange Keith Moray AB55 6NN Moray Friends Of The Earth of Per Rod Lovie 35 Main Street Newmill Keith Moray AB55 6UR Dr P Victoria Spencer of Drumnoth Rhynie Huntly Aberdeenshire AB54 4HG Julie Jarvis of Fionn Taigh Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5YL S Geddes of 61 Main Street Newmill Keith Moray AB55 3UR Mrs A Strathdee of Boggyhillock Crossroads Grange Keith AB55 6NL Green Campaigns Limited of Mr Richard Claxton 6 Rowley Mews Pocklington York T Johnston of The Muckle Hoose Deskford Cullen Moray AB56 5UA M J Henderson of Clochmacreich Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5UQ V Brunsden of Blaemuir Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LE Dr Elaine and A T Leith Hedley of Braeside Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JB Richard, Sandra and Emma-Jane of Backies Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5UR John Aitken of Little Skeith Buckie Moray AB56 5US Mrs Mary Jesson of Orchard Cottage Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 2UA Arran and Lucy Sheppard of Rowanbank Glen Of Newmill Keith Moray AB55 6XB Mrs Margaret Castell of Little Cultain Fordyce Banff AB45 2XR Laura Stewart of Mains Of Skeith Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5UH Robert and Mark Waddington of Beech Bank Cottage Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5UB Michael and Frances Williams of Ardoch Mill Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5XX The Corrigan Family of Barone Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5YL James And Irene Shand of Tollhouse Cullen Buckie AB56 4SR James and Beulah Brough of 6 Connage Cottages Buckie Moray AB56 4AY Peter J Harvey of Glaswynd Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5DR Kelly, Laura and Penny Lithgow of Lower Broadrashes Buckie Moray AB56 5US Bryan and Ruth Amberry of Little Owl Cottage 19 Seafield Road Lintmill Cullen AB56 4XS Isobel D Simpson of 5 Connage Cottages Buckie Moray AB56 4AY Darrell Skinner of Lower Broadrashes Buckie Moray AB56 5US Geoffrey Williams of 4 Seafield Road Lintmill Cullen AB56 4XS J Meikle and J Hardach of 3 Cottage Cullen House Cullen AB56 4XW Michael and June McIntosh of 3 Connage Cottages Buckie Moray AB56 4AY Karen R Ainslie of 8 Burnside Lintmill Buckie Moray AB56 4XQ Alexander and Sarah Coull of Heatherbloom Buckie Moray AB56 4DY William A Masson of 1 Burnside Crescent Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5YF Alasdair and Grace Farquharson of Berryhillock Deskford AB56 5YA James and Isobel Simpson of 3 Connage Cottages Buckie Moray AB56 4AY Violet Anthony of 5 Craigmin Cottages Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 2JL Gordon Reid of 5 Craigmin Cottages Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 2JL Harvey Tordoff of Green Mead Rogate Petersfield GU31 5EQ Christine Sarinn of The Old Schoolhouse Blairmaud Banff AB45 2EJ Esther Mitchell of 33 Foundland Crescent Insch Aberdeenshire AB52 6LG Mr R J Durno of 9 Pinewood House Elphinstone Road Port Elphinstone Inverurie AB51 3UX David Grant of 20 Cuthil Avenue Keith Moray AB55 5AQ L Williams of Ardoch Mill Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5XX Alan Wilson of 10 Glebe Gardens Edinburgh AEH12 7SG Mrs Weyda-Werick of 8 Darach Road Pitlochry PH16 5HR S B Ledingham of Balgarvie 12 Fairsfield Road Lanark ML11 9EN Corrie Cuthbertson of 17 Anson Avenue Falkirk FK1 5JD Phoebe Marsh of Milton Of Fisherie Cottage Fisherie Turriff Aberdeenshire AB53 5RY A G Mowat of 3 Siller Street Findochty Buckie AB56 4QS Iain Todd of Sunnyside Ruthven Huntly Aberdeenshire Agnes Steel of 1 Cairnfield Place Aberdeen AB15 5ND George McCail of Ryeside 68 Gellymill Street Macduff AB44 1UX Colin Monteith of 11 Jamaica Street Aberdeen AB25 3UX A E McLean Ballen of Hillhead Of Teuchar Cuminestown Aberdeenshire AB53 5YL Doug Reid of 9 High Shore Macduff Banff AB44 1SL Mr G Lawrie of 12 Westdyke Place Elrick Westhill Aberdeen AB32 6QT A Strachan of 14 Buchan Place Fraserburgh Aberdeenshire AB43 9TX Ken Cole of 33 Brockholes View Preston PR1 4BH George Gardiner of 18 Wilson Crescent Whitehills Banffshire AB45 2LW W M Wood of 51 Chattan Avenue Stirling FK9 5RD Ross Marnie of 3/2 360 Victoria Road Govanhill Glasgow G42 8YW Mrs Janet Van Rossen of Redmoss Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JD Richard Lord of 31 Sweetcroft Lane Uxbridge Middx UR10 9LE Mr D Cochrane of 19 Howieson Avenue Boness Kevin Tobin of 13 Henryson Road Dunfermline KY1L 4OX Dougal Ritchie of 2 Mains Of Fortrie Auchnagatt Ellon Aberdeenshire AB41 8UY Albert G Fraser of 1 Thorngrous Place Aberdeen AB15 7FJ Ian Gray of Woodside 119 High Street Cummingstown Turriff AB53 5YH Michael Cowie of Laurelbank Richmond Road Huntly AB54 8BA Mr J Robson of Wardwell Bridge Of Marnoch Huntly Aberdeenshire AB54 7XE N Davidson of Dunvegan Settrington Street Huntly Aberdeenshire Edith Hamilton of 9 Macaulay Street Dundee Anne M Robinson of Tigh-na-Frauch 116 Knockarthur Rogart Sutherland IV28 3YE T J Robinson of 116 Knockarthur Rogart Sutherland IV28 3YE Cammy McKay of 21 Beattie Avenue Aberdeen J Hooper of 9 Muirpark Road Kinross KY13 8AT John Leishman of 19 Shannochpath Kemnay Aberdeenshire AB51 5GF Mervyn Smith of 11 Kenbourne Road Nether Edge Sheffield S7 1NJ Marion Koetser of 43 St Johns Avenue Brentwood Essex CM14 5DG Bill Roberts of Sealladh A'chlvaidh Whiting Bay Isle Of Aaron KA27 8PR K Dilkson of Woodend Croft Portsoy Andrew Seaby of 12 Pen Yr Heul Drive Sketty Swansea SA2 9JS P A Scrivin of The Old Schoolhouse Blairmaud Banff AB45 2EJ James Downie of 8 Morven View Road Gardenstown Banff AB45 3ZF Dr S Henderson of Clochmacreich Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5UQ Mrs K Smith of 11 Inchgower Cottages Buckie Moray AB56 5AB F Grant of Lower Drakemyres Keith Moray AB55 6RN A G Bell of Old Post Office Berryhillock Deskford Buckie AB56 5YA Duncan Gillies of 70 Back Street Newmill Keith AB55 6TX Stephanie Wilson of 207J King Street Aberdeen AB24 5AH Jan Walker of 207J King Street Aberdeen AB24 5AH Gaille Mackinnon of The Laundry Cullen House Cullen Moray AB56 4XW A Cortis of C/o Cortis School Mill Drybridge Buckie Moray George and Florence Shand of Hawthorn Cottage Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5ES John W Van Rossen of Redmoss Drybridge Buckie AB56 5JD Nicola McLean of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED Petra Cortis of School Hill Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JD J P Cortis of School Hill Drybridge Buckie Moray AB55 5JD Mrs Diane Mullan of NO ADDRESS GIVEN Mrs Barbara Hazell of West Balnamoon Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6ND Mrs Thelma Medcalf of Goukstone Croft Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6NJ Charles and Jean Hay of 10 Seafield Road Lintmill Cullen AB56 4XS Lindsey Morrison of Nether Blairmaud Cornhill Banff AB45 2EQ Ian Tuer of Tulliemet Pitlochry PH9 0NY Hilary Matthews of Greenwells Croft Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JY Peter M Macfarlane of 7 Burnside Lintmill Cullen AB56 4XQ Stephen J Millward of Croftgloy Deskford Buckie AB56 5UX Andrew and Fiona Gransden of Old Westerton Cottage Buckie Moray AB56 5AP W M McDonald of West Manse Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5YJ D Thomas Gough of Parkhead Farmhouse Ballindalloch Banffshire AB37 9BJ Mr David Addison of 30 South Street Aberchirder By Huntly Aberdeenshire AB54 7TS Alan and Susan Payne of Carnoch Cottage Buckie Moray AB56 4DZ Stanley and Helen Paine of 5 Playfairs Cullen House Cullen Buckie Moray AB56 4XW J Riddoch of NO ADDRESS GIVEN David Welch of 104 Main Street Cairneyhill Fife KY12 8QU John and Gladys Smith of The Hunters Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JB Mr and Mrs D Miles of 5 Cuttlebrae Cottages Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5HS A Manson of NO ADDRESS GIVEN Mr Ronald and Mrs Audrey Whyte of 34 South Street Newmill Keith Moray AB55 6TU David Scott of Westerton Croft Grange Keith Moray AB55 6TB J Morrison of Newtack Farm Crossroads Keith AB55 6LQ Rosemary M Greetham of Chapelhead Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LQ F Clayton of Allantown Grange Keith AB55 6NB J And W Oswald of Auldtown Of Balnamoon Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6ND Owner/Occupier of Cairnhill Grange Keith AB55 6SL N Donaldson of 4 Balloch View Keith Moray AB55 6LH Stephen Clarke of Kilbady Crossroads Keith AB55 6LX Angus McNair of Farnachty Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5AN Alvina McNair of Farnachty Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5AN J F And E M F Weir of Woodside Croft Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LD Mr and Mrs Stephen Medcalf of Goukstone Croft Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6NJ Mr and Mrs R Worthington of 15 Fern Drive Great Wyrley Walsall Staffordshire Rathven and Arradoul Community Council of Quarry Hill Drybridge Buckie Kevin Crosby of Buinnach Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5HX Wendy Crosby of Buinnach Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5HX Mr Remo Miele of The Hollies Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5HX Eileen Campbell of Corrimeny Tynet Buckie Moray David Campbell of Corrimeny Tynet Buckie Moray Mr J Smith of Spey Cottage West Street Fochabers Moray IV32 7DJ Louise Smith of Spey Cottage West Street Fochabers Moray IV32 7DJ Fiona Milne of Leitcheston Enzie By Buckie Moray Alex Milne of Leitcheston Farm Enzie Buckie Moray AB56 5BW R H Milne of Leitcheston Enzie Buckie Moray Leslie King of Parkhill Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LB L C King of Parkhill Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LB Carol King of Parkhill Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LB Tom Neill of Kingwood Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LB Gillian Neill of Kingwood Drybridge By Buckie Moray AB56 5LB Simon Jacyna of Moray Equestrian Access Group C/o Simon Jacyna Auchanacie Schoolhouse Keith Moray AB55 5QE Moray A Munro of Nethermills House Grange Keith Moray AB55 6SN L A Couter of NO ADDRESS GIVEN Mr David and Mrs Carol Cook of Greens Of Paithnick Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LR P & J Firmin of Bowie Croft Foggiemoss Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LQ A Walker of NO ADDRESS GIVEN Lee Halsall of Drumnagorrach Farm Grange Keith Moray AB55 6ST Mr D Plumb of Garralhill Glen Of Newmill Keith Moray Keep Corlic Wild of David Wilson (Chairman) 40 Dougliehill Place Port Glasgow PA14 5DH Steven Crosby of Birdslint Glen Of Newmill Keith Moray AB55 6UP Peter G Crosby of Birdslint Glen Of Newmill Keith AB55 6UP Margaret R Crosby of Birdslint Newmill Keith Moray AB55 6UP Fraser Ritchie of 8 Rennies Court The Green Aberdeen Mrs A Williams of Netherton Of Crannoch Grange Keith Moray AB55 6NA Mr C and Mrs K A Auld of Craigenseat Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LQ Barry and Christine Foster of Hillhead Of Starhill Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LT Gregor Ellingham of 4 Duke Street Portgordon Buckie Moray AB56 5RH Isobel Ellingham of Oridga Wellheads Clochan Buckie AB56 5HB Mr and Mrs John Robertson of Newton Of Letterfourie Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LB William Hay of C/o Stuart, Wilson, Dickson And Co. 145 Mid Street Keith AB55 5BJ Martin C Barton of Home Farm Letterfourie Drybridge Buckie AB56 5JP Neil Holmes of 19 Avonborne Way Chandlers Ford Hants SO53 1TF Barbara Holmes of 19 Avonborne Way Chandlers Ford S053 1TF Mrs PM Greenwood And Mr AA Kirk of Quarry Hill Drybridge Buckie Banffshire AB56 5JR Lynn Fairclough of Hill Of Balnamoon Crossroads Grange By Keith Nicola McLean of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED William Jaffrey of Ridgewood Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LB Linda Jaffrey of Ridgewood Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LB Owner/Occupier of Slatehaugh Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JD Susan Gilbert of Briggs Of Darbreich Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5YU Mrs L J Busby-Waltho of Lamplight House 12 Carridge Close Allrington Shropshire WV7 3PZ Barry and Christine Foster of Hillhead Of Starhill Crossroads Grange Keith AB55 6LT Robert Dawson Milton of Backstripes Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5LB Hannah Rowan Smith of 8 Rennies Court The Green Aberdeen AB11 6NZ Mrs M E Stephen of 83 West Church Street Buckie Moray AB56 1BS Isobel Card of East Brae Of Scurdargue Rhynie Huntly AB45 4HG Andrew I C Poyner of Shielmuir Croft Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JD David Dillon of Mill Of Towie Farm Drummuir Keith Moray AB55 5QD Stuart and Penelope Forsyth of Ardoch House Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5XX Mr A and Mrs M Innes of Bonavista Tochieneal Cullen Buckie AB56 4ST Sophie Duval of Findhorn Bay Caravan Park Findhorn Moray IV36 3TY Ian Chalmers of 9 George Street Portesssie Buckie AB56 1TL H Watson of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED Stuart Chalmers of 13 Bruce Avenue Buckie Moray AB56 1NN D Bridgeford of 2 Clifton Court Lossiemouth Moray E Bridgeford of 2 Clifton Court Lossiemouth Moray Andy Bell of Achmhor Roseisle Elgin Moray IV30 8XN Malcolm Potts of Achmhor Roseisle Elgin Moray IV30 8XN Richard McKimmie of 70 Maryhill Drive Aberdeen Andrew Kelbie of 18 Brentfield Circle Ellon Aberdeenshire AB41 9DD Linda Rosie of 27 Fairview Way Danestowne Aberdeen Ralph Givans of 5 Whiteford Road Pitcaple Inverurie Aberdeenshire David Milne of 35 Newfield Place Aberdeen AB10 6DH Martin Alexander of 10 Brandon Place Danestone Aberdeen AB22 8QP Gary Gerrard of 5 Townhead Avenue Inverurie Aberdeenshire Scott Enslie of 25 Wallfield Crescent Aberdeen Shaun O'neill of 104 Concraig Park Kingswells Aberdeen Kevan Newlands of Marshburn Fetternear Inverurie Aberdeenshire Alison Cumming of Raws Cottage Dufftown Moray AB55 4DR D Beel of Kenilworth Glenlivet Ballindalloch Moray AB37 9DB Isobel Wood of Fernbank Church Street Dufftown AB55 4AR Andrew Cameron of Davaar 17 Church Street Dufftown Keith Moray AB55 4AR Mr H Cumming of Raws Cottage Dufftown Moray AB55 4DR Claire Couttie of 1 Balvenie Street Dufftown Keith Moray AB55 4AB Margaret A Rosarid of Comely Bank Chapeltown Ballindalloch AB37 9JS Ann Higgins of Taigh-nam-feileadh Aberlour Gardens Aberlour Moray AB38 9LD R McHugh of Auchinliandoch Farmhouse Dufftown AB55 4DR Fiona McHugh of Auchinliandoch Farmhouse Dufftown AB55 4DR Ann Hewawitharana of 7 Fife Street Dufftown Keith Moray AB55 4AL Mrs M Hogg of The Schoolhouse Tomnavoulin Ballindalloch Moray AB37 9JA Mr G Haughton of 3 Mount Crescent Dufftown Keith Moray AB55 4BG Mrs B Clarke of The Shieling Spey Valley Drive Aberlour Moray AB38 9NU Mr L Ford of The Shieling Spey Valley Drive Aberlour Moray AB38 9NU T T Henechan of Cultenail By Craigellachie AB38 9RB A Edward of 36 Allardyce Crescent Aberlour Moray AB38 9PQ Anne L Forbes of Culhuinich Glass Huntly AB54 4YA L N F Forbes of Culhuinich Glass Huntly AB54 4YA Barry Hodge of 1 Corsemaul Drive Dufftown Keith Moray AB55 4EJ S Mason of Broomhead Kiminvie Dufftown Keith AB55 4JS J Goodbrands of Highfield Stephen Avenue Dufftown Joan Reid of Whinnybank Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JL William J Cook of Shielburn Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JD Carole MacPherson of Harebell Cottage Brisley Dereham Norfolk E M MacPherson of Harebell Cottage The Green Brisley Norfolk NR20 5LP Linda Rawlinson of Corriebruaich Braehead Longmorn Elgin Moray IV30 8RJ Gordon Rawlinson of Corriebruiach Braehead Longmorn Elgin Moray IV30 8RJ Mr Peter John Dale of Culbin Cottage Easter Buthill Roseisle Nr Elgin Moray IV30 8XN Andrew Gilbert of 5 The Poplars Easter Buthill College Of Roseisle By Elgin IV30 8XN Susanne Gilbert of 5 The Poplars Easter Buthill College Of Roseisle By Elgin IV30 8XN David A Smith of Berrybauds Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5HX J Smith of Berrybauds Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5HX Anne Young of Wellheads Clochan By Buckie Ian Young of Wellheads Clochan By Buckie Katherine Allsop of 49 Lesmurdie Road Elgin Moray IV30 4HP George Allsop of 49 Lesmurdie Road Elgin Moray IV30 4HP A Simpson of 16 Nether Dallachy Spey Bay Moray Pamela J Dale of Culbin Cottage Easter Buthill Roseisle Elgin Moray IV30 8XN Andy Brown of The Wedges Beach Road Spey Bay Fochabers Moray IV32 7PJ Moira Brown of The Wedges Beach Road Spey Bay Fochabers Moray IV32 7PJ Paul Smith of 11 Spey Drive Buckie Moray AB56 1BZ E E Clayton of Muir Of Holmie Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5HX Erica Clayton of Muir Of Holmie Clochan Buckie Moray AB56 5HX Helen Wester of Bank House Auchbreck Glenlivet Ballindalloch Moray AB37 9EJ Janet Dunn of 25 Fife Street Dufftown Keith Moray AB55 4AL C Beel of Kenilworth Glenlivet AB37 9DB Donald S Wright of Lochend Braes O' Gartly By Huntly AB54 4SB Mr A Morrison of Brunthall Turriff Robert Young of Old Post Office Clochan Buckie Paul S Robinson of Wellheads Croft By Buckie Pauline Robinson of Wellheads Croft By Buckie AB56 5HB L Mackintosh of Holmie Clochan Buckie J Jones of Emarlinfse Clochan Buckie AB56 5EQ Helen Robertson of Felindre Lintmill Buckie Moray AB56 4XQ Leonard Lodge of Mountabor Portknockie Buckie AB56 4PH Colin N Maclean of 17 South Bragar Isle Of Lewis Scotland HS2 9DH Carol Whitehead of Tom-na-Cruinnan Botriphnie Keith Moray AB55 5JR David Whitehead of Tom-na-Cruinnan Botriphnie Keith Moray AB55 5JR Sara Lindridge of Rinnesview Keith Moray AB55 6RJ W Johnston of 6 Cuttlebrae Cottages Clochan By Buckie AB56 5HS Deborah Bell of The Old Post Office Berryhillock Deskford Buckie AB56 5YA Owner/Occupier of Taigh-a-Mhuilinn Tynet By Buckie AB56 2HL James Stewart of Newton Of Edingight Grange Keith Moray AB55 6TE C Menzies of Kirkwood House Buckie Moray AB56 5BR George J Shand of Chapelford Buckie Moray AB56 5EY Alex and Eileen Shand of Mulearie Mains Keith Moray AB55 6RR Mrs Barbara Hazell of West Balnamoon Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6ND Stewart and Carol Gillies of Burnside Mill Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6ND Norman and Jane Anderson of Mains Of Paithnick Keith Moray AB55 6LP Karine Georgian of Tigh-na-Linne Kilchrenan By Taynuilt Argyll PA 1HG James B Duffus of Lundene Deveron Road Huntly Aberdeenshire AB54 8DU Anthony Jannetta of Ardoch Cottage Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5XX J K Van Zeller of 4 Granville Road Harrogate HG1 1BY M A Van Zeller of 4 Granville Road Harrogate HG1 1BY Ann Kay of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED J Gauld of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED Chris Clutterbuck of Deerhill Farm Newmill Keith Moray AB55 6UN Anthony Phillips of Tigh-na-Linne Kilchrenan By Taynuilt Argyll PA 1HG Christopher Mann And Elphin Rourke of 1 Connage Cottages Buckie Moray AB56 4AY G C and A E Smith of Redmoss Croft Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JD Elaine Aeldiscott of The Old Farmhouse Mosside Of Paithnick Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LS Gayle Readman of Joffy Hill 14 Main Street Newmill Keith Moray Archie and Sybil Simpson of South Fairhills Farm Lochwinnoch PA 12 4DN Sylvia Wallace of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED Marilyn Henderson of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED John Smith of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED Mark Duchamp of Partida La Sella, 25 E - 03750 Pedreguer Spain Catriona Campbell of 1 North Bragar Isle Of Lewis HS2 9DA Sarah Burchell of Upper Minnygap St Anns Lockerbie DG11 1HL Stephen Burchell of Upper Minnygap St Anns Lockerbie DG11 1HL Raymond Thomson And Morag Stewart of The Farmhouse Nethermills Grange Keith Moray AB55 6SN I H Lee of Roehill Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LQ Mrs Anne P Lee of Roehill Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LQ Trevor Koronka of Struiehill Cottage Path Of Condie Forgandenny Perth PH2 9DW Arran G Smith of 45 Flowers Yard Saxon Court Chippenham Wiltshire SN15 3BN Chippenham Owner/Occupier of Gardenhead Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6LJ Janet C Moseley of Lluest Bach Craig-Cefn-Parc Swansea SA6 5TH John Birch of Letterfourie Buckie Moray AB56 2JP Miss E R Birch of Letterfourie Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JP M E Birch of Letterfourie Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JP D J Birch of Letterfourie Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JP Reuben Birch of Letterfourie Drybridge Buckie Moray AB56 5JP Peter De Vink of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED Stephanie Wood of Braeside Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5YE Carola McRae of 51 The Muir Bogmoor Fochabers Moray IV32 7PN Jeremy Evans of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED George McRae of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED Lorna Lees of Lettoch Brae Glenrinnes AB55 4BU Fiona Lovie of 35 Main Street Newmill Keith Moray AB55 6UR Nick Carroll of NO ADDRESS SUPPLIED William Mitchell of Burnside view Moresteat Hotton Peterhead AB42 0RQ James and Agnes Mann of Toll Bar Goukstone Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6NE J & B Strathdee and Colin Sievewright of New House Nethermills Grange Keith Moray AB55 6SN Kirk Smith of Flat H13 Victoria Hall Bells Pottery 171 Kyle Street Glasgow G4 0JQ J J Rose of Invermay Cottage Nethermills Grange Keith Moray AB55 6SN Isobel M Graham of Craigsview Fochabers Moray IV32 7QH Mary Scott of 1A Abbotsford Lane Aberdeen AB11 7SW Mr Hugh Piggott of Scoraig Dundonnell Garve IV23 2RE Mr & Mrs George Shand of Hawthorn Cott Clochan Buckie AB56 5EY Mr Dick Carroll of Flat C 16 Queens Gardens Huntly AB54 8FQ Mr Patrick Carroll of 6 Craigroyston Lumsden AB544GR Miss Marlies Koutstaal of 6 Noon Gardens Verwood BH31 7XQ Mr Herbert Eppel of Coniecleugh Cottage Huntly AB54 4SL Mr Rodney Lovie of 35 Main Street Newmill Keith AB55 6UR Mr Ian Currie of Greenhill Deskford Buckie AB56 5UT Mrs Michele Kondakor of 19 Gloucester Close Nuneaton CV11 6FU Mrs Hazel Buswell of 4 Rushes Lane Lubenham LE16 9TN Mr A R Strathdee of Boggyhillocks Crossroads Grange Keith AB55 6NL David Wallace of 2B Station Road Keith Moray AB55 5DR Valerie Merson of 2B Station Road Keith Moray AB55 5DR Mr Nicholas Yeats of 21 Argyle Crescent Edinburgh EH15 2QQ Mr Robert Tucker of 28 Ellerbeck Way Ormesby Middlesbrough TS7 9QH Deskford & District Community Association of Per Hilary Morrison (Secretary) 1 Muir Of Squaredoch Deskford Buckie AB56 5YD Mrs Mary Currie of Lamlash 46 Lower Blantyre Street Cullen AB56 4RQ Mr Stephen Thomas of Dunrobin Burnside Road Lhanbryde IV30 8PA Mr Allan Chambers of 1 Wellheads Cottages Huntly AB54 4UX Margaret Luckwell of Burnside Of Aultmore Hill Of Maud Buckie Moray AB56 5YX John Luckwell of Burnside Of Aultmore Hill Of Maud Buckie Moray AB56 5YX Mr W Merson of Mid Skeith Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5US Miss Isobel Merson of Mid Skeith Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5US David and Lynne MacGregor of Ardoch Mill Deskford Buckie Moray AB56 5XX George McRae of [email protected] S Gauld of 9 Binview Road Cullen Buckie Moray Ab56 4UY Steven Daniel Smith of 1 New View Court Cullen Moray AB56 4XG Barbara Glade of 2 Tochieneal Corner Lintmill Buckie Moray AB56 4XR Mr David MacGregor of Ardoch Mill Deskford Cullen Moray AB56 5XX P Jenkinson of Succoth Steading Glass Huntly AB54 4YL of Corstott Glass Huntly AB54 4XT Mr Dennis Farquhar of 2 Tochieneal Corner Lintmill Buckie Moray AB56 4XR Katie Hanson of 6 Craigroyston Lumsden Huntly AB54 4GR Lynne MacGregor of Bridge Mill Deskford Buckie AB56 5XX Mr and Mrs McGowan of 2 Gordon Terrace Lumsden Aberdeenshire AB54 4GL Patrick Carroll of 6 Craigroyston Lumsden Huntly AB54 4GR C West of Howe Of Ashalloch Corse Huntly AB54 6HN K Skinner of 20 Park Street North Huntly Aberdeenshire AB54 8LH Michael West of Birchtree Cottage Aquherton AB51 0XH Deveron Cleaning Services of Unit 1 Buckie Ship Yard Mr Clive Coney of Craigenseat Farm Crossroads Keith AB55 6LQ Ms Mary Scott of Gate Cottage Cocklarachy Huntly AB54 4RA James Fairbairn of 10 Garthdee Gardens Aberdeen AB10 7SF Susanne Johnstone of Balnamoon Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6ND Dr David Toke of University of Aberdeen Aberdeen AB24 3QY Ms Ann Davidson of Ingleneuk Parkmore Keith Moray AB55 4DN E Johnstone of Balnamoon Farm Grange Keith AB55 6ND Michael Johnston of Balnamoon Grange Keith AB55 6ND Mr Peter Rawlings of 1 Burnside Of Law Insch Aberdeenshire AB52 6YT Mr T Branston of Old Post Office Drumblane Huntly AB54 6EN P Johnstone of Balnamoon Crossroads Keith AB55 6ND Mr Alan Beresford of 2 Seafield Street Portknockie AB56 4LX Miss Stephanie Wood of North Wing Aberdeenshire AB23 8XE Mr George McRae of 51 The Muir Bogmoor Fochabers Moray IV32 7PN M Strathdee of Bossy Hillocks Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6NL E Wood of Braeside Deskford Buckie AB56 5YE Mr David Strathdee of Bossy Hillocks Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6NL Mr A R Strathdee of Bossy Hillocks Grange Crossroads Keith Moray AB55 6NL Neville Wood of Braeside Deskford Buckie AB56 5YE A M Carter of 3A Seaview Terrace Buckie Moray AB56 1QQ Mrs Christine Veitch of 18 Highpark Road Coylton Ayr KA6 6QL

All objections/representations have been read and where material, given the appropriate consideration prior to the recommendation being finalised. Given the large number of representations, the main grounds for objection/representation are summarised and categorised as follows; Heading of objection reasons selected by objectors from objection/representation web link menu

Objections on the grounds of -

Affecting natural environment Contrary to Local Plan Drainage Height of proposed development Over-development of site Precedent

Grounds for objection by topic areas are summarised as follows;

Impact upon landscape character

Issue: The introduction of a windfarn would damage the landscape character in this area. Comment (PO): See the observations section of the report above relating to landscape and visual impact. The proposals are considered to be acceptable.

Issue: The turbines being located at a height of approx 260m above sea level and being up to 110m high will rise much higher than the summit of nearby hills the Bin of Cullen and Knock Hill Comment (PO): The proposal was amended to slightly increase the distance from turbine to Bin of Cullen and one the most northerly turbines, turbine 8, has been reduced in height to 90m. There is considered to be sufficient distance between the proposed windfarm and landmark hills so as not to diminish their prevalence within the wider landscape.

Issue: The visual impact of the turbines, and their prominence would be worsened when the forestry surrounding them is felled. Comment (PO): Since the application was originally lodged a large amount of tree felling has continued. The visual impact of the development has been assessed with the loss of trees as a consideration. The Forestry Commission as land owners would continue to operate the forestry use around the edges of the windfarm and in the adjoining forest.

Issue: The turbines are of such a size that existing or future planting would not screen them. Comment (PO): There has been no reliance on screening from tree planting in arriving at the recommendation for approval. The effect that road side trees have in intermittently obscuring the development from site has however been taken into consideration.

Issue: The visual impact of the landscape would be enormous and visible as far away as Ben Rinnes. Comment (PO): The significance and magnitude of the visual impact upon the landscape will diminish the further from the development you are.

Issue: The proposed wind turbines are ugly and industrial in appearance. Comment (PO): The planning assessment considers the magnitude and significance of a developments visual appearance as it is acknowledged that individuals may have preferences either for or against turbines aesthetically.

Impact on amenity

Issue: The large turbines would be visually dominant and result in the loss of amenity to residents and visitors. Comment (PO): The observations section of the report addresses the various affects on amenity, primarily visual but also matters such as noise, shadow flicker, etc. Its conclusion is that following the amendments made, and subject to the conditions recommended, the overall impact on amenity in not significant enough to warrant refusal.

Issue: The development would impact upon the peace and tranquillity of the area, discouraging those that come to the area seeking this. Comment (PO): Issues such as noise, shadow flicker and rural access have been considered and would be not at levels adverse enough to warrant refusal.

Issue: No assessment has been made of the visual impact and loss of amenity for the many cyclists, walkers and horse riders using the Clashmadin Trail which runs through the site. Their enjoyment would be diminished and the valuable amenity reduced. Comment (PO): The proposal would lie close to those using the forest for recreation. The level of activity being carried out in the forest would not be diminished and it should not be assumed that all users would be deterred by the presence of the turbines.

Issue: Communities living close to the windfarm could potentially suffer health costs from its long term impact. Comment (PO): It is unclear how the wind farm development would result in poor health.

Cumulative impact with other wind energy proposals

Issue: There already a number of other windfarms and wind turbines, operational and consented in the area, which leads to an unacceptable cumulative impact upon this location. Comment (PO): The observations section of the report addresses the cumulative impact issues of the proposed windfarm. It concludes that the proposed windfarm would not result in an unacceptable level of cumulative impact with other windfarm development, particularly to the east and south where there are larger number of turbines; this is due to the proposal occupying the interior of the Aultmore plateau away from settled areas and public roads.

Issue: Windfarms inclusive of Glens Foundland, Drummuir, Pauls Hill and Dorenell all link visually with the proposed windfarm or contribute sequentially to the excessive number of turbines in the north east. Comment (PO): The applicant updated their landscape and visual impact assessment in 2012, and from it sufficient separation is present between the application site and existing/consented larger windfarms. The distance involved mean that an unacceptable cumulative impact will not occur. Some of the more distant windfarm developments will only be intervisible from certain hilltops.

Issue: There are already several wind energy developments across the border in Highland that contribute to a cumulative build up of turbines. Comment (PO): The site is sufficiently far from wind energy development in Highland that cumulative impact, even when viewed sequentially, would not be significant.

Impact on habitat

Issue: Peat restoration has proven unsuccessful as has been the case from other windfarms. Comment (PO): The proposed Peat Management Plan has been accepted by SNH.

Issue: A balance has to be struck between appropriate development and conservation of the environment, the current proposal would allow wind energy developments to become dominant. Comment (PO): See the observations section. Wind energy proposals need not conflict with conservation and the applicants have had to demonstrate that no significant adverse impacts upon the environment would occur.

Issue: This is an important habitat for wildcats, which are increasing running out of habitat. Comment (PO): Neither the applicants nor SNH have raised the issue of wildcats in this location. Conditions are recommended to mitigate, repair or enhance habitat following construction of the windfarm.

Issue: The development would have a detrimental effect on fishing rivers. Comment (PO): The site is sufficiently distant from watercourses and rivers not to affect fisheries. Neither SEPA nor SNH have objected on the grounds of effects on the river habitat. Conditions are imposed to ensure that the water environment is safeguarded.

Issue: The positioning of large concrete structures on top of hills is not environmentally friendly. Comment (PO): The impact of the development upon Aultmore given it intent to generate renewable energy is, on balance, environmentally acceptable.

Issue: Windfarms should not be allowed to occupy the very few wild places left remaining. Comment (PO): This area has been designated within as an area of search for windfarms following a thorough assessment of various environmental constraints.

Impact on wildlife

Issue: The proposal will impact detrimentally upon local wildlife. This is inclusive of wildcat, badgers, foxes, pine martins, red squirrels and black grouse. Comment (PO): Subject to conditions, the development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on wildlife. The area being predominantly commercial woodland is subject to human activity and forest extraction already.

Issue: Building a windfarm so close the Speybay RSPB reserve and on a migratory known flight path would be disastrous for bird life. Comment (PO): Neither the RSPB or SNH have objected to the proposals. The potential impact on Capercaillie is being specifically addressed via a condition.

Issue: Much of the survey work carried out by the applicant on ornithology and other protected species was not properly conducted, insufficient and done at the wrong time of year. Comment (PO): The information submitted and proposed mitigation measures do afford the necessary protection to protected species.

Issue: Wild animals regularly cross the various roads leading to and within the forest that would become busy with construction traffic. Comment (PO): The construction period would be temporary and the development would utilise existing forestry tracks running through the site.

Impact on hydrology/water supplies

Issue: The development will affect the water catchment for the River Deveron and other water courses. Comment (PO): The supporting information and its assessment by consultees such as SEPA does not suggest that the development would detrimentally impact upon water courses elsewhere. The site and surrounding location is already host to a large forestry plantation where disruption to the ground has been present. The hardstanding and roads ways will remain permeable while the 13 turbine bases, will be dispersed over a large area.

Issue: The proposal would put at risk and contaminate various water supplies that have their origins on or below the site. Comment (PO): It is not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on water supplies given the dispersal and nature of the development. The Environmental Health Section of the Council who's function includes assessment of private water supplies, nor SEPA have objected to the proposals on the basis of its impact on the water supply catchment. Furthermore the conditions that would accompany any planning permission ensure a variety of method statements and mitigation measures to protect ground water, springs and water courses would be carried out or adhered too.

Noise Impact

Issue: The noise levels generated by the proposed turbines has been underestimated and misrepresented. Comment (PO): A thorough assessment of noise (both from the development and cumulative) has been undertaken, with specific conditions relating to noise, vibration and hours of operation proposed.

Issue: The noise of the proposed turbines themselves, combined with the other turbines approved or operational in the area will be excessive. Comment (PO): The applications provided an updated noise impact assessment to include the increased number of turbines in the wider locality. Subject to the conditions recommended, the Environmental Health Section do object to the application.

Issue: Infrasound could be damaging peat stability or structures within 10km of the development, but the developer has put no mitigating measure forward. Comment (PO): It is not considered that this issue or the evidence behind it are sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. The Scottish Government has stated on its onshore wind policy guidance that there is no evidence to support the claim that infrasound is damaging to health, peat stability or distant structures. It does not therefore constitute a reason to refuse the application.

Issue: Noise from the development could be disruptive to wildlife and domestic animals, including those horse riding in the forest. Comment (PO): Noise nuisance legislation would not extend to addressing noise experienced by domestic animals or livestock. The issue of disturbance to wildlife by noise has not been raised by any of the consultees with specialism in wildlife, such as the RSPB or SNH.

Shadow Flicker

Issue: Shadow flicker would occur affecting residences to the north or within 2km of the site. Comment (PO): The proposed turbines are sufficiently far from any residential properties that shadow flicker should not occur. A condition is recommended safeguarding against any affect.

Issue: Shadow flicker could cause epilepsy to those affected by it. Comment (PO): The proposed turbines are sufficiently far from any residential properties that shadow flicker should not occur. A condition is recommended safeguarding against any affect.

Contrary to national policy and the development plan/legislation

Issue: The local development plan states that development must be of an appropriate scale to the landscape in which it is set, and integrate into the surrounding landscape. The windfarm will not comply with the relevant policies Comment (PO): see the observations section, relating to landscape impact. Aultmore has been recognised within the previous council windfarm guidance (applicable at the time of submission) and the current wind energy supplementary guidance as an area potentially suitable for wind energy development. Where the landscape character type and specific location are capable of accommodating wind turbines, they may be deemed to comply with aims of the local development plan.

Issue: The proposal contravenes Moray Structure Plan in that it would not 'maintain and improve the natural and built environment'. Comment (PO): Structure plan policy 2 supports the sensitive development of renewable energy and for the reasons outlined in the Observations Section above, the proposal is considered to comply with the Structure Plan.

Issue: The proposal is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy 1 (SPP1) in place when the application was lodged, where the development fails to conserve historic, cultural, recreational and natural heritage assets. SPP1 also states 'Environmental justice requires us to recognise the cumulative impact of environmental disbenefits and work towards ensuring people do not have to live in degraded surroundings' Comment (PO): SPP1 has since been replaced by the 2010 SPP which has similar aims in terms preserving such assets. For the reasons discussed in the observations section of this report, it is not considered that the development is contrary to national or local guidance and policy.

Issue: The approach of encouraging wind energy is wrong due to its inefficiency, and efforts should be focussed on tidal, wave, emerging technologies or energy conservations measures. Comment (PO): The government guidance currently promotes the use of wind energy, which is reflected in planning guidance influencing this planning application.

Issue: It is contradictory that while there are tight controls on building two or three storey houses in the countryside, planning would allow 350 feet turbines. Comment (PO): The Moray Development Plan has different policies and criteria for different types of development.

Impact on historic environment

Issue: The proposed wind farm would be easily visible from and near the A listed Letterfourie House and its grounds. The development would detract from the setting of the listed building where it should remain the focus. Comment (PO): The proposal being 3.5km from Letterfourie house would not detrimentally impact upon its setting. There are very restricted views of only a small section of the windfarm from Letterfourie Estate.

Issue: The grounds of Letterfourie house should be treated with the equal status to a formal Garden and Design Landscape. The developers have not considered this. Comment (PO): The property remains outwith the inventory of Gardens and Design Landscapes, and its formal gardens/grounds, farmland and ancillary buildings are all sufficiently far from the proposed development.

Traffic and Access issues

Issue: The Balnamoon road should not be used as an access to the windfarm. Comment (PO): The proposals involve access to the site via the B9016 for heavy traffic with the Balnamoon road and the B9018 used for other lighter traffic. Subject to the conditions recommended, the Transportation Manager has not objected to the proposed traffic arrangements. A Traffic Management Plan will be required to further control vehicular activity at the site, during and post construction.

Issue: Use of the Balnamoon junction was cause unacceptable risk to residents using the same junction and has poor visibility. This includes children, dog walkers and disabled mobility vehicles. Comment (PO): The proposals involve access to the site via the B9016 for heavy traffic with the Balnamoon road and the B9018 used for other lighter traffic. Subject to the conditions recommended, the Transportation Manager has not objected to the proposed traffic arrangements. A Traffic Management Plan will be required to further control vehicular activity at the site, during and post construction.

Issue: The development would restrict access to the established cycle route running through the site. Comment (PO): The cycle route, other than during construction would remain open for use. A Traffic Management Plan would address this issue also.

Issue: The access to the site via the B9016 should be permanently improved given the level of forestry, radio operator and public visiting the forest walks, rather than a temporary access formed. Comment (PO): Conditions are recommended requiring the access onto the B9016 to be improved up to an adoptable standard.

Issue: The turbines should be set back from the circular access roads so they do not intimidate horses Comment (PO): The layout has been amended, but given the wide range of considerations applicable to positioning the turbines, it would not be possible to relocate the turbines with this issue alone in mind.

Issue: Safety of recreational users of the forest roads should be taken into consideration, given the likely increase in construction traffic. Especially where the site access crosses the core path. Comment (PO): The proposed Traffic Management Plan will address these issues.

Impact on tourism/business

Issue: People visit attractions, retreats or holiday accommodation in this area for the rural tranquillity. They would be discourage from attending. Comment (PO): See the tourism section in the observations section.

Issue: This development would deter visitors from coming to Moray (including Speyside) where tourism is the lifeblood of the local economy. Comment (PO): See the tourism section in the observations section.

Issue: This development would blight the Aultmore area, making properties unsellable also. Comment (PO): The development for the reasons identified in the observations section of the report would not blight this locality. Property values are not a material planning consideration.

Issue: The developers and work created go outside Scotland and Moray and create no employment locally. Comment (PO): The planning merits of the case are not dependent upon the origins of the applicant. See the observations section regarding economic impact.

Other general objections

Issue: The proposed development will interfere with the television reception for residences within the area. Comment (PO): A condition would be attached (if approved) requiring measures to be taken to remedy any loss of signal if detected and identified as having been caused by the development.

Issue: The development will lead to a reduction in property values. Comment (PO): The loss of property value (perceived or actual) is not a material planning consideration.

Issue: The borrow pits and turbine foundations will permanently scar the ground long after the turbines have been decommissioned. Comment (PO): Conditions are recommended to address in detail the decommissioning and restoration of the site once development has finished. As the restoration will involve covering and re-seeding the turbine foundations, there will be little lasting visual or environmental damage once redundant. It would be more environmentally disruptive to remove the foundations after 25 years.

Issue: Moray has already contributed more than its fair share to national renewables targets with the wind energy developments already present. Comment (PO): The extent to which Moray has already contributed to renewables targets would not be a material planning consideration. The issue of a cumulative impact as a result of various wind energy developments in Moray is addressed in the Observations Section of the report.

Issue: The proposal would do little for the local economy or create job opportunities. Comment (PO): Given the development relates to generation of renewable energy, the benefits would not need to rest on economic benefit or job creation. The benefits of sustainable renewable energy generation methods have wider benefits. There would be some local economic benefit, mainly during the construction phase.

Issue: Any further windfarms will guarantee that the east coast electricity line upgrade has to proceed, resulting in an increase in pylon heights. Comment (PO): This upgrade has already been indentified nationally as an infrastructure project irrespective of the current development being approved.

Issue: The design of the site is clearly to allow for massive future development of the site. The omitted turbines will doubtless be resubmitted at some point in the future. Comment (PO): This representation is speculative, as the application for 13 turbines is being assessed on its individual merits. Any proposals for additional turbines would be assessed separately under a further application.

Issue: The energy produced will be prohibitively expensive. Turbines are not green as they are extremely inefficient working only 30% of them time. Comment (PO): This is not a material planning consideration and the government advice is that wind turbines do contribute to renewable energy targets.

Issue: Wind energy makes no difference to climate change or reduction in CO2 levels. Comment (PO): Replacement of fossil fuel power production with renewable energy sources will reduce CO2 emissions.

Issue: The Forestry Commission are in breach of their own remit and mission statement by encouraging this development. Comment (PO): Any issues over the legitimacy of the Forestry Commission to become involved in wind farms is a matter to be addressed outwith the planning process.

Issue: The proposed windfarm would result in a breach of Human Rights Legislation in terms of the individuals right to a private/family life and enjoyment of their home/possessions. Comment (PO): The proposals have been assessed against their impact on amenity, visual impact and other factors. It is not considered the development does breach human rights legislation.

Issue: The development will be left and the developer will walk away and leave, while residents will be stuck with it. Comment (PO): It is speculative to say the developer would not remove the turbines once the 25 year consent period expires. Conditions are in place to ensure that a bond or other legal agreement is in place to make financial provision for the decommissioning of the windfarm.

Issue: This is an area used for training and low level flying by the RAF. Comment (PO): The Ministry for Defence has not objected.

Those supporting the application made the following points (summarised)

Issue: The proposal would contribute towards the Scottish Governments renewable targets and is needed to combat climate change. Comment (PO): The Moray development plan is generally in favour of renewable energy proposals upon this basis.

Issue: The site is off little value at present and is one of the most underused areas of land in Moray Comment (PO): The extent to which the land is used at present, beyond forestry timber production would not constitute a reason to allow the proposed development. Timber production and replacement natural resources would remain compliant with other policies and strategies of the Moray Council.

Issue: The marketable value and demand of timber is questionable. Comment (PO): This is not a material planning consideration.

Issue: The wind turbine would contribute to the natural environment by definition as it is a clean renewable energy source. This development would address climate change. Comment (PO): As previously stated, the benefit of renewable energy production is reflected in the development plan policies, and the application is being recommended for approval.

Issue: The development fits into the landscape and is well designed. This landscape has already been entirely shaped by humankind. Comment (PO): see the observations section of the report relating to landscape and visual assessment.

Issue: The proposal has been subject to long and comprehensive consultation with the local population. Comment (PO): The level of public consultation carried out, has been in keeping with the minimum required levels set out in planning legislation. The applicant has carried out a number of public events during the current and previous proposals for the site and the proposal has undergone several periods of public neighbour notification.

Issue: A nearby resident to the windfarm expresses support for the proposal and asks that those objecting on the grounds of NIMBY 'Not in My Back Yard' are not given unfair attention. Comment (PO): All representations are assessed on their material significance, with those for a development given no less consideration than those against.

Issue: With advances in wind turbine technology, noise is no longer an issue. Comment (PO): Noise conditions are recommended to ensure that noise does not cause a statutory nuisance.

Issue: The generous proposed community benefit would have a positive impact upon on local communities. Especially in a time when public funding is being cut. Comment (PO): This matter no longer constitutes a material planning consideration and cannot be use as grounds to approve the development.

Issue: The development would lead to an improved forest and moorland habitat. The Environmental Impact Assessment carried out has been carried out to prevent harm to local wildlife. Comment (PO): There are opportunities within the proposed Habitat Management Plan to improve habitat on site.

Issue: To save our planet for future generations, alternative sources to coal, gas and oil (which are finite) must be looked at. The Council needs to promote and approve renewable energy developments. Comment (PO): The benefits of renewable energy production are reflected in the development plan policies, and the application is being recommended for approval.

Issue: Windfarms do not discourage tourism, are soothing to watch and they often become a point of interest and a landmark. Comment (PO): The issue of impact upon tourism is addressed in the observations section of this report.

Issue: Developer contributions could be used to fund further research into alternative fuels, subsidising electricity for schools, or work with local companies to improve their green credentials. Comment (PO): Community benefits, local energy discount schemes and other similar initiatives fall outwith the remit of planning.

Issue: Windfarms have no more of an impact on the landscape than other infrastructure such as roads, bridges, airbases etc. which are accepted as necessary by society. The windfarm would in fact be preferable to the blanket forestry. Comment (PO): See observations section regarding landscape and visual impact.

Issue: Aultmore has been designated as a possible site for a windfarm and would make suitable windfarm site and does not overlook any settlements. This development would enhance the landscape. Comment (PO): The site does lie within an 'Area of Search' for potential windfarm development.

Issue: The development would result in significant construction contracts for Scottish firms. Comment (PO): See observations section on economic impact.

Issue: No objection to continuing to cycle and walk on Aultmore forest after the windfarm has been constructed. Comment (PO): Noted.

Issue: Wind energy is a safe alternative means of energy and supportive to the planet. It also has a low carbon footprint. Comment (PO): Noted.

Issue: The local community could feel involved in their own future in addition to being financial beneficial to the community. Comment (PO): noted.

Issue: The 110m high turbines would be in keeping with other windfarms in the area. Comment (PO): See landscape and visual impact assessment in the observations section.

Issue: Birds, habitats and wildlife have been thoroughly studied on this site. The Habitat Management Plan will help the capercaillie in the wider region. Comment (PO): A specific Capercaillie Management Plan is proposed in addition to the Habitat Management Plan.

Issue: Wind turbines are aesthetically pleasing. Comment (PO): The planning assessment considers the magnitude and significant of a developments visual appearance as it is acknowledged that individuals may have preferences for them aesthetically.

CONSULTATIONS

SEPA - No objections subject to various conditions and informatives. A range of method statement covering environmental protection, peat management and habitat management have been sought.

SNH - No objections subject to conditions regarding the need for environmental, habitat and Capercaillie management plans.

Scottish Water - No objection.

Aberdeenshire Council - No objection.

Moray Flood Risk Management - Conditions and informatives attached re surface drainage. These requirements have been incorporated into the conditions requested by SEPA.

Environmental Health - Approve subject to various noise conditions and informatives. A condition regarding shadow flicker is also attached.

Contaminated Land - No objection, informative only.

Transport Scotland (Trunk Roads) - Approve subject to conditions re delivery of roads on the trunk road network.

RSPB - No objection

Transportation Manager - No objection subject to planning conditions and informatives.

Access Manager - Core Path exists to the west of the site "fishwives road" and opportunities may exist to upgrade the link. Also possible contribution to other paths in the area.

Development Plans - Revised scheme now accords with development plan guidance.

Former Cullen and Deskford Community Council (2008) - Approve subject to optimum amount of economic activity occurring locally and the manufacture of turbines should be Scottish based.

Former Lennox Community Council (2007) - Objection on various grounds - cumulative impact, creation of planning precedence and network implications where such development would further provide justification for a major upgrade of the Beauly-Kintore network pylon line.

Former Rathven and Arradoul Community Council (2007) - Objection on various grounds - cumulative visual impact, impact on water catchment and water supplies, tourism, television reception, property values, impact on walkers/cyclists, shadow flicker, impact on national grid infrastructure, it would prevent forest regeneration and is contrary to Moray Structure Plan.

Deskford and District Community Association - Representation on more general grounds regarding the proliferation of wind turbines in the Deskford area, and raised various questions about community benefit and the distribution of funds should development proceed.

Keith Community Council - No objection

Strathisla Community Council - No response

Regional Archaeologist - Approve subject to a condition regarding watching brief.

Health and Safety Executive - No objections

National Air Traffic Systems Ltd (NATS) - No objection

Ministry of Defence - Extensive consultation leading to their withdrawal of objection subject to conditions requiring radar mitigation scheme and aviation warning lighting.

Civil Aviation Authority - No objections

Ofcom - No objection but defer to the various operators identified who require separate consultation.

Atkins Global (radio operator) - No objection

JRC (radio operator) - No objection

Historic Scotland - No objections

Scottish Gas Networks - No objection, guidance offered re working close to gas instillations, passed to applicant.

Scottish Civic Trust - No objection.