010 Issue 5 Wind Energy Response ID Respondent 835 Mr James Stewart 4 Kemnay Community Council Response ID Respondent 5 Mr Bill Pitt 836 Mrs Alison Stewart Mountaineering Council of 860 Mr Michael Morgan 8 Scotland 889 Mr Alan Joyner 15 Mr Richard Morris 890 Ms Sheila Wright 17 Mr James Bayne 928 Gourdon Community Council 24 Ms Dawn Gibbs 938 Dr. Sheila & Marcus Marsh 26 Ms Dawn Gibbs Mr and Mrs James & Louise 29 Mr Marius Anderson 955 Davidson 51 Mrs Rowena MacDougall Catterline, Kinneff & Dunnotar 956 Community Council 63 Mr Andrew Kings 1020 Mr Philip Duffield 72 Mr Mike Davies 1044 Ms Helen Kings 73 Mr John Stevenson 1046 Mr Ken Hood 76 Dr. Edward Hugh Morel 1056 Ms Lynn Simpson 89 Mr Lachlan Rhodes 1077 Mr Kenneth Hood 91 Mr Douglas Traquair 1114 Mr Mark Radford 92 C.P. Vadler 1118 Mr Ian Francis 100 Ms Jan Adler 1122 Ms Anne Mansfield 106 Mr Michael Taylor 1127 RES UK & Ireland Ltd 107 Mrs Donna Taylor Echt & Skene Community 1131 West Coast Energy Ltd 111 Council 1137 Mr Jason Hunt 112 Mr Peter Hales 1140 Mr Steve Wilkes 119 Mr Max Oakes 1141 Ms Diane Goldsworthy 120 Mr George Lumsden 1142 Mr Earnest Hurry 155 Mr John Paul Smith 1162 Frances Cowie 414 Mr William Rawles 1166 Mr and Mrs Douglas Morrison 441 Ms Liz Jones 1203 Mr John Owen 447 Mr David Hayhurst 1207 Ms Julia Martindale 451 M Cawthorne 1214 Ms Lorna Chapman 452 Mr James Cawthorne 1228 Mr Hamish Keddie 477 Mr Kenneth Phin 1232 Mr and Mrs Alan Murray 525 Mr Hugh Falconer 1235 Ms Rachel Shanks 571 Cruden Community Council 1236 Ms Fiona Manson 581 Mr David Morris 1237 Mr Michael Small 622 Mr Paul Scrivin 1239 Mr and Mrs Leslie Reid Mrs Irina Birnie on behalf of the 1243 G. Jones Regional Land Use Strategy 1247 Mrs Burnett-Stuart 638 Pilot 1255 Mearns Community Council 648 Mr David Dunkley 1293 Ms Rosemary McCafferty Mr and Mrs Ian & Rosemary 1309 R. Plumley 668 Nicol 1319 Mr Christopher Rushbridge 678 Alastair Struthers 1326 Ms Carol Bristow 691 Mrs Hilary Ridge 1333 Mr Greig Walker 713 Mr Chris Cullingworth 1340 Fred Olsen Renewables 719 Mrs Kirsteen Cullingworth 1346 Mr Brian Hill 722 Mr Richard Hammock 1360 Banchory Community Council 728 Ms Irene Rowe 1373 Miss Bridget Robinson 742 Mr John Thorogood 1377 Mr Rod McGovern Grampian Microlight Flying 1379 Ms Trudi Hoffmann 807 Club/Insch Airstrip 1384 Ms Caroline Hobbs 818 Ms Lorraine Jones 1393 Mr Edwin Gordon Page 1 of 16 1394 Mr Glen Chaplin 1415 Ms Julia Hunt 1557 Ms Rona Main 1416 Mr David Melhuish 1570 Ms Katherine Martindale 1419 Ms Gena Blaxter 1580 Ms Alison Wilson Marr Community Planning Jones Lang Lasalle on behalf of 1425 Group 1591 Burcote Wind Limited 1427 Ms Rhona Newman 1597 Mr Revor Hodgeson 1428 Mr Ian Gordon 1605 Mr Nick Carroll 1431 Chris Hamlet 1608 Mr Robert Bryce 1433 Chris Hamlet 1616 Mr Jonathan Latimer Crathes, Drumoak & Durris 1621 Dr. C. Chaplin 1434 Community Council 1635 R. B. H. Easter 1435 Ms Annabel Urquhart 1638 Mr Richard Orpwood 1443 Mr Bob McKinney 1639 Mr Richard Dixon 1445 Ms Christine Mechie 1646 Bailies of Bennachie 1447 Ms Laura Martindale 1649 Case Consulting Mr and Ms Tom & Sarah 1655 Ms Wendy Mouser 1450 Robinson 1671 Mr Ray Jowitt 1455 Mr Andrew McCartney 1679 Mr Richard Martindale on behalf of Laurencekirk 1467 Development Trust 1682 Ms Helen Bayne Inverurie Community Council on 1683 Arbuthnott Community Council behalf of Inverurie Community 1684 Baillies of Bennachie 1477 Council 1686 Mrs Lyn Harber 1478 Ms Judith Smit-Haffmans Marnoch and Deveron Valley 1479 S.K. Jackson Protection Group on behalf of 1481 Mr Alexander Spracklen Marnoch and Deveron Valley 1697 Protection Group 1483 GVA on behalf of INFINIS 1698 Mr Jacky Player 1494 Mr Eddie Breen 1496 Ms Margaret Whyte 1703 Mr Andrew Brown 1502 Ms Wendy Breen 1718 Mr James Bayne 1503 Ms Helen Jackson 1744 Mr John L. Eddie 1506 Mr Mark Keighley 1811 Scottish Government 1508 Ms Amanda Truscott 1814 Mearns Community Council 1532 Ms Mary Scott 1819 Bennachie Community Council Glenbervie & District Community 1544 Association 1823 Donside Community Council 1548 Mr Paul Mather 1825 ACSEF 1551 Miss Alice Robinson John Handley Associates Ltd on 1552 behalf of Shell UK Limited 1. Issues The wind energy topic deals with three specific topics: 1. The content of current policy “Supplementary Guidance Rural Development 2 wind farms and medium to large wind turbines” (SG RD2); 2. The Main issue 5 “Wind energy”; and 3. The “Spatial Framework for Wind Energy Development” (referred to throughout as the “Spatial Framework”). In the Main Issues Report Main Issue 5 Wind Energy suggested a revised policy for SG RD2 which incorporates reference to a Strategic Landscape Capacity Assessment (SLCA) as well as to the Spatial Framework. Page 2 of 16 The Spatial Framework was based on draft advice produced by the Scottish Government which suggested a methodology for the development of such documents, and advised “The process set out in this policy for preparing a spatial framework should be closely followed in order to deliver a consistent approach nationally and to help monitor progress towards Scotland’s renewable energy targets”. This advice was followed, but with the full recognition that there were risks associated with following advice in a draft document. New Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is due to be published in June 2014 and is likely to require modification to both the inputs and outcomes of the study. The Scottish Government notes that the existing SPP should continue to be used until the final SPP is published in June 2014 (1811). Depending on the change required there may be a need for significant change to the Spatial Framework. This does not invalidate the consultation (it has been an excellent means of focus) but may result in significantly different conclusions being presented in the Proposed Local Development Plan. General Views We received both support for and against the wind energy industry, with most commentators expressing negative or heavily conditioned acceptance of wind energy development. Development of wind turbines is observed by some respondents to be causing deep divisions in rural areas with a perception that there are too many losers and insufficient winners (441, 1746). The absence of a coherent national strategy on the location of turbines was noted as a reason to be cautious over a revised policy at this time (525). It was a common view that very strong protection, or even a moratorium, was required to curb the proliferation of wind turbines and protect residents from noise, loss of amenity, landscape impacts and impacts on property values. (1255, 1477, 1570, 1679, 1746). It was noted that turbine developments were divisive to communities and that the whole process was currently biased towards the development industry (441, 525). The future financial burden to the public purse from decommissioning and on-going subsidy was raised, although these are not land use planning matters (477). Impact on the tourism industry was also raised(1393). The economics of the development of the industry was questioned (1608). Some encouragement was taken from the pro-active steps proposed to modify policy (91, 112) but a prevalent view was that the case by case assessment of turbine applications had allowed over- development and landscape compromise (722, 1746) and that large turbines should be stopped (713). It was observed that promoting both living in the countryside and large turbines is a contradiction (1379) and that wind turbines were eroding the character of rural areas. A plea for a proportionate response was made (1478) In support of wind turbines respondents expressed the views that it was a better form of energy generation than alternatives and that there was widespread public support, and urgent need, for renewable energy (119, 678, 1203, 1235, 1340, 1445). Support from national and regional policy was referred to (1340, 1508). Small turbines were seen as a deliverable rural development opportunity, while large turbines had adverse impacts despite the significantly greater contribution that large turbines can make to energy generation targets (955, 1425, 1508). Current policy was thought to restrict wind turbine development, providing too little opportunity for this form of development to the detriment of local communities and making it unlikely that we would achieve the target set in the Strategic Development Plan for 2020 (1340, 1377, 1508, 1548). Calls were made for a separate planning process specifically for wind turbines ( 1142) and 3rd party rights of appeal to overcome deficiencies in the current system (1309). Concern was expressed regarding bias in the tone of the language used in the consultation (1127) The Scale of Wind Energy Development in Aberdeenshire Should be Specified. A number of respondents suggested that the scale of our ambition for wind energy should be the starting point for development of a policy and were concerned that Main Issue 5 did not present this option for debate (92, 889, 1467, 1508) or set limits on the number of wind turbines that should be allowed (441). The starting point should be the Strategic Development Plan target of 100% electricity generated by renewable means and the requirement from this that sites for large turbines of up to 400ha across Aberdeenshire should be identified, even if this does impact on landscape (1649). The existing policy was seen as flawed, because it was allowing turbines to be constructed in a piecemeal manner and in the “wrong” places (1506, 1333) and on the basis of Page 3 of 16 only economic arguments (1467). Some respondents were clear that they would support any measures to restrict wind turbine development (1503).