APPENDIX A

MORAY COUNCIL

Response to Consultation issued by Scottish Government on APPLICATIONS FOR S.36 CONSENT

PROPOSED EXTENSION AND VARIATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT

AT DORONELL, CABRACH, HUNTLY, MORAY (MORAY COUNCIL REFERENCE 14/02384/S36 and 14/02426/S36)

INTRODUCTION The applicant, Infinergy Ltd has applied for two consents under Section 36 of the Electricity Act, 1989 for the Extension and Variation of the previously approved Section 36 consent for windfarm at Dorenell, Cabrach, Huntly, Moray. The application includes a request that planning permissions be deemed to be granted under Section 57 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1997 as amended. The applications will be determined by Scottish Government Energy Consents & Deployment Unit (ECDU) and not by the Moray Council, as local planning authority. In progressing the Section 36 applications, the views of the Moray Council, as local planning authority are being sought by the Scottish Government: the Council’s role in the process is therefore as a statutory consultee. In responding with comments, the Council has a right to object to the application, or comment on the conditioning of the consent. If the planning authority objects to the development and the objection is not later withdrawn, or the objection cannot be addressed by conditions then ECDU are required to convene a public local inquiry. Prior to determination, Scottish Government is responsible for affording publicity of the proposal and taking account of all representations received on the proposal, whether from the general public or interested parties, and for consulting with agencies and organisations (consultees) over the proposal. Information regarding representations and consultations received has been made available to the Council from the ECDU and is summarised in the report. Internal consultation with relevant Services/Sections of the Council has been undertaken in order to provide a “corporate” response in responding to the consultation.

THE PROPOSAL

The Section 36 Extension 14/02384/S36 covers 7 turbines and 1 anemometer mast

while the Section 36 Variation 14/02426/S36 covers the remaining 53 turbines and 3

anemometer masts. Both are being assessed as one development and proposal for

the purposes of this report.

The proposed wind farm comprises 60 wind turbines, 25 of which would be

125m to blade tip and the remaining 35 would be150m to blade tip. Each

turbine would have a blade diameter of 100m. The majority of the lower 125m

turbines will be at the southern end of the development.

The ‘candidate’ turbine being considered is the 3.3mW Nordex N100 model.

Hardstanding areas at each turbine location for use by cranes erecting the wind

turbines and associated temporary lay down areas/parking. Crane pads to be

25 x 50m.

4 permanent, free-standing 100m high anemometer masts.

Formation of 38km of on-site new access tracks and turning heads, and 8.7km

upgraded existing access tracks.

A wind farm substation compound containing a control building, 150m x 60m.

A temporary construction compound towards the centre of the windfarm.

Associated landscaping, ancillary works, drainage works and engineering

operations.

A tolerance of up 50m is identified for ‘micro-siting’ turbines if they required to

be re-positioned.

Access taken via two possible access routes onto the A941, but once selected

only one is to be used.

The total output of the development would be 198mW.

THE SITE (comprising both Section 36 applications)

Located 8km south east of Dufftown, 3.8km north west of Lower Cabrach village

and 2 km from the northern side of the Cairngorms National Park.

The site area extends to approximately 2178 hectares.

The site would be accessed via the A941 running between Cabrach and

Dufftown.

The site is currently predominantly open hilltops and moorland. The site edged

red is bound on all sides by open moorland and hill ground apart from at its

northern end where two large stands of coniferous trees lie close to the site

boundaries.

The site topography is undulating with several high points including the Scaut

Hill (607m above sea level) at the north end, crossing past Carn Alt a Chlaiginn

(621m) to the Cooks Cairn (755m) to the south with Carn Daimh at the southern

end of the site. The wind farm would generally occupy and flank the summits

and ridge running north east to south west across the site above Glenfiddich to

the west.

There is one environmental designation within this site (Special Area of

Conservation – River Spey Catchment) and it also lies within the Area of Great

Landscape Value (AGLV) designation.

A large portion of the site lies within an ‘Area of Search’ for medium and small-

medium sized wind turbines as defined within the Moray Onshore Wind Energy

– supplementary planning policy guidance. The site also sits within the spatial

framework ‘area of potential’ for windfarms.

HISTORY

For the site

08/01200/S36 - Dorenell wind farm - Section 36 application for 59 x 126m turbines at

Glen Fiddich Estate, south east of Dufftown has been approved in December 2011

following a Public Inquiry in October 2009. It has consent to generate 177mW. This

application attracted a significant amount of public response to the ECDU receiving

objections from 646 individuals and other bodies including community groups and

the Speyside Business Alliance. There were also 615 representations in support of

the development. The Councils grounds for objecting originally in 2009 related to its

strategy for windfarm location at that time. There was insufficient justification for

overriding that strategy on the basis the proposal would result in an unacceptable

cumulative visual impact via the 59 turbines and access tracks. This response

triggered a Public Inquiry the outcome of which was the approval of the wind farm by

the Scottish Government.

06/00943/FUL - Erect one 60 metre met mast for temporary period of 18 months on

Site At Scaut Hill, Near A941, 8m South Of Dufftown, Moray. Approval granted in

October 2006.

08/00909/FUL - Vary condition 1 of consent reference 06/00943/FUL to extend the

approval with 12 months at Site A, Scaut Hill, Huntly, Moray. Temporary consent

extended in September 2008.

14/00947/APP - Erect six 100m guyed temporary wind monitoring anemometry masts at Dorenell for a period of 2 years permitted in July 2014 and now constructed. Elsewhere within Moray

02/02099/EIA - Construct 21 x 100m turbines at Hills of Towie, Knockan and

McHattie's Cairn Drummuir. This development was approved in 2005 at appeal and

is now operational. The windfarm is located 13km north of Dorenell.

13/02057/S36 - Erect 16 wind turbines (125m to blade tip) at Hill of Towie Windfarm,

known as Hill of Towie II. Located immediately south of the existing Hill of Towie

windfarm 13km north of Dorenell, these proposed turbines will be the subject of a

Public Inquiry in September 2015 following an objection by the Moray Council to the

Scottish Government Energy Consents and Deployment Unit in 2014.

04/02473/S36 & 08/00919/S36 - Windfarm Berry Burn, Altyre Estate, Forres, Moray

located approx 25km north west of Dorenell. Now constructed.

10/02092/APP - Six 125m high turbines approved at appeal at Edintore Farm, Cairds

Hill, Keith. Approx 16km north east of Dorenell. Approved at appeal in Sept 2012

and due to be constructed in August 2015.

03/01427/S36 & 07/02800/S36 - Rothes and Rothes Extension, 42 turbines now

constructed and operational and located 22 km north west of Dorenell.

07/02375/EIA - application for 12 x 110m and 1 x 90m turbines at Aultmore Forest,

south of Drybridge. Approval granted 2014 but not yet constructed. This site is

located 29km north east of the Dorenell.

14/01087/EIA – 6 turbines approved at Meikle Hill, Dallas, Moray in June 2015 but not yet constructed. Located approx 24km north west of Dorenell. 13/00615/EIA Erection of 4 wind turbines (Rotor diameter 80m) 110m turbines high

and associated infrastructure at Kellas House, Kellas, Elgin. Application approved in

November 2014 and is yet to be constructed. Located 25.5km north west of

Dorenell.

Pending consideration.

14/02090/EIA - 12 wind turbines (each with a maximum blade tip height of 126 metres) at Brown Muir Hill, Rothes, Moray. Application located 23k north of Dorenell and is yet to be determined. In Aberdeenshire

The two windfarms below are those closest to boundary with Moray at Cabrach and

are referred to in the applicants submissions. The applicants submissions identify

other wind energy development east of Dorenell which have been taken into

consideration where relevant, even if not identified below.

Clashindarroch windfarm 18 turbines at 110m to blade tip was completed in early

2015 and located 7km east of Dorenell.

Kildrummy windfarm comprising of 8 turbines, all 93m in height is located 13km south east of Dorenell. Operational. ADVERTISEMENT No formal neighbour notifications and/or associated advertisement procedures undertaken by the Moray Council. The responsibility for undertaking any publicity

associated with the S36 applications rests with Scottish Government and/or the applicant. Advertisements have been published in the local press in relation to the S36 applications.

Consultations Moray Council internal consultees Archaeology – approve subject to a condition regarding a programme of archaeological works. Environmental Health – no objection subject to conditions regarding noise, hours of operation, shadow flicker and blasting if required. Contaminated Land - no objections. Private Water supplies – no objections subject to a condition protecting one private water supply. Transportation Section - various conditions and informatives recommended. Conditions covering such matters as management of construction traffic, abnormal load deliveries, improvements to the public road and measures to protect the local road network during construction. Building Standards – Building Warrant required for control buildings. Moray Flood Risk Management – approve subject to conditions about surface water and drainage. Moray Access Manager – A condition requiring an Access Management Strategy is required. External consultees consulted by Scottish Government Energy Consents & Deployment Unit (those copied to the Moray Council to date as the time of writing this report). Cairngorms National Park Authority – ‘Strongly Object’ on the ground that the proposed development would have a significant adverse landscape and visual impact upon the national park and its setting along the northern edge. Transport Scotland – no objection. Are content with the Swept Path Analysis details provided. Scottish Natural Heritage – Object due to visual impact on the Cairngorms National Park and on the basis of the impact on Golden Eagles (unless conditions could improve the conservation management for golden eagles further reduced the risk of collisions).

Dufftown and District Community Council – The majority support the development should there be substantive direct community benefits. A “very significant minority” object to the development due to the impact on environmental, landscape, built heritage, the geographic scale of the development and its impact upon the Cairngorms National Park. Scottish Water – no objections subject to Drainage Impact Assessment being undertaken. Forestry Commission – No objection given the relatively limited impact on forestry. Ministry of Defence – Approve subject to conditions about mitigation with RAF Buchan and for aviation warning lighting. SEPA – Approve subject to various conditions including the need for a construction management plan. Crown Estate – No objections.

Aberdeen International Airport – No objection.

NATS (civil air traffic control) – Objection on the grounds of conflict with Alanshill

primary radar, but remain positively engaged with the developer regarding working

towards mitigation measures.

British Horse Society – no objection subject to consideration being given to

equestrian access needs by the developer.

JRC (radio operator) – No objection

Spey Fisheries Board – No objection as concerns regarding Spey tributaries will be

addressed by conditions of SEPA and the updated peat assessment.

Openreach (British Telecom) – No objection, no effect on network.

Mountaineering Council of Scotland – No objections on the basis that any

damage was done by the original consent would not be significantly different under

the current proposal.

Marine Scotland – No objection, but offer advice on the impact on fisheries and

some of the infrastructure close to watercourses.

Visit Scotland – No objection, but comment that the implications upon the

landscape in terms of tourism be given full consideration.

Historic Scotland - No objection following a reduction in the number of turbines at

the northern end of the windfarm (visible form Auchindoun Castle).

Scotways (Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society) – The proposal should

be refused as it further damages the natural beauty of this area and compounds a

previously poor decision.

RSPB – Objection due to high mortality rate on Raptors. Agreement over

conservation/habitat management solution could not be reached.

John Muir Trust – Object on the basis of the worsened impact on wild land and

upon the wider national proliferation up windfarms.

OBJECTIONS/REPRESENTATIONS The Council’s website advised that Moray Council is not the determining authority for these Section 36 applications and therefore any party wishing to comment on the proposal was advised to forward any representations direct to the Scottish Government Energy Consents & Deployment Unit (ECDU). In accordance with the Data Protection Act the ECDU has already removed the names and addresses of some of the individual objectors. Those lodged on behalf of community/business groups were not redacted to the same degree. The ECDU has advised that in terms of all representations submitted, there were:

A total of 8 representations were received from individual members of the public, 3 in opposition and 5 supporting the proposal. There were substantial detailed objections lodged by the Speyside Business Alliance and the Cabrach Community Association. OBSERVATIONS The Moray Council has been asked to consider two Section 36 applications (for variation and extension of the previously approved wind farm at Dorenell) which are both assessed under the same Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Environmental Statement (ES) and other supporting documents such as a Planning Statement, Statement on Community Engagement and a Non Technical Summary. The reason for two Section 36 applications coming forward was for legal reasons regarding subsidies whereby the Variation S36 equates to a similar output of electricity (177mW) as the consented Section 36 scheme. The Extension S36 effectively covers the additional output of the windfarm (21mW) that would result if both applications are successful. The combined site plans for both occupy the same site as was previously considered under the 2008 Section 36 application for the original Dorenell windfarm. Planning Policy And Guidance Context

For consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, the decision-making

process specified under Section 25 and 37 (2) of The Town & Country Planning

(Scotland) Act 1997, as amended is not a statutory requirement. The local

development plan would remain however a significant material consideration, but

does not take primacy as would be case for a planning application. It and all other

material considerations are given the appropriate weighting in the consideration of

the Section 36 consultation requests from the ECDU.

For Moray, the Development Plan comprises the recently adopted Moray Local

Development Plan 2015 (MLDP).

Renewable Energy Policy considerations

Policy frameworks at EU, UK and Scottish levels strongly favour the use of

renewable energy, the main driver being the need to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and dependence on fossil fuels in order to combat climate change, and

the requirement to fill the resulting energy gap with low carbon alternatives including

electricity generation from on-shore renewables. The Scottish Government has set

interim targets of having 50% of Scottish electricity generated via renewable sources

by 2015 and this target is close to being realised. The newly adopted Moray Local

Development Plan 2015 reflects that approach in terms of its approach to

sustainable growth and climate change.

National Planning Framework 3 (NPF) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014) NPF3 identifies the need for the planning system to facilitate the transition towards a low carbon economy, and for Scotland to capitalise on its considerable renewable energy resource including onshore wind. NPF3 advises that SPP (2014) sets out the required approach for spatial frameworks to guide new wind energy development to appropriate locations. Generally, the proposal is consistent with the aims and provisions of NPF3. SPP introduces a (new) presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development and that the planning system should support economically, environmentally and socially sustainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits of a proposal over the longer-term. The aim is to achieve the right development in the right place: it is not to allow development at any cost (paragraph 29). The SPP presumption in favour of sustainable development is reflected in the recently adopted MLDP. However, the determination of the applications should take into account any adverse impact(s) which significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when applied against the wider policies of SPP (paragraph 32 and 33). SPP requires development plans to set out a spatial framework for all scales of wind farm identifying areas likely to be the most appropriate for on-shore wind farms. In SPP terms, this proposal would fall within "Group 3" i.e. areas with potential for wind farm development (i.e. not Group 1 and 2 areas where wind farms are not acceptable or where land requires special protection) and where wind farms are likely to be acceptable subject to detailed consideration against identified policy and

criteria which vary relative to the scale of the proposal and characteristics of the area. As noted above, the criteria identified in SPP are similar to, but less thorough, those identified within policy ER1 and MOWE and the Council is reviewing its supplementary guidance to identify (in SPP terms) areas likely to be the most appropriate for on-shore wind farms. This will include a review of the MLCS, the use of which are considered appropriate and provide greater certainty in identifying opportunities where Group 2 and 3 developments may be located. Notwithstanding the requirements of SPP, the MOWE and MLCS remain as material considerations to be taken into account in the determination of applications with the weight accorded to be determined by the Council. SPP highlights the potential to realise community benefits from proposed wind farms which are considered to be acceptable. As the Moray Council have previously taken the decision to remove this issue from its consideration of wind energy proposals it will not be discussed in depth below, however it understood that separate discussions have taken place negotiating a fiscal contribution per mW towards community projects, funds, groups etc.

Scottish Government Online Renewable Advice (updated 2013)

From February 2011, the Scottish Government introduced web-based renewable

advice, replacing Planning Advice Note (PAN 45) – Renewable Energy Technologies

(revised in 2002) and the supporting Annex 2: Spatial Frameworks (2008). The

online advice is intended to offer guidance on new technologies and processes and

clarifies the respective roles of all parties in enabling development.

The guidance indicates that planning authorities should provide greater clarity on

where groups of wind turbines can be located, ensuring that a spatial framework for

wind farms over 20 MW be set out in the development plan, address the potential

below 20 MW where appropriate, and detail criteria to be applied in assessing wind

turbine applications.

In considering landscape impacts of wind farms when determining planning

applications, the guidance recognises that the receiving landscape features and the

design of the development can play a significant role in ensuring the proposals are

integrated into the landscape setting where “the ability of the landscape to absorb

development often depends largely on features of landscape character such as

landform, ridges, hills, valleys and vegetation. This can also be influenced by careful

siting and the skills of the designer.”

In relation to the potential for adverse impacts on wildlife and habitats, the guidance

also identifies that wind farm proposals may have beneficial effects through

opportunities to introduce environmental improvement through land management,

land restoration and habitat creation, as part of a development scheme. Other

criteria identified in the guidance to be assessed in the determination of wind farm

proposals include impacts on communities (as a result of shadow flicker, noise,

electro-magnetic interference and ice throw), aviation and other defence matters,

road traffic impacts and cumulative impacts.

Other information and guidance taken into consideration.

Together with other Planning Advice Notes (PAN) prepared by Scottish Government,

other agencies/organisations including SNH and SEPA have published a range of

planning advice and good practice guidance relating to the development of wind

farms. A number of these other documents have been used to inform the

development and are identified within the applicants Environmental Statement (ES).

Whilst the site has not been formally classified by SNH as wild land upon the 2014

Wild Land areas map, the site is clearly host to many of the characteristics of wild

land. It therefore has no status as wild land, but the significance of its isolation in

terms habitat, amenity value are assessed elsewhere in this report.

The ECDU have also produced a guidance note to support the process for applying

for variations of Section 36 consents of the Electricity Act for Generating Stations in

Scotland.

Moray Local Development Plan 2015 (MLDP)

MLDP Policy ER1 Renewable Energy Proposals will favourably consider renewable

energy proposals which have regard to the spatial framework and will be determined

by assessment of the proposal including its benefits and the extent to which they

avoid or mitigate any unacceptable significant adverse impacts, in particular for

landscape and visual impacts the extent to which it addresses the MLCS, whether

the landscape is capable of accommodating the development without significant

detrimental impact on landscape character or visual amenity and the proposal is

appropriate to the scale and character of its setting whilst respecting the features of

the site and the wider environment. In terms of cumulative impact, account will be

taken of any detrimental impact from two or more developments and the potential for

mitigation.

Policy E6 National Parks and National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) only permits

development affecting national parks and national scenic areas where their integrity

and qualities of those areas are not compromised or outweighed by benefits of

national importance.

Policy E7 Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and impact upon the wider

landscape provides for refusal of development having significant adverse effects

upon Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) unless they incorporate high

standards and do not adversely affect landscape character and the qualities of the

area and during assessment reference will be made to the Moray Landscape

Capacity Study (MLCS).

Moray Onshore Wind Energy: Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance 2013

(MOWE)

The MOWE sets out the Council’s approach to considering and determining planning

applications or making observations on proposals to Scottish Government and 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 2010 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. 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.

Assessment of The Proposal

Pre Application Consultation (PAC)

The two Section 36 applications have been submitted with a supporting

Environmental Statement including a Statement on Community consultation. The

applicants have been influenced by the Moray Councils ‘Pre-application Consultation

Guidance Note’ online and other guidance about community engagement (Planning

Advice Note 3/2010)

Following advertisements in the Midweek Extra and Northern Scot in June 2014 and

distribution of newsletters (around 2000) to the wider community, issued press

releases to the Northern Scot and Press and Journal two rounds public exhibitions

were held:

Grouse Inn, Cabrach in October 2013/June 2014; and

Mortlach Memorial Hall, Dufftown in October 2013/June 2014.

55 people attended the exhibitions in 2013 and 32 people attended the exhibitions in

2014. Previous exhibitions had been held in the same venues in October 2013.

The applicants have used their website as one source of information in addition to

contacting individuals/groups directly.

Principle of Development

At a national level there is strong Scottish Government support from NPF3, SPP

2014 and online advice to promote further renewable energy proposals to achieve

specified targets. The proposed variation and extension would be consistent with

the UK and Scottish Government’s energy policy. Delivery of the proposed capacity

approximately 200 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.

The Planning Statement and Chapter 6 Renewable Energy and Carbon Balance of

the Environmental Statement (ES) prepared by Infinergy considers the justification

for continuing to increase wind farm capacity within Scotland as a material

consideration of considerable weight in the determination of this application, where

the proposal is considered to accord with, and draw considerable support from these

national policy matters in terms of the need for, and benefits from the proposed wind

farm variation and expansion. This case for seeing an increased benefit from the

consented output of 177mW up to 198mW with the addition of only 1 turbine over the

consented scheme for 59 turbines is a strong one. Whilst these interests are noted,

this should not be at the expense of local considerations and any determination by

Scottish Government must also have regard to the latter.

Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impact (Policy PP1, ER1, E6, E7, IMP1

and MOWE)

Policy PP1 Sustainable Economic Growth supports proposals that contribute to the

transition of Moray towards a low carbon economy where the quality of the natural

and built environment is safeguarded. Therefore compliance with this policy is

reliant upon safeguards towards the environment. Clearly the promotion of wind

energy would and its supply to the national grid would contribute towards the aim of

a low carbon economy.

Policy E6 National Parks and National Scenic Areas (NSA) seeks to safeguard areas

of nationally important landscapes, including National Parks from inappropriate

development. It is presumed that any impact upon the Cairngorms National Park to

the south of the site will be commented upon directly by Park Authority as a

consultee of the ECDU. It is further noted that they are now advised on Landscape

and Visual Impact Assessment matters by Scottish Natural Heritage, so it is not

intended to duplicate their input. This does not otherwise diminish the Moray

Councils commitment to safeguarding the National Parks integrity from inappropriate

development near is boundaries as is required by E6.

Policy E7 Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and impacts upon the wider

landscape seeks to ensure that proposals will not have a significant adverse effect

on the landscape character of the area (in the case of wind energy proposals the

assessment of landscape impact will be made with reference to the terms of the

Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study).

Policy IMP1 (a) seeks to ensure that new developments are appropriate to the

landscape character of the surrounding area and (b) that development is integrated

into the surrounding landscape.

Landscape impact

A balance has to be struck between the inevitable impact the turbines would have

upon this landscape and acknowledging the established presence of similar turbines

nearby and the already consented scheme. While the 2012 MLCS states that this

type of landscape would be sensitive to larger turbines, it does acknowledge within

its baseline assessment that a consented wind farm scheme at Dorenell already

potentially exists. It does state that the scope to extend Dorenell (as consented)

may be limited due to the cumulative effects that may arise in conjunction with other

consented windfarms such as Clashindarroch to the east.

It is noted that few properties lie within 1km of the turbines, where guidance within

the MOWE stipulates that a buffer of 1km from large turbines should be met.

However, the properties involved lie within the application estate, or are derelict.

Noteably Blackwater Lodge whilst on the eastern flanks of Scaut Hill is largely intact,

is clearly unoccupied and in need of renovation. It is noted the development lies

more than 2km west from the settlement of Lower and Upper Cabrach which is the

minimum distance to settlements recommended by the MOWE. It is noted however

for the MDLP 2015 the rural community boundaries have been left undefined, but are

still a sufficient distance from the windfarm so as not to restrict regeneration on those

immediate areas.

The revised extension and variation of Dorenell windfarm are located in the Open

Uplands with Settled Glens (10b) landscape character type identified in the capacity

study (MLCS). This landscape character type extends across lower rounded hills

which form the eastern boundary of Moray. These hills contain the elevated shallow

bowl of the Cabrach and the upper valley of the Deveron. Steeper slopes between

Black Water Glen and Glen Fiddich create a transition between this and the

neighbouring Open Uplands with Steep Slopes (10a) character type. The capacity

study identified the following key landscape and visual constraints (of relevance to

this proposal) in this landscape character type:

The shallow farmed and settled basin of the Cabrach and the settled valley of

the upper Deveron, where the scale of the landscape is reduced by the

presence of the land cover pattern and settlement

The narrow extent of this character type to the north, where it provides the

context for more low-lying and smaller scale landscapes

The elevated ‘sense of arrival’ panoramic views crossing into Moray from the

east over high passes on the A941 and the A920.

The consented development would have a significant adverse effect on this

landscape character type in terms of the first and third key constraints outlined

above. The revised/extended proposal will exacerbate the effect of the consented

development on the Open Uplands with Settled Glens landscape character type due

to the increased height of turbines which would dominate the limited relief of the hills

containing the shallow basin of the Cabrach (only a 200m height differential exists

between the farmed basin and the hill tops). The dramatic ‘sense of arrival’

experienced from the A941 on the threshold to Moray would be further eroded by

this proposal which would form a more dominant skyline feature because of the

increased height and extent of turbines (see also comments on visual impacts from

the A941 below).

The revised/extended proposal would also have a greater effect on smaller scale

landscapes around Glen Fiddich in the north but also potentially on Glen Rinnes to

the west and this is addressed with regard to effects on the adjacent Broad Farmed

Valley landscape character type below. The proposal would be sited on the outer

edge of the 10 b at the transition with the 10a).

The Open Uplands with Steep Slopes (10a) landscape character type abuts the

proposed development site. This landscape comprises generally higher and more

pronounced hills including Ben Rinnes with steeper and often dramatic slopes

extending up to narrow ridges or complex summits. The consented Development

would already incur significant effects on parts of the Open Uplands with Steep

Slopes with these principally comprising effects on views from the landmark hills of

Ben Rinnes and the smaller but pronounced hills of Meikle Conval and Little Conval

and on the sense of wildness which is associated with this little developed landscape

character type. The current proposal to vary and extend the wind farm would not

noticeably exacerbate these already significant adverse effects on the sense of

wildness associated with the Open Uplands with Steep Slopes or on the setting of

Ben Rinnes and other landmark hills within this landscape character type.

The Broad Farmed Valley (7) landscape character type covers Glen Fiddich and

Glen Rinnes which lie in close proximity to the development site. The consented

development would already have significant adverse effects on parts of these glens.

The extent of visibility of the proposed variation/extension is increased within Glen

Rinnes and the effects associated with the consented wind farm may be

exacerbated. The LVIA under-estimates the sensitivity of the Broad Farmed Valley

in the ES main text Chapter 8 paragraph 8.7.96 by not acknowledging the smaller

scale of the more confined and narrow Glen Rinnes within this landscape character

type and the potentially detracting effect of large turbines seen above dramatic steep

slopes on immediate skylines, affecting the scenic juxtaposition of the rugged Open

Uplands with Steep Slopes and the smaller scale settled and farmed glen.

While the larger/additional turbines of the current proposal will increase adverse

effects on views from Glen Fiddich, the intermittent visibility and distance of the

current proposal (the wind farm generally being seen beyond smaller hills which

immediately contain the glen) would not result in any increase in effects on

landscape character in this area. In reference to policy E6 as identified above the

landscape impact upon the Cairngorms National Park would occur in varying

degrees from across its northern border from locations outwith its boundaries (such

as walking in the northern end of the Ladder Hills, Hills of Cromdale, Ben Rinnes and

The Buck). As the landscape to the south is free of large windfarms, Dorenell would

act a marker for such development north of the park.

Effect on views and visual amenity

It is considered that in distant views, the differences in height and number of turbines

will be unlikely to increase visual impact. In these views the proposal will appear

relatively small and a number of wind farms are/may also be visible, reducing the

magnitude of change. This can be seen in several of the viewpoints in the Additional

Information visualisations which directly compare the consented scheme with that

currently proposed such as Ben Aigen (viewpoint 22).

Although the extent of increased visibility associated with the proposed extension

does not appear to be substantial, as shown in Figure 8.27 of the Volume 2 Figures

(map of combined zone of theoretical visibility) there is concern that these larger

turbines may intrude on the sensitive skylines formed by the Open Upland with

Steep Slopes (10a) landscape character type identified in the Moray Landscape

Wind Capacity Study (2012) and be seen from the B9009 and settlement within Glen

Rinnes. The revised/extended proposal should have avoided visibility of turbines on

the settled lower slopes and B9009 in Glen Rinnes in accordance with the design

principles set out in Paragraph 3.4.7 of the ES Chapter 3. Even turbine blades tips

could be distracting as they would be seen clearly flicking over sensitive skylines at

distances of just beyond 5km. This effect may still occur from comparing the ZTV’s

and visualisations of the revised scheme for 60 turbines as shown in the

visualisations and ZTV’s contained within the Additional Information Appendix

4.1even with the reduction in height of some of the turbines.

The revised extension and variation causes concern with the revised layout and the

increase in turbine height on views from the A941 to the north and east. Road users

travelling south of Dufftown will be particularly affected with the proposal being seen

‘end on’ and presenting an extremely cluttered arrangement of turbines around the

relatively small and well-defined Scaut Hill, as seen in Viewpoint 3 at Ballochford. A

similarly congested effect of overlapping turbines occurs from Viewpoints 1 near

Auchindoun Castle and from Viewpoints 4, Bridgend with Viewpoint 21 on the A941

north of Dufftown now showing one dislocated turbine within the view.

The view gained when approaching the Cabrach from the south on the A941 is

illustrated in Viewpoint 9. The consented scheme presented a rather fragmented

and ‘strung-out’ layout seen in this view. The proposed revised extension and

variation does not improve on this and, despite the lower parts of turbines being

partially screened by intervening ridges, the increased height of turbines would

exacerbate the effect on this view. The assessment set out in the ES Main Text,

Chapter 88, paragraph 8.8.131 of the LVIA does not adequately address the effects

of the current proposal on the drama of the Cabrach view.

An additional concern is the effect on views from Auchindoun Castle. While the

Cultural Heritage chapter of the ES addresses effects on the setting of this

Scheduled Monument, the LVIA does not consider the visual amenity of visitors who

will also see the Hill of Towie (and proposed Hill of Towie II) wind farms in views

from the Castle as well as this proposal.

The proposed hill tracks serving the wind farm being located within the AGLV (and

therefore subject of the requirements of policy E6) should ensure their alignment

minimises visual impact and it is noted that tracks on the east side of the site would

be visible from public roads around Cabrach. These tracks do however generally

run along contour lines, and have been located to avoid deep peat areas where

possible (to the benefit of hydrology).

Cumulative assessment

The applicants have prepared as part of their landscape and visual assessment an

assessment considering the cumulative impact of the current proposal in conjunction

with all medium and large scale wind energy developments (proposed, approved and

operational) within a 35km radius. Without naming each of the developments

individually, they have all been taken into account when assessing cumulative

impact.

Any detrimental cumulative impact would most likely occur in conjunction with

Clashindarroch windfarm to east when travelling along the A941 (which to the east of

the site is a key scenic approach to Moray, albeit lightly trafficked). Whilst the

proposed wind farm lies over 20km from many other consented and operational

windfarms within Moray to the west, north-west and north (see history section) there

will be clear cumulative effect to those taking in a panoramic view from certain key

landmark hill within Moray.

Clearly from Ben Rinnes, Morays highest peak, the view across to Dorenell to the

east would result in a significant cumulative effect (as confirmed in Para. 8.8.292

Chapter 8 of the ES). This would be slightly lessened by the proposed revisions, but

would remain significant. The same page does however conclude that only a

marginal increase in magnitude of change would occur in comparison to the

consented scheme. This analysis is common to many of the viewpoints when

compared to the consented scheme (other than those from the A941 west of the

site).

Conclusion to landscape and visual assessment

The consented wind farm would have significant landscape and visual effects. The

current proposal to vary/extend the number and increase the height of many turbines

would greatly exacerbate effects on the A941. Travellers heading south on this route

would be particularly affected due to the more intensely cluttered arrangement of

turbines sited on Scaut Hill even with the revision proposed. Similar effects are also

likely to occur from Auchindoun Castle although no assessment of visual amenity

from this Scheduled Monument is included in the LVIA. The removal of turbines 4, 7

and 10 from the current applications does mitigate some of these effects by omission

but the revised proposal will still be noticeable when viewed from Viewpoint 1 at the

entrance to Auchindoun Castle (and more so from the elevated position the castle

occupies above the A941 as seen in Figure 9.3 of Additional Information submitted in

June 2015). The impact upon setting is considered below. There would be no

noticeable improvement to the significantly increased adverse effects that would be

associated with the 2014 Revised Proposal on the A941 (represented by viewpoints

1, 3, 4 and 9) as the changes now proposed would still result in an overly cluttered

appearance when the wind farm was viewed from the north.

There may also be significant effects on landscape character and on views from

Glen Rinnes. The consented Development would already be seen from middle and

upper north-western side slopes of this glen but this current proposal may increase

visibility into the lower glen with turbines potentially seen on sensitive skylines from

the B9009 and from properties along this road. It has not been possible to provide a

definitive view on potential effects due to the absence of additional visualisation(s) in

the LVIA. If only blade tips are visible from the B9009 and properties in the lower

glen, as stated in the LVIA, mitigation should have been undertaken with turbines

relocated, reduced in height or omitted to avoid impacts on views.

In conclusion the siting and design of this proposal is contrary to the guidance

outlined in the MOWE and MLCS and therefore contrary to policies ER1, E7 and

IMP1.

Historic built environment (BE1, BE2, ER1 and IMP1)

Under MLDP 2015 policy BE1: Scheduled Monuments and National Designations

the various archaeological features were assessed in a walk over survey of the

windfarm site which confirmed the presence of several features. The variety of

archaeological features has necessitated the recommendation of a suspensive

condition from the Councils shared archaeology service requiring a programme of

archaeological works.

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).

There are a number of listed properties within proximity to the development, or in a

location where their setting may be affected. Of particular note Blackwater Lodge is

a semi derelict C-listed hunting lodge, associated outbuildings and kennels which

occupies a hollow and small coppice of trees in what is otherwise an open moorland

landscape. Its setting would reasonably be defined as the immediate curtilage of

outbuildings and surrounding trees. Its close proximity (1km) to the wind farm would

mean that beyond the surrounding trees, imposing views of the windfarm would

occur. However given is C listed status and its confined setting, the proposal would

not adversely affect the integrity of the listing.

Auchindoun Castle, a scheduled monument, lies approximately 6km north of the

proposed windfarm. It occupies a strategically prominent point in the landscape

commanding views southward down the valley towards the windfarm. The revisions

detailed in the Additional Information show the removal of Turbines 4, 7 and 10

which do reduce the magnitude of view of turbines as seen from Viewpoint 1 and

from the further photomontage provided from the castle itself (Figure 9.3). While the

revised scheme does reduce the view of the windfarm from the castle, it would still

fail to remove the appearance of a congested area of turbines to the south. While

the windfarm would be visible it would not dominate the setting of the castle in the

wider landscape, due mainly to the distance between the windfarm and the Castle.

Both ER1 and IMP1 require new developments to respect the built environment,

which is inclusive of heritage. While the effect of the development would not be to

enhance the setting, its impact upon the broader setting of the castle, is not so

significant to warrant refusal on these grounds.

Effects on Natural Heritage (PP2, ER1, E1, E2, E3, IMP1 and MOWE)

Policy PP2 requires development to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas

emissions by following a number or different principles and applying various

measures via the submission of a sustainability statement.

ER1 (i) and (iii) 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 likely to a significant adverse

affect on local environmental designations such as native woodlands, 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 a

locational development for development.

Policy E3 relates to protection of Protected Species.

Policy IMP1 (h) seeks developments to demonstrate conservation of natural

environmental resources.

Normally for policy PP2 Climate Change a ‘sustainability statement’ would be

required demonstrating how the proposal has been designed, located and

incorporated features to reduce its carbon footprint. As the Section 36 applications

were accompanied by a detailed Environmental Statement, addressing such matters

as carbon balance in Chapter 6 and a Peatslide Hazard and Risk Assessment

(affecting carbon rich soils) no sustainability statement was requested. All other

matters aside the development of a renewable energy power source is clearly

supported by the climate change policy.

The site is host to one environmental designation, and a full assessment of

environmental, wildlife and other impacts has been submitted with the planning

application. Namely the Special Area of Protection River Spey catchment (via the

River Fiddich to the north and River Livet to the south). It is noted that no specific

local environmental designation exist upon the site.

Whilst Scottish Natural Heritage, the RSPB, Scottish Environment Protection Agency

and Fishery Boards may be best placed to comment upon environmental issues

surrounding the proposal the Council has considered the implications in terms of the

above development plan policies. The applicants’ submission shows a range of

measures proposed as part of the overall development to mitigate the environmental

impact of developing upon the site. This is important as the wild nature of the site

means it is host to a variety of wildlife such as hare, many ground nesting birds and

populations of red deer.

Moray Local Development Plan policy E3 Protected Species states that Proposals

which would have an adverse effect on a nationally protected species of bird will not

be approved unless;

• There is no other satisfactory solution

• The development is necessary to preserve public health or public safety

• The development will not be detrimental to the conservation status of the

species concerned.

We note that in Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology, demonstrate that various mitigation

measures will be adopted to minimise the impact of the development. The

conditions recommended by the Moray Council and others regarding the provision of

and adherence to various environment method statements to protect the

environment during and post construction should assist.

The findings of the ES for raptors cause concern where the number of estimated bird

strikes over the lifetime of the development, would have a tangible detrimental

impact upon bird populations. The content of the Additional Information regarding

Collision Risk Modelling for Golden Eagles was also taken into consideration.

It is presumed that, informed by the consultation responses from the above

consultees, conditions would be imposed by ECDU ensuring the mitigation

measures summarised in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement covering

Ornithology are carried out (a condition is recommended regarding implementation

of this mitigation). The measures include scheduling work and operating the site so

as to minimise the impact to various protected species. It is presumed that if

approval is granted for the Section 36 applications a suitably worded condition from

the RSPB or SNH regarding Golden Eagle management would be provided and

attached. While such a condition has been referred to by some of the consultees,

given the significant increase in bird strikes that are predicted to occur, the proposal

would constitute a departure from policy E3 Protected Species as a result. It was

noted that agreement was reached for the existing Section 36 Dorenell Consent for a

raptor mitigation/management scheme with SNH, although the more recent Collision

Risk modelling undertaken does reflect a far higher likelihood of eagle fatalities that

was the case for the original Dorenell Section 36.

Effects on Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology (ER1, EP4, EP5, EP6, EP7,

EP8, EP9, EP10, ER6, IMP1, MOWE)

Policy ER1 will favourably consider renewable energy proposals where they avoid or

address any unacceptable significant adverse effects on watercourse engineering

and peat land hydrology and are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance

the natural environment. Policy EP4 seeks to ensure a wholesome and adequate

private water supply is achieved and environmental and pollutions impacts thereon

are considered. Policy EP5 requires surface water to be addressed in a sustainable

manner and avoid pollution and promote habitat enhancement and amenity including

consideration of SUDs arrangements during construction and operation of the

development. Policy EP6 requires proposals to be designed to avoid adverse

impacts on the water environment and opportunities for restoration with any impact

adequately mitigated including a 6m buffer strip between any new development and

water features. Policy EP7 provides that new developments should not occur if it

would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or materially increase the

possibility of flooding elsewhere. Policy EP8 requires proposals to demonstrate how

any significant pollution can be appropriately mitigated. Policy EP9 requires

proposals to address potential contamination of land by investigation and

remediation. Policy EP10 requires private foul drainage systems not to pose or add

to risk of detrimental effects on the natural environment. Policy ER6 indicates that

renewable energy proposals will only be permitted where demonstrated that

unnecessary disturbance of soils including peat is avoided and on undisturbed areas

of deep peat (over 1m) proposals will only be permitted if the benefits of the proposal

outweigh any potential detrimental effect on the environment including the release of

CO2 and where demonstrated that there is no viable alternative together with a peat

survey and peat management plan. Policy IMP1 requires proposals to d) provide

acceptable water and drainage arrangements including SUDs; i) avoid areas at risk

of flooding; j) avoid any potential risk of pollution including groundwater

contamination; k) mitigate any contaminated land issues; and m) make acceptable

arrangements for waste.

The ECDU is responsible for processing Section 36 applications to develop electricity generation projects, and Scottish Ministers are required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposal. Development applications are therefore required to be supported by environmental statements, which include site-specific information and survey details, in respect of the risk of peat landslide events for elements of the proposal and its infrastructure, (i.e. construction of roads, access tracks, wind turbine foundations etc). In carrying out this function, the ECDU have commissioned an independent review of the assessment. The assessment report will consider whether or not adequate and appropriate field survey, peat sampling and analytical methods have been employed to provide a sound basis for assessing peat stability and the risk of peat landslides within the development envelope. The Peatslide Hazard and Risk Assessment submitted by the applicant was found to generally be of a high standard and subject to several recommendations to the ECDU was found to be a sound assessment. Upon this basis, and upon the basis that the current proposal has benefited from information not available or wholly understood at the time of the consented scheme being approved, the proposed

layout would see an improvement in the layout of the development in terms of avoiding unstable or deep peat areas within the site.

Whilst SEPA will comment upon hydrology, hydrogeology and geology 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 has raised no objections to the S36 application subject to

conditions regarding the protection of one specific private water supply. The Moray

Flood Risk Management Team has commented raising no objections subject to

conditions relating to provision of drainage impact assessment and a surface water

drainage system (this also reflects the response from SEPA).

It is presumed again that, informed by the consultation responses from the above

consultees, conditions would be imposed by ECDU ensuring the mitigation

measures summarised in Chapter 10 Table 10.10 of the Environmental Statement

covering hydrology, hydrogeology and geology are carried out.

Economic Impact (PP1)

One of the strategic aims of policy PP1 Sustainable Economic Growth is to promote

sustainable economic growth and assist in the transition towards a low local

economy.

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 ES estimates that

between 42- 45 full time equivalent long term jobs would be created throughout the

25 years lifespan of the development. Both the Planning Statement and Chapter 15

Socio-economic, tourism and recreation impacts address the issue of the benefits of

the scheme beyond carbon reduction and use of renewable energy sources. They

touch upon a range of benefits from improving core paths, generating local

employment to benefiting the local and wider economy.

Chapter 15 of the ES recognises that the proposal would have benefits and adverse

effects on the local tourism economy. In truth evidence from both those opposed to

wind farms development and those in favour suggests that some tourists would be

deterred from visiting wind farm landscapes, while other would take advantage of the

improved access and not be offended by the presence of turbines.

The economic benefits of the scheme have to be balanced against the other

requirements of the MDLP, which is still one of the most significant material

considerations in the assessment of this proposal.

Effects on tourism (ER1, T7, ED9 and IMP1)

Despite there being concerns elsewhere in the report in terms of visual impact upon

the landscape and upon impact upon the setting of listed properties near Dorenell it

is not considered that the development would have so negative an impact

specifically upon tourism as to warrant refusal on the grounds of policy ER1 (iii).

Elsewhere in this report it is acknowledged that the wild character of this area, which

is an appeal to some visitors would be lost as a result of the development.

Chapter 15 Socio-economic, tourism and recreation impacts of the ES addresses the

issue of impact upon tourism highlighting the distance between the proposed

development site and most likely tourist/recreational attractions within the vicinity of

the site. It is clear the consented windfarm establishes a presence in this locality of

wind energy development, so the impact of what is effectively an extension to a

present wind farm development can reasonably be seen as less significant that had

it been an undeveloped location.

Recreational/access interests (T7 and IMP1)

Policy T7 Safeguarding & Promotion of Walking, Cycling, & Equestrian Networks

promote the improvement of the walking, cycling, and equestrian networks within

Moray. Priority is given to the protection of core path networks and to long distance

routes.

Policy IMP1(c) requires that adequate provision for access to meet recreational

interests such as long distance paths and cycleways.

There are several core paths within the site identified as SP29 ‘The Steplar’ and

SP30 ‘Suie to Bridgehaugh Path’ within the Moray Core Path Plan 2011. These

paths would be significantly affected by the development and users would be walking

between and close to many of the turbines. This will either deter or interest users of

the path, but for many the development would constitute a significant adverse impact

upon what is currently remote and undeveloped countryside. Landscape and visual

amenity is assessed elsewhere but the recreational value of this area would for

many be greatly harmed and diminished. For those who are not opposed to the

proposal, the development will result in greatly improved or enhanced access

throughout the area.

The Council Access Manager was consulted on the applications, and has

recommended conditions regarding provision of an Access Management Strategy,

which has evolved and been subject of discussion since the original Section 36 was

consented (see history section). On the basis of the various improvements to

access that would result, and within the context that a consented windfarm would

occupy the same area, no departure from T7 or IMP1 would result (subject to the

condition recommended).

Impact on Woodland (ER1, E4 and ER2)

E4: Trees and Development requires where woodland is removed in association with

development, developers ted to provide compensatory planting.

The site is characterised by open moorland hilltop character and other than the

improvement of the existing forestry track under access option 1at the north end of

the site, no other areas of woodland are present upon the site. There is therefore no

need to for compensatory planting.

Effects on Noise (ER1, EP8, IMP1)

Policy ER1 (iii) seeks to ensure that renewable energy proposals do not result in

unacceptable impact in terms of noise.

Policy EP8 seeks to ensure that new developments do not create noise pollution.

Policy IMP1 (iii) requires that pollution including ground water must be avoided.

It is noted from the Noise chapter in the ES that the applicants sought to engage with

the Council at an early stage in relation to noise. The Environmental Health

Manager has considered the proposal and supporting noise data and is satisfied that

the proposed turbines will not result in unacceptable noise disturbance affecting

residential properties in the general locality subject to various conditions.

Conditions would cover such issues as hours of construction activity and its impact upon nearest properties, turbine noise, mineral blasting if required and occupancy of derelict/vacant property.

Effects of Shadow Flicker

Shadow flicker i.e. the optical effect caused by the intermittent obstruction of a light

source by moving object: Scottish Government Renewables advice (and MOWE)

recommend that a turbine be no nearer to neighbouring property that ten times the

rotor diameter. As the proposed turbine lengths are indicatively to be 100m in

diameter, a distance of 1000m to neighbouring receptors should be provided.

Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement identifies that only the now derelict

Blackwater Lodge would be susceptible to shadow flicker even if for all turbines a

micro-siting allowance of 50m was included.

The site does benefit (in terms of avoiding shadow flicker) from having relatively

unpopulated areas to its north and east. Overall this aspect of the development

does not depart from Moray Development Plan policy ER1. A condition is

nevertheless recommended allowing appropriate action/mitigation in the event of any

complaint being received about shadow flicker.

Access and parking issues (T2, T5, ER1, IMP1 and MOWE)

MLDP Policy T2 requires that new roads are designed to provide the highest level of

access for end users inclusive of pedetrains, cyclists etc and avoid or mitigate

against any unacceptable adverse landscape or environmental impacts.

Policy IMP1(c) requires that adequate roads and footpaths must be available at a

level appropriate to the development.

It is noted that the applicant submitted a design and access statement with the

planning application, which has informed the response now given. Abnormal Load

Impact and Mitigation Report inclusive of swept path analysis has been included in

the Additional Information package submitted in June 2015.

The Council’s Transportation Section has been consulted and whilst not objecting,

has identified a list of conditions they would wish to see attached, should

development go ahead. These conditions relate to delivery of abnormal loads to

construction traffic with the steps taken to ensure no damage occurs to the public

road network or that works required to the public road network do not detrimentally

affect it. The proposed tracks serving the site would have a visual impact on this

landscape, although similar track have already been consented under the previous

Section 36 consent.

The plans show sufficient parking, etc for the various elements of the project. The

proposed turbines are also sufficiently far from any public roads so as not to cause

concern. The proposed access and parking arrangements would, subject to

conditions, comply with the above policies regarding access and parking.

Effects on Aircraft Activity (ER1)

MLDP Policy ER1 seeks to ensure that renewable energy proposals avoid any

impacts resulting from aviation and defence constraints including flight paths and

aircraft radar.

The ES acknowledges potential effects of the wind farm upon aircraft activity

including radar systems and there has been a history in Moray of radar conflict. As

the Ministry of Defence and National Air Traffic (NATS) will have been directly

consulted this element of compliance will be left for ECDU to determine upon.

It is noted the Environmental Statement anticipates from the Ministry of Defence that

if approved, infra-red lights would need to be installed on each of the turbines.

Effects on Electromagnetic Interference (ER1)

It is noted that consultation has carried out directly with radio operators directly by

EDCU on this matter to ensure no conflict occurs or needs resolved. The ECDU

may choose to attach a condition ensuring radio/television interference is addressed.

Planning Gain (IMP3)

No planning gain due such development not having an impact on community

facilities, schools etc. Separate to this it was decided by the Planning and

Regulatory Services Committee on the 18th October 2012 to remove the pursuit or

contribution of funds to "Community Benefit Funds" from the development

management system.

Decommissioning

The applicants ES does cover the issue of decommissioning at various points, and it

is presumed that the ECDU, as determining authority, would either attach an

appropriate condition, or make arrangements for some form of legal agreement to

address this issue. Suggested conditions attached may be used by the ECDU.

Other issues

While the wider economic benefits to local businesses, employment and the

economy of any major development are a consideration, the setting up of a

community benefit fund should not be a matter that influence the planning decision.

This approach is highlighted in Annex A ‘Defining a Material Consideration’ of the

recent Circular 3/2013: Development Management Procedures.

Conclusion

Taking into consideration the applicants submissions, and other material

considerations, on balance there are several issues as discussed above that fail to

demonstrate compliance with the development plan. The development also fails to

comply with SPP and Scottish Government online guidance in terms of landscape

and visual impact, effect on built heritage and cumulative impact. The proposal

therefore fails to comply with MLDP policies and is contrary to policy ER1

Renewable Energy Proposals, E7 Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and

impacts upon the wider landscape and IMP1 Developer Requirements.

The proposal must also be identified as a departure from policy E3 Protected

Species due to ongoing collision risk to Raptors, although it is acknowledged that a

Habitat Management Plan was agreed for the consented scheme that resulted in

bodies such as the RSPB removing their objection. The amount of activity for

protected species such as Golden Eagle has now increased in the area resulting in

the higher collision risk and if the scheme were to proceed, it is assumed that an

appropriately worded condition from Scottish Natural Heritage or the RSPB would be

provided for mitigation purposes if the scheme were approved and SNH have also

suggested similar schemes, in the event of approval.

The Moray Council has provided thorough spatial and siting guidance for windfarm

developers in the form of a wind energy landscape capacity study and

supplementary policy guidance documents. This development is clearly contrary to

the guidance and overall strategy for the location of large scale wind farms, which

did factor in the existing consent at Dorenell when considering what ‘capacity’

remained in this landscape for future development. Given the scale of the consented

Dorenell there was limited scope for further expansion (which in essence is what this

proposal results in).

Following the previous Public Inquiry into the original Dorenell windfarm concluded in

2011, the Scottish Government Reporter criticised the Moray Council for not

attaching the appropriate weight to all material considerations. Care is therefore

being taken for the current Section 36 applications to attach the appropriate weight

to all relevant considerations, and the key determining considerations are highlighted

below. Had these Section 36 applications been considered under the Town and

Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as planning applications where the Moray

Local Development Plan 2015 was the main determining factor this recommendation

may have differed due to the clear departure issues. The MLDP is however just one

of the considerations under the Section 36 process.

The consented windfarm with 59 turbines at 126m, access tracks and other

infrastructure would already have a significant adverse impact upon this landscape

due its presence along the rounded summit ridge on what is a high altitude in terms

of Morays landscape. The consented windfarm, when compared to the current

revised proposal must be taken into consideration. Many of the significant adverse

impacts upon the landscape will be exacerbated by the proposed increase in height

of the turbines and their repositioning, while other impacts will be no greater.

While the proposed scheme will result in a comparable amount of access tracks

upon the site to the consented scheme, and one additional turbine, the site selection

of tracks and turbine locations has been better informed by the more thorough

Peatslide Hazard and Risk Assessment Report submitted with the current Section 36

applications. The current proposal would therefore arguably result in some

improvement with regards to the impact upon hydrology and avoidance of areas of

deep peat than the consented scheme.

In reference to the above national and local policy and guidance, local authorities are

to take a positive approach to renewable energy proposals. Where the current

opportunity exists to realise a notable increase in output (from 177mW up to 198MW

equating to an increase in output of 21 mW) from the extended and varied windfarm,

mainly through the change to type and size of turbine and the addition of 1 turbine,

this must given weight in favour of the development.

Taking into consideration all of the above, it is recommended that whilst departing

from several policies of the MDLP in terms of landscape impact and protected

species, on balance the presence of an existing comparable consented scheme

already, and the benefits of the proposed scheme in terms of increased output and

avoidance of carbon rich soils do not merit an objection of the Section 36

applications. The Council notes the opposition to the Section 36 applications by

other consultees such as SNH and the Cairngorms National Park and does not

disagree with their assessment of the increased landscape and visual impact, but

given the other considerations that must be taken into account by the Council our

conclusions differ. If approved it is assumed a suitable condition would be imposed

regarding conservation of raptors.

Recommendation – Despite departing from the Moray Local Development Plan

2015 due to the presence of a consented wind farm at the same location and

other considerations, the Moray Council should not object to the Section 36

applications subject to the conditions/informatives at the end of this Appendix

report.

Development Plan Policies

Primary Policy PP1: Sustainable Economic Growth

The Local Development Plan identifies employment land designations to support

requirements identified in the Moray Economic Strategy. Development proposals

which support the Strategy and will contribute towards the delivery of sustainable

economic growth and the transition of Moray towards a low carbon economy will be

supported where the quality of the natural and built environment is safeguarded and

the relevant policies and site requirements are met.

Primary Policy PP2: Climate Change

In order to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developments of 10 or

more houses and buildings in excess of 500 sq m should address the following:

• Be in sustainable locations that make efficient use of land and infrastructure

• Optimise accessibility to active travel options and public transport

• Create quality open spaces, landscaped areas and green wedges that are

well connected

• Utilise sustainable construction techniques and materials and encourage

energy efficiency through the orientation and design of buildings

• Where practical, install low and zero carbon generating technologies

• Prevent further development that would be at risk of flooding or coastal

erosion

• Where practical, meet heat and energy requirements through decentralised

and local renewable or low carbon sources of heat and power

• Minimise disturbance to carbon rich soils and, in cases where it is agreed that

trees can be felled, to incorporate compensatory tree planting.

Proposals must be supported by a Sustainability Statement that sets out how the

above objectives have been addressed within the development. This policy is

supported by supplementary guidance on climate change.

Policy ED7: Rural Business Proposals

New business developments, or extensions to existing industrial/economic activities

in the countryside, will be permitted if they meet all of the following criteria:

a) There is a locational justification for the site concerned, particularly if there is

serviced industrial land available in a nearby settlement.

b) There is capacity in the local infrastructure to accommodate the proposals,

particularly road access, or that mitigation measures can be achieved.

c) Account is taken of environmental considerations, including the impact on

natural and built heritage designations, with appropriate protection for the

natural environment; the use of enhanced opportunities for natural heritage

integration into adjoining land.

d) There is careful control over siting, design, landscape and visual impact, and

emissions. In view of the rural location, standard industrial estate/urban

designs may not be appropriate.

Proposals involving the rehabilitation of existing properties (e.g. farm steadings) to

provide business premises will be encouraged, provided road access and parking

arrangements are acceptable.

Where noise emissions or any other aspect is considered to be incompatible with

surrounding uses, there will be a presumption to refuse.

Outright retail activities will be considered against retail policies, and impacts on

established shopping areas, but ancillary retailing (e.g. farm shop) will generally be

acceptable.

Policy E1: Natura 2000 Sites and National Nature Conservation Sites

Natura 2000 designations

Development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site which is not

directly connected with or necessary to its conservation management must be

subject to an appropriate assessment of the implications for its conservation

objectives. Proposals will only be approved where the appropriate assessment has

ascertained that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

In exceptional circumstances, proposals that could affect the integrity of a Natura site

may be approved where;

a) there are no alternative solutions; and

b) there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest including those of a

social or economic nature, and

c) if compensatory measures are provided to ensure that the overall coherence

of the Natura network is protected.

For Natura 2000 sites hosting a priority habitat or species (as defined in Article 1 of

the Habitats Directive), prior consultation with the European Commission via Scottish

Ministers is required unless the imperative reasons of overriding public interest relate

to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to

the environment.

National designations

Development proposals which will affect a National Park, Site of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserves will only be permitted where:

a) the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area 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, environmental or economic

benefits of national importance.

Policy E2: Local Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity

Development likely to have a significant adverse effect on Local Nature Reserves,

native woodlands identified in the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland, raised peat

bog, wetlands, protected species, wildlife sites or other valuable local habitat or

conflict with the objectives of Local Biodiversity Action Plans will be refused unless it

can be demonstrated that;

a) local public benefits clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, and

b) there is a specific locational requirement 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

habitats or species 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 and natural habitat values.

Developers will be required to demonstrate that they have considered potential

improvements in habitat in the design of the development and sought to include links

with green and blue networks wherever possible.

Policy E3: Protected Species

Proposals which would have an adverse effect on a European protected species will

not be approved unless;

• there is no satisfactory alternative; and

• the development is required to preserve public health or public safety, or for

other reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or

economic nature, and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the

environment; and the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance

of the population of species concerned at a favourable conservation status of

the species concerned.

Proposals which would have an adverse effect on a nationally protected species of

bird will not be approved unless;

• There is no other satisfactory solution

• The development is necessary to preserve public health or public safety

• The development will not be detrimental to the conservation status of the

species concerned.

Proposals which would have an adverse effect on badgers or their setts must be

accompanied by a Badger Protection Plan to avoid, minimise or compensate for

impacts. A licence from Scottish Natural Heritage may be required as well as

planning permission. Where a protected species may be affected a species survey

should be prepared to accompany the application to demonstrate how any offence

under the relevant legislation will be avoided.

Policy E4: Trees and Development

The Council will serve Tree Preservation Orders (TPO's) 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.

Woodland removal will only be permitted where it would achieve significant and

clearly defined additional public benefits. Where woodland is removed in association

with development, developers will generally be expected to provide compensatory

planting. The Council may attach conditions on planning consents ensuring that

existing trees and hedges are retained or replaced.

Development proposals will be required to meet the requirements set out in the

Council's Trees and Development Supplementary Guidance. This includes carrying

out a tree survey to identify trees on site and those to be protected. A safeguarding

distance should be retained between mature trees and proposed developments.

When imposing planting or landscaping conditions, native species should be used

and the Council will seek to promote green corridors.

Proposals affecting woodland will be considered against Policy ER2.

Policy E7: Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and impacts upon the

wider landscape

Development proposals which would have a significant adverse effect upon an Area

of Great Landscape Value will be refused unless:

a) They incorporate the highest standards of siting and design for rural areas

b) They will not have a significant adverse effect on the landscape character of

the area, in the case of wind energy proposals the assessment of landscape

impact will be made with reference to the terms of the Moray Wind Energy

Landscape Capacity Study.

c) They are in general accordance with the guidance in the Moray and Nairn

Landscape Character Assessment.

New developments should be designed to reflect the landscape characteristics and

special qualities identified in the Landscape Character Assessment of the area in

which they are proposed.

Proposals for new hill tracks should ensure that their alignment minimises visual

impact; avoids sensitive natural heritage features, avoids adverse impacts upon the

local hydrology; and takes account of the likely type of recreational use of the track

and wider network.

Policy E6: National Parks and National Scenic Areas (NSA)

Development that affects National Parks or National Scenic Areas will only be

permitted where:

• the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be

compromised; or

• any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been

designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic

benefits of national importance.

Policy BE1: Scheduled Monuments and National Designations

National Designations

Development Proposals will be refused where they will adversely affect Scheduled

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 the integrity of 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 Monuments and archaeological

sites.

EP4: Private Water Supplies

All proposals to use a private water supply must demonstrate that a wholesome and

adequate supply can be provided. Applicants will be required to provide a National

Grid Reference for each supply source and mark the supply (and all works

associated) e.g. the source, holding tank and supply pipe, accurately on the

application plan. The applicant will also be required to provide information on the

source type (e.g. well, borehole, spring). This information is necessary to enable the

appropriate authorities to advise on the environmental impact, adequacy,

wholesomeness, capacity of supply for existing and proposed users and pollution

risks.

Policy EP5: Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

(SUDS)

Surface water from development should be dealt with in a sustainable manner that

has a neutral effect on the risk of flooding or which reduces the risk of flooding. The

method of dealing with surface water should also avoid pollution and promote habitat

enhancement and amenity. All sites should be drained by a sustainable drainage

system (SUDS). Drainage systems should contribute to enhancing existing "blue"

and "green" networks while contributing to place-making, biodiversity, recreational,

flood risk and climate change objectives.

Specific arrangements should be made to avoid the issue of permanent SUD

features becoming silted-up with construction phase runoff. Care must be taken to

avoid the introduction of invasive non-native species during the construction of all

SUD features.

Applicants must agree provisions for long term maintenance of the SUDS scheme to

the satisfaction of the Council in consultation with SEPA and Scottish Water as

appropriate.

A Drainage Assessment (DA) will be required for developments of 10 houses or

more, industrial uses, and non-residential proposals of 500 sq metres and above.

The Council's Flood Team will prepare Supplementary Guidance on surface water

drainage and flooding.

Policy EP6: Waterbodies

Proposals must be designed to avoid adverse impacts upon water environment and

should seek opportunities for restoration. The Council will only approve proposals

impacting on water features where the applicant provides a satisfactory report that

demonstrates that any impact (including cumulative) on water quality, water quantity,

physical form (morphology), river hydrology, sediment transport

and erosion, nature conservation, fisheries, recreational, landscape, amenity, and

economic and social impact can be adequately mitigated.

The report should consider existing and potential impacts up and downstream of the

development particularly in respect of potential flooding. The Council operates a

presumption against the culverting of watercourses and any unnecessary

engineering works in the water environment.

A buffer strip of at least 6m between any new development and all water features is

required. These should be designed to link with blue and green networks and can

contribute to open space requirements. Developers may be required to make

improvements to the water environment as part of the development.

Policy EP8: Pollution

Planning applications for developments that may cause significant pollution in terms

of noise (including RAF aircraft noise), air, water and light emissions will only be

approved where a detailed assessment report on the levels, character and

transmission of the potential pollution is provided by the applicant. The assessment

should also demonstrate 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.

Policy EP9: Contaminated Land

Development proposals on potentially contaminated land will be approved provided

that:

a) The applicant can demonstrate through site investigations and risk

assessment, that the site is in a condition suitable for the proposed

development and is not causing significant pollution of the environment; and

b) Where necessary, effective remediation measures are agreed to ensure the

site is made suitable for the new use and to ensure appropriate disposal

and/or treatment of any hazardous material.

The Council recommends early contact with the Environmental Health Section,

which can advise what level of information will need to be supplied.

Policy EP10: Foul Drainage

All development within or close to settlements (as defined in the Local Development

Plan) of more than 2,000 population equivalent will require to connect to the public

sewerage system unless connection to the public sewer is not permitted due to lack

of capacity. In such circumstances, temporary provision of private sewerage systems

may be allowed provided Scottish Water has confirmed investment to address this

constraint has been specifically allocated within its current Quality Standards

Investment Programme and the following requirements apply:

• Systems shall not have an adverse impact on the water environment;

• Systems must be designed and built to a standard which will allow adoption

by Scottish Water.

• Systems must be designed such that they can be easily connected to a public

sewer in the future. Typically this will mean providing a drainage line up to a

likely point of connection.

All development within or close to settlements (as identified in the Local

Development Plan) of less than 2000 population equivalent will require to connect to

public sewerage system except where a compelling case is made otherwise.

Factors to be considered in such a case will include size of the proposed

development, whether the development would jeopardise delivery of public

sewerage infrastructure and existing drainage problems within the area. Where a

compelling case is made, a private system may be acceptable provided it does not

pose or add risk of detrimental effect, including cumulative, to the natural and built

environment, surrounding uses or amenity of the general area. Consultation with

Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be undertaken in these cases.

Where a private system is deemed to be acceptable (within settlements as above or

small scale development in the countryside) a discharge to land (either full soakaway

or raised mound soakaway) compatible with Technical Handbooks (which sets out

guidance on how proposals may meet the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004)

should be explored prior to considering a discharge to surface waters.

Policy EP13: Ministry of Defence Safeguarding Areas

Certain categories of development within particular distances from MoD airfields at

Lossiemouth and Kinloss require to be subject of consultation with Defence

Infrastructure Organisation. This applies to a wide range of development proposals

which could have implications for the operation of the airfields and includes aspects

such as height of buildings; use of reflective surfaces; refuse tips; nature reserves

(and other proposals which might attract birds);

Full details of the consultation zones and development types are held by Moray

Council. The outer boundaries of the zones are shown on the Proposals Map.

Policy ER1: Renewable Energy Proposals

All Renewable Energy Proposals

All renewable energy proposals will be considered favourably where they meet the

following criteria:

i) They are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and

natural environment

ii) They do not result in the permanent loss or damage of agricultural land

iii) They avoid or address any unacceptable significant adverse impacts

including:

• Landscape and visual impacts

• Noise impacts

• Electromagnetic disturbance

• Impact on watercourse engineering

• Impact on peat land hydrology

• Electromagnetic disturbance

• Impact on watercourse engineering

• Traffic Impact

• Ecological Impact

• Impact on tourism and recreational interests

Onshore wind turbines

In addition to the assessment of impact outlined above the following considerations

will apply:

a) The Spatial Framework

Areas of Significant Protection*: where the council will apply significant protection

and proposals will only be appropriate in circumstances where any significant effects

on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design and

other mitigation.

Areas with Potential: where the council is likely to support proposals subject to

detailed consideration.

* This protection will also apply to areas with carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority

peatland habitat. This constraint is not currently included on the spatial strategy

mapping but will be addressed through Supplementary Guidance once the relevant

data becomes available.

b) Detailed Consideration

The proposal will be determined through assessment of the details of the proposal,

including its benefits, and the extent to which it avoids or mitigates any unacceptable

significant adverse impact. Detailed assessment** of impact will include

consideration of the extent to which:

Landscape and visual impact:

• The proposal addresses the Guidance set out in the Moray Windfarm

Landscape Capacity Study

• The landscape is capable of accommodating the development without

significant detrimental impact on landscape character or visual amenity

• The proposal is appropriate to the scale and character of its setting, respects

the main features of the site and the wider environment and addresses the

potential for mitigation.

Cumulative Impact

• Any detrimental impact from two or more wind energy developments and the

potential for mitigation is addressed.

Impact on local communities

• The proposal addresses any detrimental impact on communities and local

amenity including the impacts of noise, shadow flicker, visual dominance and

the potential for associated mitigation.

Other

• The proposal addresses any impacts arising from location within an area

subject to potential aviation and defence constraints including flight paths and

aircraft radar.

• The proposal avoids or adequately resolves other impacts including on the

natural and historic environment, cultural heritage, biodiversity; forest and

woodlands; and tourism and recreational interests- core paths, visitor centres,

tourist trails and key scenic routes.

• The proposal addresses any physical site constraints and appropriate

provision for decommissioning and restoration.

** Further detail on the above assessment process will be addressed through

supplementary guidance to include:

• Peat mapping once this becomes available

• Detailed mapping of constraints

• Guidance on areas with greatest potential for small/medium and large

scale wind farms.

Biomass

Proposals for the development of commercial biomass facilities will be supported if

the following criteria are met.

• Proposals should confirm which form of biomass will fuel the plant and if a

mixture of biomass is proposed then what percentage split will be attributed to

each fuel source.

• Proposals can demonstrate that they have taken account of the amount of

supply fuel over the life of the project.

• When considering woody biomass proposals the scale and location of new

development is appropriate to the volume of local woodfuel available.

• The location must have suitable safe access arrangements and be capable of

accommodating the potential transport impacts within the surrounding roads

network.

• A design statement should be submitted, which should include

photomontages from viewpoints agreed by the Council.

• There should be a locational justification for proposals outwith general

employment land designations. The proposed energy use, local heat users

and connectivity of both heat users and electricity networks should be

detailed. Proposals which involve potential or future heat users will not be

supported unless these users can be brought online in conjunction with the

operation of the plant.

• Details of the predicted energy input and output from the plant demonstrating

the plant efficiency and utilisation of heat should be provided.

• Where necessary appropriate structural landscaping must be provided to

assist the development to integrate sensitively.

• The criteria set out in relation to other renewables should also be met.

The Council will consult with the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) to help predict

potential woodfuel supply projections in the area.

Policy ER2: Development in Woodlands

All woodlands

Development which involves the loss of woodlands will be refused where the

development would result in unacceptable adverse effects on the amenity,

landscape, biodiversity, economic or recreational value of the woodland or prejudice

the management of the forest. Woodland removal will only be supported where it can

be demonstrated that the impact on the woodland is clearly outweighed by social or

economic benefits of national, regional and local importance, and if a programme of

proportionate compensatory planting has been agreed with the Planning Authority.

Protected Woodlands

Woodland removal within native woodlands, ancient semi natural and woodlands

within sites protected under the terms of policies E1 and E2 will not be supported.

Tree surveys and new planting

Development proposals must take account of the Council's Trees and Development

supplementary planning guidance. The Council will require the provision of

compensatory planting to mitigate the effects of woodland removal.

Where appropriate the Council will seek opportunities to create new woodland and

plant native trees in new development proposals. If a development would result in

the severing or impairment of connectivity between important woodland habitats,

mitigation measures should be identified and implemented to support the wider

green network.

Policy ER3: Safeguarding Mineral Reserves

The Council will safeguard all existing workable mineral reserves/operations from

incompatible development which is likely to prejudice it unless;

• There are no alternative sites for development, and

• The extraction of mineral resources will be completed before development

commences.

Policy ER6: Soil Resources

Where peat and other carbon rich soils are present disturbance to them may lead to

the release of carbon dioxide contributing to the greenhouse gas emissions.

Developers should assess the likely effects associated with any development work

and aim to mitigate any adverse impacts arising.

For major developments, minerals and large scale (over 20MW) renewable energy

proposals, development will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that

unnecessary disturbance of soils, peat and any associated vegetation is avoided.

Evidence of the adoption of best practice in the movement, storage, management

and reinstatement of soils must be submitted along with any relevant planning

application, including if necessary measures to prevent the spread of invasive non-

native species.

Major developments, minerals and large scale renewable energy proposals on

undisturbed areas of deep peat (defined as 1.0m or more) will only be permitted for

these uses where:

a) the economic, social and/or environmental benefits of the proposal outweigh

any potential detrimental effect on the environment (in particular with regard to

the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere); and

b) it has been clearly demonstrated that there is no viable alternative.

Where development on undisturbed peat is deemed acceptable, a peat depth survey

must be submitted which demonstrates that the areas of deepest peat have been

avoided. Where required, a peat management plan must also be submitted which

demonstrates that unnecessary disturbance, degradation or erosion of peat is

avoided.

Large scale commercial peat extraction will not be permitted.

Policy T2: Provision of Access

The Council will require that new development proposals are designed to provide the

highest level of access for end users including residents, visitors, and deliveries

appropriate to the type of development and location. Development must meet the

following criteria:

• Proposals must maximise connections and routes for pedestrian and cyclists,

including links to active travel and core path routes, to reduce travel demands

and provide a safe and realistic choice of access.

• Provide access to public transport services and bus stop infrastructure where

appropriate.

• Provide appropriate vehicle connections to the development, including

appropriate number and type of junctions.

• Provide safe entry and exit from the development for all road users including

ensuring appropriate visibility for vehicles at junctions and bends.

• Provide appropriate mitigation/modification to existing transport networks

where required to address the impacts of new development on the safety and

efficiency of the transport network. This may include but would not be limited

to, the following measures, passing places, road widening, junction

enhancement, bus stop infrastructure and drainage infrastructure. A number

of potential

road improvements have been identified in association with the development of sites

the most significant of these have been shown on the Settlement Map as TSPs.

• Proposals must avoid or mitigate against any unacceptable adverse

landscape or environmental impacts.

Developers should give consideration to aspirational core paths (under Policy 2 of

the Core Paths Plan) and active travel audits when preparing proposals.

New development proposals should enhance permeability and connectivity, and

ensure that opportunities for sustainable and active travel are protected and

improved.

The practicality of use of public transport in more remote rural areas will be taken

into account however applicants should consider innovative solutions for access to

public transport.

When considered appropriate by the planning authority developers will be asked to

submit a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

Significant travel generating proposals will only be supported where:

• Direct links to walking and cycling networks are available;

• Access to public transport networks would involve walking no more than

400m;

• It would not have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the strategic road

and/or rail network; and

• A Transport Assessment identifies satisfactory mechanisms for meeting

sustainable transport requirements and no detrimental impact to the

performance of the overall network.

Access proposals that have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding

landscape and environment that cannot be mitigated will be refused.

Policy T5: Parking Standards

Proposals for development must conform with the Council's current policy on parking

standards.

Policy T7: Safeguarding & Promotion of Walking, Cycling, & Equestrian

Networks

The Council will promote the improvement of the walking, cycling, and equestrian

networks within Moray. Priority will be given to the paths network including Core

Paths and the wider Moray Paths Network. There are several long distance routes

that cross Moray including the Speyside Way, Dava Way, Moray Coastal Trail and

Aberdeen to Inverness National Cycle Route.

Development proposals that would have an unacceptable impact on access rights,

core paths, rights of way, long distance routes and other access routes that cannot

be adequately mitigated will not be permitted. Where a proposal will affect any of

these, proposals must:

• incorporate the route within the site layout and the routes amenity value must

be maintained or enhanced; or

• provide alternative access that is no less attractive and is safe and convenient

for the public to use.

Policy IMP1: Developer Requirements

New development will require to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced

appropriate to the amenity of the surrounding area. It should comply with 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) Road, cycling, footpath and public transport must be provided at a level

appropriate to the development. Core paths; long distance footpaths; national

cycle routes must not be adversely affected.

d) Acceptable water and drainage provision must be made, including the use of

sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) for dealing with surface water.

e) Where of an appropriate scale, developments should demonstrate how they

will incorporate renewable energy systems, and sustainable design and

construction. Supplementary Guidance will be produced to expand upon

some of these criteria.

f) Make provision for additional areas of open space within developments.

g) Details of arrangements for the long term maintenance of landscape areas

and amenity open spaces must be provided along with Planning applications.

h) Conservation and where possible enhancement of natural and built

environmental resources must be achieved, including details of any impacts

arising from the disturbance of carbon rich soil.

i) Avoid areas at risk of flooding, and where necessary carry out flood

management measures.

j) Address any potential risk of pollution including ground water contamination in

accordance with recognised pollution prevention and control measures.

k) Address and sufficiently mitigate any contaminated land issues

l) Does not sterilise significant workable reserves of minerals or prime quality

agricultural land.

m) Make acceptable arrangements for waste management.

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 developments that are

likely to have significant environmental affects under the terms of the

regulations.

b) A Transport Assessment (TA) will be sought where a change of use or new

development is likely to generate a significant increase in the number of trips

being made. TAs should identify any potential cumulative effects which would

need to be addressed. Transport Assessments should assess the effects the

development will have on roads and railway infrastructure including stations

and any crossings. Transport Scotland (Trunk Roads) and Network Rail

(Railway) should be consulted on the scoping of Transport Assessments.

Moray Council's Transportation Service can assist in providing a screening

opinion on whether a TA will be sought.

c) In order to demonstrate that an out of centre retail proposal will have no

unacceptable individual or cumulative impact on the vitality and viability of the

identified network of town centres, a Retail Impact Assessment will be sought

where appropriate. This may also apply to neighbourhood shops, ancillary

retailing and recreation/tourism retailing.

d) Where appropriate, applicants may be asked to carry out other assessments

(e.g. noise; air quality; flood risk; drainage; bat; badger; other species and

habitats) in order to confirm the compatibility of the proposal.

Policy IMP3: Developer Obligations

Contributions will be sought from developers in cases where, in the Council's view, a

development would have a measurable adverse or negative impact upon existing

infrastructure, community facilities or amenity, and such 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.

The Council will prepare supplementary guidance to explain how the approach will

be implemented in accordance with Circular 3/2012 on Planning Obligations. This

will detail the necessary facilities and infrastructure and the scale of contributions

likely to be required.

In terms of affordable housing, developments of 4 or more units will be expected to

make a 25% contribution, as outlined in policy H8.

Condition requested to be attached by the Moray Council to any Section 36 consent.

1. The consent is for a period of 25 years from the date of Final Commissioning.

Written confirmation of the date of First Commissioning shall be provided to the Planning Authority and Scottish Ministers no later than one calendar month after that date. The date of final commissioning of all turbines must also be provided to the Planning authority no later than one calendar month after that date.

Reason: To define the duration of the consent.

2. The Commencement of the Development shall be no later than three years

from the date of this consent, or in substitution such other period as the Scottish Ministers may hereafter direct in writing. Written confirmation of the intended date of Commencement of Development shall be provided to the Planning Authority and Scottish Ministers no later than one calendar month before that date.

Reason: In accordance with s58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. To avoid uncertainty and ensure that the consent is implemented within a reasonable period.

3. This consent may not be assigned without the prior written authorisation of the Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Ministers may authorise the assignation of the consent (with or without conditions) or refuse assignation as they may, in their own discretion, see fit. The consent shall not be capable of being assigned, alienated or transferred otherwise than in accordance with the foregoing procedure. The Company shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the name of the assignee, principal named contact and contact details within 14 days of written confirmation from the Scottish Ministers of an assignation having been granted.

Reason: To safeguard the obligations of the consent if transferred to another company.

4. There shall be no Commencement of Development unless full details of the proposed wind turbines (including, but not limited to, the power rating and sound power levels, the size, type, external finish and colour which should be non- reflective pale grey semi-matt), any anemometry masts and all associated apparatus have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The turbines shall be consistent with the candidate turbine or range assessed in the environmental statement, and the tip height shall not exceed 125metres or 150m respectively above ground level. The Development shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the approved details and maintained in the approved colour, free from external rust, staining or discolouration, until such time as the wind farm is decommissioned.

All wind turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.

None of the wind turbines, anemometers, power performance masts, switching stations or transformer buildings/enclosures, ancillary buildings or above ground fixed plant shall display any name, logo, sign or other advertisement (other than health and safety signage) unless otherwise approved in advance in writing by the Planning Authority

Reason: To ensure that the environmental impacts of the turbines forming part of the Development conform to the impacts of the candidate turbine assessed in the environmental statement and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

5. No works shall take place within the development site until the developer has

secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the Aberdeenshire Council Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the Aberdeenshire Council Archaeology Service.

Reason: to safeguard and record the archaeological potential of the area. 6. Prior to the commencement of development, details shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland, Grampian Police, Moray Council Transportation and neighbouring roads authorities, which include the following:

i) A detailed survey of the chosen route for all delivery vehicles, including the routes for the delivery of abnormal loads and construction materials;

ii) Details of the arrangements, including timescales, to undertake and monitor all construction traffic and abnormal load trial runs (which shall all be prior to the Commencement of the development);

iii) The locations of affected structures (e.g. bridges, culverts) and street furniture, and any proposed mitigations measures;

iv) The location, design details and timescales for all road improvements /strengthening/resurfacing (which for the avoidance of doubt, includes improvements identified at the time of the trial runs);

v) Details of the number, locations, spacing and design of all construction traffic passing places and localised road widening;

vi) Details of the timescales for providing all construction traffic passing places and localised road widening;

vii) Details of the exact location and design for widening the A941 at the top of the hill at ‘Laggan’;

viii) Full details of the site access onto the A941; and

ix) Should site access Option 2 be utilised, on the section of the A941 through ‘Garbet Wood’ to allow unrestricted passing of abnormal loads and other construction traffic.

These elements of the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt, they shall be completion prior to any timber extraction from, or delivery of materials to the site. This shall include the completion of all road improvement/strengthening works. Reason: in the interests of road safety and to ensure a safe and suitable access for large construction vehicles to and from the site.

7. Prior to the commencement of the development, a traffic management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland and Moray Council Transportation in consultation with Transport Scotland, Grampian Police, Moray Council Transportation and neighbouring roads authorities. The plan shall include the following:

i) The method for dealing with large delivery vehicles, including swept path analysis;

ii) The details of verge hardening at the A920/A941 junction to accommodate the wide turning circle of all abnormal load construction

traffic over the junction area, with dropped kerbs required during the construction period to allow over running onto the verge, and the existing type of kerbs (254mm x 127mm hppc) being reinstated after construction;

iii) The methods for marshalling and manoeuvring at junctions on the public road network;

iv) Details of all heavy construction traffic routes to/from the site, which shall confirm that no heavy construction traffic shall access the site from the A941 to the south;

v) Details of the arrangements to undertake and submit to the Planning Authority before and after video surveys of the proposed delivery routes, and written confirmation that all damage to the road network, including verges, will be made good;

vi) Details of the arrangements, including location and timescale, to provide any traffic signal controlled one-way working on the narrow section of the A941 road between ‘Laggan’ and Bridgehaugh; the signal control shall be operational throughout construction and decommissioning phases unless alternative improvements to this section of public road are agreed with Moray Council Transportation;

vii) details of a scheme setting out the location and type of road signage to be provided at the site access onto the A941; and

viii) details, including the location and duration, of any temporary speed limit to be introduced at the site access, and the identification of all statutory procedures required to promote it; the speed limit shall be in force throughout the construction and decommissioning phases.

These elements of the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan. For the avoidance of doubt, they shall be completed prior to any timber extractions from, or delivery of materials to, the site. Reason: in the interests of road safety and to ensure a safe and suitable access for vehicles to and from the site.

8. The site access track and the public road shall be kept free from mud, debris,

slurry or other deleterious material at all times, and suitable wheel cleaning facilities shall be provided in the site to prevent such material being deposited on the public road.

Reason: to ensure all vehicles leaving the site will not emit dust or deposit mud, debris, slurry or other deleterious material on the adjoining public road.

9. Any existing ditch, watercourse, or drain under the site access or passing

places/localised road widening shall be bridged, culverted or piped using a suitable diameter pipe. Bridging solutions, or bottomless or arched culverts, shall be designed to leave the bed and banks of the watercourse in a natural state. Prior to the commencement of the development, full details of the bridging/culverting arrangements to be used in these locations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority in consultation with Moray Council Transportation and the Scottish Environmental Protection

Agency. These elements of the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: in the interests of road safety, and to protect the water environment.

10. The new junction which is to be formed at the point where site access Option

1 meets the A941 shall have visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 120 metres in both directions. Whereas the new junction where site access Option 2 shall meets the A941 shall have visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 160 metres in both directions.

Reason: in the interests of road safety, and to provide a safe and suitable access.

11. If the site access road is not constructed to an adoptable road standard, prior

to the use of the new junction referred to in Condition 6 viii) commencing the site access road shall be surfaced with a suitable material (i.e. hot rolled asphalt) for a minimum distance of 30m from the point where it meets the A941, or for the length of the longest vehicle and load, whichever is the greater.

Reason: in the interests of road safety and to provide a safe and suitable access.

12. Prior to the use of the new junction referred to in Condition 6 viii)

commencing, a minimum length of 50 metres of the A941 (i.e. 25 metres either side of the centreline of the new junction) shall be surfaced in a suitable material (i.e. hot rolled asphalt); the same minimum length of 50 metres of road shall also be widened to a minimum of 6 metres, and shall include appropriate tapers such that delivery and construction vehicles do not have to mount the verges when negotiating the site access junction.

Reason: in the interests of road safety, and to provide a safe and suitable access.

13. The applicant to identify the network and source/s of the Todholes private

water supply (Our Ref: 07/00256/SPRING) and to agree appropriate water quality and quantity protection measures for that supply with Environmental Health, Moray, pre-construction.

Reason: Towards protection of the Todholes Private Water supply (Our Ref:

07/00256/SPRING) from any potential quality or quantity issues as a result of

the project.

14. The mitigation/enhancement measures at construction and operational

phases as specified in the Environmental Statement – Main Text Chapter 10

section 10.10 (geology, hydrology and hydrogeology), Chapter 11 section

11.12 (terrestrial ecology), Chapter 12 section 12.11 (aquatic ecology) and

Chapter 13 section 13.11 (ornithology) shall be adhered to and carried out as

described unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning

Authority.

Reason: In order to protect relevant species and their habitats and to ensure

that to ensure that the appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures are

undertaken.

15. Prior to commencement of development, applicant shall submit to and obtain written approval from the Moray Council of a;-

a. A Drainage Impact Assessment; b. A plan or plans showing details of the SUDS features including the 1 in

200 year flow path as set out in DIA; and; c. A construction phase surface water management plan.

Reason: To ensure reasonable skill, care and attention has been used in the design of a suitable SUDS scheme which will not increase the risk of flooding to any properties through the life cycle of the development.

16. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Moray Council, all watercourse

crossings must be designed to allow the 1:200 year flood event + climate change (20%) flow and where necessary, a blockage allowance and or mitigation is included the design.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not cause flooding to the surrounding area.

17. A finalised version of the Draft Access Management Strategy must be

submitted to and approved by the Moray Council Outdoor Access Manager

(in consultation with the Moray Local Outdoor Access Forum) prior to the

commencement of development. This document must contain a map of

existing Core Paths and Rights of Way and be based closely upon the Draft

Access Management Plan as shown in Environmental Statement Appendix

15.B. Any actions arising out of the strategy such works to path,

implementation of signage must be implemented in full and in accordance with

the finalised Strategy prior to the windfarm becoming operational.

Reason: In order to protect and enhance public access to and beyond the site.

18. The rating level of noise imissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty) when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes (to this condition), shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed set out in, or derived from, the tables attached to these conditions at any dwelling which is lawfully existing or has planning permission at the date of this permission and:

a) The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, wind

speed and wind direction, all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d).

These data shall be retained for a period of not less than 24 months. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the Local Planning Authority on its request, within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request.

b) Within 21 days from receipt of a written request from the Local

Planning Authority following a complaint to it from an occupant of a dwelling alleging noise disturbance at that dwelling, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the level of noise immissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written request from the Local Planning Authority shall set out at least the date, time and location that the complaint relates to and any identified atmospheric conditions, including wind direction, and include a statement as to whether, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component.

c) The assessment of the rating level of noise immissions shall be

undertaken in accordance with an assessment protocol that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The protocol shall include the proposed measurement location identified in accordance with the Guidance Notes where measurements for compliance checking purposes shall be undertaken, whether noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component, and also the range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise immissions. The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, having regard to the written request of the Local Planning Authority under paragraph (b), and such others as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits.

d) Where a dwelling to which a complaint is related is not listed in the

tables attached to these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from those listed in the Tables to be adopted at the complainant’s dwelling for compliance checking purposes. The proposed noise limits are to be those limits selected from the Tables specified for a listed location which the independent consultant considers as being likely to experience the most similar background noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s dwelling. The rating level of noise immissions resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the complainant’s dwelling.

e) The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within 2 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority for compliance measurements to be made under paragraph (b), unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the Guidance Notes. The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions.

f) Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise immissions

from the wind farm is required pursuant to Guidance Note 4(c), the

wind farm operator shall submit a copy of the further assessment

within 21 days of submission of the independent consultant’s

assessment pursuant to paragraph (c) above unless the time limit has

been extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Table 1: Between 07:00 and 23:00 – Noise limits expressed in dB LA90,10 minute as a function of the standardised wind speed (m/s) at 10 metre height as determined within the site averaged over 10 minute periods.

Location Standardised wind speed at 10 meter height (m/s) within the site averaged over 10 minute periods

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ballochford 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.7 36.5

Bridgend Cottage

35 35 35 35 35.9 36.7 37.6 38.4 39.3 40.1

Rhinturk 35 35 35 37.1 39.6 41.7 43.6 45.1 46.4 47.3

Todholes 35 35 35 35 36 37.8 39.4 40.8 42 42.9

Ardlewie 35 35.6 36.3 37.2 38.5 39.9 41.5 43.3 45.3 47.6

Table 2: Between 23:00 and 07:00 – Noise limits expressed in dB LA90,10 minute as a function of the standardised wind speed (m/s) at 10 metre height as determined within the site averaged over 10 minute periods.

Location Standardised wind speed at 10 meter height (m/s) within the site averaged over 10 minute periods

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ballochford 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Bridgend Cottage

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Rhinturk 40 40 40 40 40 40 41.6 43.5 45.2 46.8

Todholes 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.2 42 43.9

Ardlewie 40 40 40 40 40 40 41.5 43.3 45.3 47.6

Table 3: Coordinate locations of the properties listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Property Easting Northing

Ballochford 336050 833710

Bridgend Cottage 337411 831649

Rhinturk 336621 832942

Todholes 336330 832450

Ardlewie 337410 832270

Note to Table 3: The geographical coordinate references are provided for the purpose of identifying the general location of dwellings to which a given set of noise limits applies. Reason: To ensure an acceptable form of development and in order to protect the

amenity of any nearby residents from any undue noise and disturbance.

19. The wind farm operator shall submit a scheme to be approved by the

Planning Authority prior to the commencement of operation of the wind farm, for the assessment and regulation of amplitude modulation effects.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable form of development and in order to protect the amenity of any nearby residents from any undue noise and disturbance.

20. Construction activities associated with the development, including vehicle

movements at the site, shall be permitted between 0700 to 1900 hours Monday – Friday and 0700 to 1600 hours on Saturdays. Any required works outwith those times likely to be audible at the curtilage of a noise sensitive property shall not be permitted unless prior written details are provided by the developer to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

21. Blasting times associated with the formation of borrow pits, shall be restricted

as follows:

a) No blasting shall be carried out on the site except between the following times (1000 and 1200 hours) and (1400 and 1600 hours) on Mondays to Fridays and (1000 and 1200 hours) on Saturdays.

b) There shall be no blasting or drilling operations on Sundays, Bank

Holidays or National Holidays. c) The above condition shall not apply in cases of emergency when it is

considered necessary to carry out blasting operations in the interests of safety. The Planning Authority shall be notified in writing immediately of the nature and circumstances of any such event.

Reason: To protect nearby residents from undue noise and disturbance.

22. Ground vibration as a result of blasting operations to form borrow pits at the site, should the need arise shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of 10mms-1 in 95% of all blasts and no individual blast shall exceed a peak particle velocity of 12mms-1 as measured at vibration sensitive buildings. The measurement shall be the maximum of 3 mutually perpendicular directions taken at the ground surface at any vibration sensitive building.

Reason: To protect nearby residents from undue disturbance and loss of amenity.

23. At the reasonable request of the Planning Authority, following a complaint

relating to vibration from blasting operations to form borrow pits, the developer shall measure at its own expense ground vibration to ensure compliance with the above condition. The results of such monitoring shall thereafter be forwarded to the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect nearby residents from undue disturbance and loss of amenity.

24. At the reasonable request of the Planning Authority following a complaint the

Wind Turbine Operator shall investigate and instigate appropriate mitigation measures to minimise the effects of shadow flicker.

Reason: In order that shadow flicker can be given further consideration in the event of a complaint.

25. There shall be no Commencement of Development until a scheme for the

avoidance or mitigation of any shadow flicker experienced by residential and

commercial properties situated within 10 rotor diameters of any turbine

forming part of the Development and which lawfully exist or for which

planning permission has been granted at the date of this consent has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The

approved mitigation scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full.

Reason: To offset impacts of shadow flicker on residential and commercial

property amenity.

26. The Development will be decommissioned and will cease to generate electricity by no later than the date falling twenty five years from the date of Final Commissioning. The total period for restoration of the Site in accordance with this condition shall not exceed three years from the date of Final Commissioning without prior written approval of the Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Planning Authority.

There shall be no Commencement of Development unless a decommissioning, restoration and aftercare strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH and SEPA. The strategy shall outline measures for the decommissioning of

the Development, restoration and aftercare of the site and will include, without limitation, proposals for the removal of the Development, the treatment of ground surfaces, the management and timing of the works, and environmental management provisions.

No later than 3 years prior to decommissioning of the Development or the expiration of this consent (whichever is the earlier) a detailed decommissioning, restoration and aftercare plan, based upon the principles of the approved decommissioning, restoration and aftercare strategy, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval in consultation with SNH and SEPA. The detailed decommissioning, restoration and aftercare plan will provide updated and detailed proposals for the removal of the Development, the treatment of ground surfaces, the management and timing of the works and environment management provisions which shall include:

a) a site waste management plan (dealing with all aspects of waste produced during the decommissioning, restoration and aftercare phases);

b) details of the formation of the construction compound, welfare facilities, any areas of hardstanding, turning areas, internal access tracks, car parking, material stockpiles, oil storage, lighting columns, and any construction compound boundary fencing;

c) a dust management plan; d) details of measures to be taken to prevent loose or deleterious material

being deposited on the local road network including wheel cleaning and lorry sheeting facilities, and measures to clean the site entrances and the adjacent local road network;

e) a pollution prevention and control method statement, including arrangements for the storage and management of oil and fuel on the site; soil storage and management;

f) a surface water and groundwater management and treatment plan, including details of the separation of clean and dirty water drains, and location of settlement lagoons for silt laden water;

g) sewage disposal and treatment; h) temporary site illumination; i) the construction of any temporary access into the site and the creation

and maintenance of associated visibility splays; j) details of watercourse crossings; k) a species protection plan based on surveys for protected species

(including birds) carried out no longer than 18 months prior to submission of the plan.

The Development shall be decommissioned, site restored and aftercare thereafter undertaken in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing in advance with the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH and SEPA.

Reason: To ensure the decommissioning and removal of the Development in

an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner and the restoration

and aftercare of the site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental

protection.

Requested informatives

IRD001

Proposals for the management of abnormal indivisible loads to be approved must also include measures to ensure the safety of non vehicular road users. Prior to the commencement of deliveries or construction work a Section 96 Agreement under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 will be required to be approved between the developer and the roads Authority. This is to ensure that the costs to repair any damage to the public roads as a result of the construction work traffic are met by the applicant. Transport Scotland must be consulted with respect to all deliveries proposed via the A96 (Trunk Road). The neighbouring Local Authorities, through which the delivery route may pass, Highland/Aberdeenshire/Aberdeen City, must also be consulted. Planning consent does not carry with it the right to construct a new road or any part of a road. In accordance with Section 21 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 Construction Consent for new roads (includes passing places, modified junctions and footpaths) that will form part of the public road will be required. Advice on this matter can be obtained by emailing transport.develop@moray.gov.uk and reference to the following pages on the Council web site Checklist: http://www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file68812.pdf RCC: http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_65638.html Specification http://www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file68813.pdf The applicant is obliged to apply for a road opening permit in accordance with Section 85 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Advice on this matter can be obtained by emailing roads.permits@moray.gov.uk and reference to the following page on the Council web site Road Opening: http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_79860.html Public utility apparatus may be affected by this proposal. Contact the appropriate utility service in respect of any necessary utility service alterations which have to be carried out at the expense of the developer. If required, street furniture will need to be repositioned at the expense of the developer. In addition any existing roadside ditch may require a pipe or culvert. Advice on these matters can be obtained by emailing road.maint@moray.gov.uk The applicants shall be responsible for any necessary diversion of any utilities or drainage present at the locations where works are to be undertaken. The applicants shall meet all costs of improvements to the road infrastructure, which are required as a result of the development.

The applicants shall meet all costs of removal and re-erection of road signage, which are required as a result of the delivery of the abnormal loads. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that surface/ground water does not run from the public road into his property. The applicants shall free and relieve the Roads Authority from any claims arising out of his operations on the road or extension to the road. No retaining structures or embankments shall be constructed along the edge of the road, whether retaining the public road or ground adjoining the public road without prior consultation and agreement of the Roads Authority. Bridges and Structures - The developer must contact Neil Fotheringham, Senior Engineer Moray Council Consultancy at Academy Street, Elgin – Tel (01343) 562542 to discuss the proposals. Traffic Management Plan - The developer must contact the Dave Malpas, Senior Engineer, Traffic Section at Moray Council HQ, Elgin – Tel (01343) 563 3780 to discuss the proposals. Roads Drainage - The developer must contact the Roads Authority Roads

Maintenance Manager (East) at Ashgrove Depot, Elgin – Tel (01343) 557300, Ext

7325 to discuss the proposals

The Moray Council Flood Risk Management Section have commented that;- Following completion of development as-built drawings to be provided in an acceptable format to the Senior Engineer (Flood Risk Management) in compliance with the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. IEH001

Guidance Notes for Noise Condition 18

These notes are to be read with and form part of the noise condition. They further

explain the condition and specify the methods to be employed in the assessment of

complaints about noise immissions from the wind farm. The rating level at each

integer wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level as determined

from the best-fit curve described in Guidance Note 2 of these Guidance Notes and

any tonal penalty applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3. Reference to ETSU-

R-97 refers to the publication entitled “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from

Wind Farms” (1997) published by the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) for

the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).

Guidance Note 1 (a) Values of the LA90,10 minute noise statistic should be measured at the

complainant’s property, using a sound level meter of EN 60651/BS EN 60804

Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1 quality (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using the fast time weighted response as specified in BS EN 60651/BS EN 60804 or BS EN 61672-1 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). This should be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). Measurements shall be undertaken in such a manner to enable a tonal penalty to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3.

(b) The microphone should be mounted at 1.2 – 1.5 metres above ground level,

fitted with a two-layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and placed outside the complainant’s dwelling. Measurements should be made in “free field” conditions. To achieve this, the microphone should be placed at least 3.5 metres away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground at the approved measurement location. In the event that the consent of the complainant for access to his or her property to undertake compliance measurements is withheld, the wind farm operator shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority details of the proposed alternative representative measurement location prior to the commencement of measurements and the measurements shall be undertaken at the approved alternative representative measurement location.

(c) The LA90,10 minute measurements should be synchronised with

measurements of the 10-minute arithmetic mean wind and operational data logged in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d), including the power generation data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm.

(d) To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind farm

operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind speed in metres per second and wind direction in degrees from north at hub height for each turbine and arithmetic mean power generated by each turbine, all in successive 10-minute periods. Unless an alternative procedure is previously agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, this hub height wind speed, averaged across all operating wind turbines, shall be used as the basis for the analysis. All 10 minute arithmetic average mean wind speed data measured at hub height shall be ‘standardised’ to a reference height of 10 metres as described in ETSU-R-97 at page 120 using a reference roughness length of 0.05 metres . It is this standardised 10 metre height wind speed data, which is correlated with the noise measurements determined as valid in accordance with Guidance Note 2, such correlation to be undertaken in the manner described in Guidance Note 2. All 10-minute periods shall commence on the hour and in 10- minute increments thereafter.

(e) Data provided to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the noise

condition shall be provided in comma separated values in electronic format. (f) A data logging rain gauge shall be installed in the course of the assessment of

the levels of noise immissions. The gauge shall record over successive 10-

minute periods synchronised with the periods of data recorded in accordance with Note 1(d).

Guidance Note 2 (a) The noise measurements shall be made so as to provide not less than 20

valid data points as defined in Guidance Note 2

(b) Valid data points are those measured in the conditions specified in the agreed written protocol under paragraph (c) of the noise condition, but excluding any periods of rainfall measured in the vicinity of the sound level meter. Rainfall shall be assessed by use of a rain gauge that shall log the occurrence of rainfall in each 10 minute period concurrent with the measurement periods set out in Guidance Note 1. In specifying such conditions the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to those conditions which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise or which are considered likely to result in a breach of the limits.

(c) For those data points considered valid in accordance with Guidance Note

2(b), values of the LA90,10 minute noise measurements and corresponding values of the 10- minute wind speed, as derived from the standardised ten metre height wind speed averaged across all operating wind turbines using the procedure specified in Guidance Note 1(d), shall be plotted on an XY chart with noise level on the Y-axis and the standardised mean wind speed on the X-axis. A least squares, “best fit” curve of an order deemed appropriate by the independent consultant (but which may not be higher than a fourth order) should be fitted to the data points and define the wind farm noise level at each integer speed.

Guidance Note 3 (a) Where, in accordance with the approved assessment protocol under

paragraph (c) of the noise condition, noise immissions at the location or locations where compliance measurements are being undertaken contain or are likely to contain a tonal component, a tonal penalty is to be calculated and applied using the following rating procedure.

(b) For each 10 minute interval for which LA90,10 minute data have been

determined as valid in accordance with Guidance Note 2 a tonal assessment shall be performed on noise immissions during 2 minutes of each 10 minute period. The 2 minute periods should be spaced at 10 minute intervals provided that uninterrupted uncorrupted data are available (“the standard procedure”). Where uncorrupted data are not available, the first available uninterrupted clean 2 minute period out of the affected overall 10 minute period shall be selected. Any such deviations from the standard procedure, as described in Section 2.1 on pages 104-109 of ETSU-R-97, shall be reported.

(c) For each of the 2 minute samples the tone level above or below audibility shall

be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104 to 109 of ETSU-R-97.

(d) The tone level above audibility shall be plotted against wind speed for each of the 2 minute samples. Samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, a value of zero audibility shall be used.

(e) A least squares “best fit” linear regression line shall then be performed to

establish the average tone level above audibility for each integer wind speed derived from the value of the “best fit” line at each integer wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic mean shall be used. This process shall be repeated for each integer wind speed for which there is an assessment of overall levels in Guidance Note 2.

(f) The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone

according to the figure below.

Guidance Note 4 (a) If a tonal penalty is to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3 the

rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Guidance Note 2 and the penalty for tonal noise as derived in accordance with Guidance Note 3 at each integer wind speed within the range specified by the Local Planning Authority in its written protocol under paragraph (c) of the noise condition.

(b) If no tonal penalty is to be applied then the rating level of the turbine noise at

each wind speed is equal to the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Guidance Note 2.

(c) In the event that the rating level is above the limit(s) set out in the Tables

attached to the noise conditions or the noise limits for a complainant’s dwelling approved in accordance with paragraph (d) of the noise condition, the independent consultant shall undertake a further assessment of the rating level to correct for background noise so that the rating level relates to wind turbine noise immission only.

(d) The wind farm operator shall ensure that all the wind turbines in the development are turned off for such period as the independent consultant requires to undertake the further assessment. The further assessment shall be undertaken in accordance with the following steps:

(e) Repeating the steps in Guidance Note 2, with the wind farm switched off, and

determining the background noise (L3) at each integer wind speed within the range requested by the Local Planning Authority in its written request under paragraph (b) and the approved protocol under paragraph (c) of the noise condition.

(f) The wind farm noise (L1) at this speed shall then be calculated as follows

where L2 is the measured level with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty:

(g) The rating level shall be re-calculated by adding arithmetically the tonal

penalty (if any is applied in accordance with Note 3) to the derived wind farm noise L1 at that integer wind speed.

(h) If the rating level after adjustment for background noise contribution and

adjustment for tonal penalty (if required in accordance with note 3 above) at any integer wind speed lies at or below the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or at or below the noise limits approved by the Local Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling in accordance with paragraph (d) of the noise condition then no further action is necessary. If the rating level at any integer wind speed exceeds the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or the noise limits approved by the Local Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling in accordance with paragraph (d) of the noise condition then the development fails to comply with the conditions.