Argyll and Bute Council Development & Infrastructure · The Royal Society for the Protection of...

Argyll and Bute Council

Development & Infrastructure

Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required

by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)

(Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning

Permission in Principle

____________________________________________________________________________

Reference No: 11/02525/PP

Planning Hierarchy: Local

Applicant: Fyne Futures Ltd

Proposal: Erection of 3 wind turbines (100 metres high to blade tip) control building,

new and improved access tracks and ancillary development

Site Address: Land South Of Auchadaduie, Barr Glen, Glenbarr, Kintyre

____________________________________________________________________________

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973

____________________________________________________________________________

(A) THE APPLICATION

Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Erection of 3 wind turbines, hub height 59m and rotor diameter of 82m (100m to

blade tip) with external transformers and related switchgear;

• Erection of substation compound (50m x 50m) and control building (14m x 8m);

• Upgrading of existing junction with public road;

• Formation of new access track (2.1km) and improvement of existing on-site access

tracks (2.5km);

• Installation of transformer kiosks 3.1m x 2.4m x 2.7m;

• Formation of crane hard standing areas;

• Formation of works compound (50m x 50m);

• Installation of underground cabling;

Other specified operations

• Grid connection to Carradale substation (subject to separate consent) via overhead

cable;

• Forestry felling (9.5ha);

____________________________________________________________________________

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons stated in this report.

____________________________________________________________________________

(C) HISTORY:

97/01241/WGS – Woodland Grant Scheme on land at Loch Arnicle Woodland,

Bellochantuy, Campbeltown, Argyll – no objection to prior notification 10th September

1997.

10/00760/PP - Erection of temporary 80m meteorological mast for 2 years on Land

South East of Blary Hill, Glenbarr, Argyll & Bute – application approved 14th July 2010.

10/01044/PP - Erection of a temporary 50m anemometer mast for 2 years on Land

South East of Auchadaduie, Glenbarr, Argyll & Bute – application approved 17th August

2010.

11/00306/PP - Erection of temporary 81.5m meteorological mast on land at Arnicle,

Glenbarr, Argyll & Bute – application approved 28th May 2013

____________________________________________________________________________

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

The Scottish Government (Letter 27/02/2012) - No comments.

Transport Scotland (Letter dated 30/01/2012) - No comment.

Scottish Water (Letter 01/02/2012) - No objection.

Historic Scotland (Letters dated 23/02/2012 and 23/03/2012) – initially requested

further information in relation to the impact on two nearby Scheduled Ancient

Monuments at An Dunan and Blary. This information has since been received by HS

and their concerns have been addressed.

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (Letter 30/01/2012) - No objection subject

to the submission of an Environmental Management Plan at least two months prior to the

commencement of works.

Scottish Natural Heritage (Letters dated 23/03/2012, 21/05/2012 and 14/02/2014) –

initial response that the proposal could raise natural heritage issues of national interest

and objection raised until the further information obtained from the applicant. Following

receipt of additional ornithological information SNH subsequently revised their response

to one of no objection on ornithology grounds, but advised that the proposal is still likely

to have an adverse effect on Greenland white-fronted geese interest feature of the

Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. The proposed construction mitigation plans for black grouse

need to be modified to include a 500m buffer around any active leks in which no works

take place between one hour prior to sunset and two hours post sunrise. An appropriate

assessment is required to be carried out by Argyll and Bute Council.

In terms of its landscape and visual consequences, SNH concludes that the proposal is

not consistent with the Council’s Wind Energy Capacity Study (WECS). The proposal

will have a significant adverse landscape effect including on the character of the small

scale and settled Barr Glen and the coast in the Rocky Mosaic Landscape Character

Type (LCT). Furthermore there will be a significant adverse visual effect due to its

visibility and intrusion in key views to and from the west coast/glen including settlement,

recreation areas/tourist destinations, key routes and offshore. The proposal will

contribute to adverse cumulative landscape effect due to the impact of the addition of the

proposed development to the outer edge of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT. The

application will have adverse effects upon landscape character and qualities and the

experience of this landscape/seascape.

Scottish Natural Heritage concludes that the scale of the proposal is too large for the

area and the applicant has underplayed the impact in their Environmental Statement.

The proposal is contrary to the siting and design guidance which recommends that the

proposal is one third or less than the height of the hill. The proposal is approximately

one half the height of the hill which alters the perception of the scale. This effect is

exacerbated when the proposal is viewed in combination with settlement which acts as a

scale indicator and emphasises the relatively large scale of the proposal. The visuals

have not been produced to SNH’s standard guidance and as a result actually lessen the

actual impact that these turbines will have. The applicant has been requested by SNH

to re-submit the visuals but they have declined to do so.

In SNH’s opinion the habitats recorded in the development footprint are of limited

ecological value due to their small scale and age category. An exception to this is the

stream and streamside margins which may support a variety of species and the

broadleaved plantation woodland which once fully grown may provide valued habitat.

Mitigation for the presence of protected species including otters, badgers and bats would

be required in the event of permission being granted.

Ministry Of Defence – no response

National Air Traffic Services (25/01/2012) - proposals do not conflict with their

safeguarding surfaces

Civil Aviation Authority (E-mail t 20/01/2012) - No specific comment.

Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (Email sent 03/02/2012) - No objection

subject to a red obstacle light fitted on the hub of each turbine.

Joint Radio Company (Email dated 10/02/2012) - No objection.

Ofcom – no response

CSS Spectrum Management – no response

Telecommunications Association of the UK Water Industry (Email 24/01/2012) - No

objection.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Letter dated 25/04/2012, e-mail

07/02/14 and letter dated 04.04.14) – initially objected to this proposal on the basis that

additional survey work should be carried out to properly ascertain potential impacts on

Greenland white fronted geese. Further survey work should be undertaken regarding

Red Throated Divers, Hen Harrier, Black Grouse. Upon the receipt of further information

from the applicant the RSPB has since withdrawn its objection. There remain however

residual concerns about the manner in which the Environmental Statement focusses

largely on the SPA goose population without any real assessment of the local sub-

population of geese in the Glenbarr area, which may affect both distribution of birds in

the SPA and impacts at a Natural Heritage Zone level.

Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board (Letter dated 20/02/2012) - are critical of

the Ecology Report and its findings, however they do not object and recommend that a

condition is attached to any permission requiring the submission of an Environmental

Management Plan (EMP) to address their concerns prior to the commencement of

works.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (Letter dated 08/02/2012) - The area is rich in

archaeology interest and therefore a planning condition should be attached to any

permission requiring the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) to be

agreed with WoSAS and the planning authority and duly implemented.

Forestry Commission Scotland (E-mail 01/04/2014 and letter dated 09.04.14) –

Discussions between the applicant and FCS has resulted in FCS raising concerns over

the proposed mitigation measures planned by the applicant for felling operations.

Following discussions FCS has recommended a number of changes and the imposition

of a suspensive planning condition requiring the identification of and the implementation

of compensatory planting.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer (Memo 31/01/2012) - It is noted that the

applicant does not have a specific turbine model but has used a representative machine

for the noise data. This demonstrates that the relative noise limits can be met at the

nearby sensitive receptors. However, Environmental Health should be contacted again

should the proposal be approved to ensure that the exact turbine model meets the ETSU

noise standards for nearby properties.

With regard to construction works a programme for the development of the site should

be finalised and submitted to Environmental Health for assessment to ensure that noise

arising from the construction phase meets with BS 5228:2009. The applicants’

contractor should meet with the residents from Upper Barr and South Kilmaluag so that

residents are made aware of the operations from the construction phase.

The above can be controlled via recommended planning conditions.

Council’s Roads Engineers (Memos dated 03/02/2012 and 14/01/14) – No objection

subject to the submission of a Traffic Management Plan include details of all materials,

plant, equipment, components and labour required during the construction, operation

and decommissioning phase. A detailed Method Statement in relation to access and

transport of materials, plant and equipment.is also required. Further conditions should be

imposed to require the construction of passing places, localised carriage widening, a

road and structures condition report and a programme of inspections during the course

of construction and decommissioning.

The applicant has been advised of the need of a Traffic Management Plan and Method

Statement but has declined to provide this up front, preferring that it de dealt with by way

of condition. Members will be aware that in view of experience elsewhere where the

achievability of off-site access works has frustrated the implementation of a wind turbine

planning consent, it is the wish of the Committee that all aspects of the transportation of

components and other materials to the site should be assessed in detail at the

application stage, rather than being dealt with by means of condition.

Gigha Community Council (Email 06/02/2012) - No comments.

West Kintyre Community Council – No response

____________________________________________________________________________

(E) PUBLICITY:

Regulation 20, Local Application Advert (expired 24/02/2012) EIA Regulations Advert

(expired 02/03/2012)

Further to the consideration of the contents of the Environmental Statement submitted in

support of the application, further information has been submitted by the applicants

following the initial advice of consultees and officials. This further information includes:

• additional ornithology data;

• additional viewpoint photomontages.

In order enable third parties to avail themselves of the same information, this has been

construed to be ‘Additional Environmental Information’ in terms of Part 6 of the Town and

Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011.

Accordingly, further advertisement of the proposal in the light of the additional

information has been carried out with the final advertising period having expired on

23/08/2013.

____________________________________________________________________________

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

At time of writing, a total of 30 individuals have objected to the proposal and 1 general

representation has been received. Full details of representees are given at Appendix B.

The key issues raised are summarised below and are addressed in the assessment at

Appendix A

Against The Proposal

Concerns have been raised in respect of the following summarised issues:

Ecological Impact

• Adverse ecological impact of the proposal on protected species living in the area.

Comment: SNH has not raised any concerns with regards to otters and badgers and are

content with the survey work carried out by the applicant and the proposed mitigation

measures contained within the applicant’s ES.

Ornithological Impact

• Adverse ornithological impact of the proposal on the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special

Protection Area (SPA) and the Kintyre Goose Lochs Site of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI) designations for their importance to the Greenland White Fronted Geese that

over-winter in Kintyre Red-throated Diver, Black Grouse and Hen Harriers.

Comment: Initial responses from RSPB and SNH raised objections with regard to the

impact on Greenland white fronted geese. The applicant then carried out substantial

additional survey work to address these objections. In SNH’s latest consultation

response they have removed their objection with regard to ornithology. Concerns were

raised with regard to Hen Harriers and Red Throated Diver however SNH are content

that these can be addressed via pre-commencement planning conditions.

Landscape Impacts

• Landscape impact of the proposal on landscape character in terms of its scale; the

Kintyre coast APQ; views from throughout the glen; and key transport routes.

Comment: Adverse impacts on landscape character are assessed in detail in Appendix

A of this report.

Visual Impacts

• Visual impact of the proposal particularly when viewed from throughout Glenbarr and

the A83. There are concerns over the over bearing impact from existing and

permitted houses and the settlement of Glenbarr (the proposal is less than the

Government recommended distance of 2km from some existing dwellings).

Comment: Issues of visual impact are assessed in detail in Appendix A of this report.

• Concerns over the cumulative impact of this proposal when considered with the

prospective applications for windfarms at Blary Hill and at Creggans, both within Barr

Glen.

Comment: Given that at the time the application was submitted neither Blary Hill nor

Creggans was available in any real detail then the applicant was not required to consider

these proposals in light of their LVIA. However, the Creggans wind farm S36 application

which has been submitted to the Scottish Government is required to consider

Auchadaduie and Blary Hill which is expected to be submitted to the Council soon will be

required to consider both Auchadaduie and Creggans.

People and Settlements

• The proposal will have an adverse impact on those people living in the glen with

regards to noise during construction and operation.

Comment: Environmental Health has not raised any objection with regard to either the

construction or operational phases of the development. They have asked that the

applicant advise residential properties of works prior to commencement of works and

this can be covered by a condition that the applicant carries out some form of publicity

exercise prior to the commencement of works to advise neighbouring properties of the

likely timing, phasing and different elements of the works.

• The turbines will impact on television signals as admitted in the applicants’

supporting documentation.

Comment: The applicants’ supporting statement does admit that there may be an impact

on terrestrial television signals for up to 4 properties. Satellite signals are not generally

affected by wind turbines. The applicant suggests that there is recognised mitigation

measures available to them should properties suffer a loss of signal and that this can be

controlled via planning conditions.

Historic Environment

• Likely adverse impact on the historic environment, which should be preserved in

order to fully realise its potential.

Comment: Historic Scotland has not raised any objections or concerns to this proposal

since the submission of additional details to them.

Tourism & Recreation

• Likely impact the proposal would have on tourism and recreation by deterring tourists

from visiting the area which would affect: the shops, holiday accommodation,

restaurants, the Kintyre Way and the main tourist route to Arran (B8001 and ferry).

Concerns have also been raised regarding the impact of the proposal on those who

enjoy water borne activities.

Comment: There has is no firm established link nationally between the erection of wind

turbines and a drop in tourism income to an area, as the research is generally

inconclusive. However, Reporters on appeal in the case of wind farm developments

elsewhere in Argyll have taken the view that the area is particularly dependant on tourist

related income associated with the scenic qualities of the landscape and that

environmental harm caused by poorly sited and designed wind farms poses a threat,

albeit unquantified, to the welfare of the tourism economy.

Public Safety

• In regard to the inappropriate proximity of the turbines to houses and settlements;

noise; vibration, and shadow flicker are likely to have an adverse effect on the health

of the occupants of these dwellings.

Comment: The applicant’s submission has detailed that the nearest sensitive receptors

will not be impacted by noise and that the ETSU standard of 35dB will be met. With

regard to shadow flicker the Scottish Government’s recommended distance to avoid

flicker is 10x the rotor diameter which in this case would be 810m. The nearest property

is South Kilmaluag some 1,153m from the nearest turbine whilst planning permission

has been granted for a property some 1,194m away. This demonstrates that shadow

flicker will not be a problem in this instance.

The Council’s Environmental Health department has not raised any concerns with

regards to operational impact on residential properties. They have however requested

planning conditions to minimise disturbance on nearby properties during the construction

phase.

Cumulative Impact

• Adverse cumulative impact the proposal would have: by extending the influence of

existing wind farms into a more sensitive landscape; in terms of landscape and visual

impact when viewed with Tangy and Beinn an Tuirc; and it would result in fewer

open viewpoints on the peninsula without turbines.

Comment: Cumulative landscape and visual impacts are assessed in Appendix A of this

report.

Grid Network

• No specific proposals stated for taking energy produced away, either by pylons or

underground cable, either of which would have a further environmental impact. A

query has also been raised on the council’s policy to multiple grid connections.

Comment: Government policy expects that grid connection only be considered in the

round at planning application stage as the grid connection route is subject to a separate

consenting process under the provisions of the Electricity Act.

Economy

• Adverse impacts on the local economy, it being suggested that: it would stop people

from buying or building a house in the area and this would be a big loss to the

economy; that it would adversely affect established businesses who are reliant on

the landscape to attract customers/tourists; and the ability of people to sell their

properties. Concerns have been raised that the proposal will adversely affect

property values.

Comment: The economic implications of the development in terms of construction and

operation are material planning considerations but implications for property values are

not.

Associated Community Benefits

• The proposal is primarily profit driven and will bring no direct local benefits to the

community.

Comment: The applicants have indicated a willingness to provide an element of

community benefit by means of a local fund in the event that permission is granted, but

the means of doing so is not disclosed and availability of community benefit is not a

material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

Planning Policy & Guidance

• The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan policies and the

‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’.

Comment: An assessment against the provisions of the development plan is covered in

Appendix A of this report.

Sustainable Development

• Concerns have been raised in regard to the sustainability of the proposal - it is

considered that the landscape should be preserved as a legacy for our future

generations.

Comment: Issues of landscape and visual impact are covered in Appendix A of this

report.

Efficiency of Technology

• Concerns have been raised about the efficiency of wind turbine technology in regard

to lifespan; maintenance and repair; generating efficiency and the fact the wind farms

built on peatlands create more carbon than they save.

Comment: Matters expressed about the sustainability of wind power generally rather

than the specifics of the proposal at hand are not material to the acceptability of this

particular development.

Quality of the Environmental Statement

• Concerns have been raised regarding the quality of work undertaken as part of the

Environmental Impact Assessment particularly in relation to: noise; ecology; fish and

ornithology

Comment: Concerns have been raised by a number of consultees in relation to the

quality of the ES. To this end the applicant has sought to address much of this concern

by the submission of further information and this is evident in updated consultee

responses. Where details have not been updated they could be controlled by planning

conditions.

• The UK ‘National Renewable Energy Action Plan’ has been found by the United

Nations Economic Commission Europe to violate the Aarhus Convention in the

absence of public access to environmental information and public participation in the

preparation and adoption of that strategy, and that therefore there should be a

moratorium on the approval of wind farms nationally. The objector comments

adversely on the principle of wind farms, and contends that ‘wind farm’ is a

misnomer and that that ‘wind factory’ would be a more appropriate term for this type

of development. He contends that wind turbines are harmful to both wildlife and to

human health, that they are inefficient, subsidised and require expensive back-up

when turbines are not productive. As far as public opinion is concerned the silent

majority are silent because they do not understand the financial, health and

environmental harm associated with wind power. He also considers that proliferation

of turbines will be harmful to the Scottish tourism economy.

Comment: The implications of the UN Aarhus ruling are for consideration at government

level rather than at the level of individual development proposals. No national

moratorium has been put in place in response to that ruling and advice from the Scottish

Government to planning authorities is that they should continue to determine

applications placed before them. The comments expressed by the objector relate

primarily to the merits of wind farm development in Scotland generally, rather than to the

particular circumstances of the application at hand.

NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should

note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in this

report, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of

representations are available on request. It should also be noted that the associated

drawings, application forms, consultations, other correspondence and all letters of

representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll-

bute.gov.uk

________________________________________________________________________

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement (ES): Yes

(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats)

Regulations 1994: Yes

(iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact,

transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No

_________________________________________________________________________

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 (S75) agreement required: No

_________________________________________________________________________

(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or

32: No

_________________________________________________________________________

(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations

over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the

assessment of the application

(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in

assessment of the application.

‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002)

STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development

STRAT DC 4: Development in Rural Opportunity Areas

STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside

STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive Countryside

STRAT DC 7: Nature Conservation & Development Control

STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control

STRAT DC 9: Historic Environment & Development Control

STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development

‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009)

LP ENV 1: Development Impact on the General Environment

LP ENV 2: Development Impact on Biodiversity

LP ENV 6: Development Impact on Habitats and Species

LP ENV 7 - Development Impact on Trees/Woodland

LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality

LP ENV 12: Water Quality and Environment

LP ENV 16: Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments

LP ENV 17: Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance

LP ENV 19: Development Setting, Layout and Design

LP BAD 1: Bad Neighbour Development

LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development

LP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes

LP TRAN 7: Safeguarding of Airports

Note: The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at

www.argyll-bute.gov.uk

‘Argyll & Bute Proposed Local Development Plan’ (2013)

LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables

SG LDP REN 1 Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development over 50 m high

Wind Farm Policy Map

The consultation on the Proposed Local Development Plan ran from 4th

February until 29th April 2013. The responses to this consultation have been

reported to Council and all unresolved objections have been submitted to the

Scottish Government who are to appoint Reporter(s) and hold an Examination of

these issues. The Renewable Energy Policies and Wind Farm Policy Map are the

subject of 24 representations on these matters, including SNH, the RSPB,

various renewable energy companies and individuals. Given the fact that the

relevant wind farm policy and map in the emergent LDP have been contested,

they ought not to be accorded material weight in the determination of the

application at this point in the plan-making process, given that there is no

certainty that they will remain unaltered following Examination and Adoption of

the plan.

(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the

assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular

4/2009.

• Scottish Planning Policy (2009)

• Scottish Government Advice Note on Onshore Turbines (2012)

• ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012)

• ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ SNH

(2009).

• ‘Control of Woodland Removal Policy’ Scottish Government (2009)

____________________________________________________________________________

(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA): The application qualifies as EIA development under Schedule 2.

An EIA has been required due to the potential for significant environmental impact.

____________________________________________________________________________

(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation

(PAC): No

____________________________________________________________________________

(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No, separate consideration of the

proposal’s degree of sustainability has been required as the concept is implicit within the

EIA process.

____________________________________________________________________________

(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No.

___________________________________________________________________________

(O) Requirement for a Hearing: Whilst there are 29 objectors to the proposal, given the

recommendation for refusal and the absence of supporters, in the event that Members

are minded to refuse the application it is not considered that there would be added value

in the holding of a discretionary pre-determination hearing in this case. Should Members

be minded to support the application a local hearing would be appropriate.

____________________________________________________________________________

(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations

The proposal seeks the construction of wind farm comprising 3 wind turbines 100 metres

to the blade tip along with access works and ancillary development. The principal issues

in this case are the visual impact of the development on Barr Glen and areas of the west

Kintyre coast, cumulative impact in association with other consented and proposed wind

farms in the area and associated consequences for the value of the area as a tourism

resource; along with the implications of forestry removal in the absence of a Forest Plan

and associated compensatory planting having been agreed to the satisfaction of the

Forestry Commission. 29 representations against the proposal have been received from

the public.

Serious concerns have been expressed by Scottish Natural Heritage as to the adverse

visual and cumulative impacts of the development including visual consequences upon

adjacent landscape character types. The application has not prompted a formal objection

on their behalf due to the absence of significant impacts upon national interests. SNH

does not raise any serious concerns in relation to ornithology or other nature

conservation interests. The RSPB objected to the application submission on

ornithological grounds and has been supplied with additional bird survey results and has

withdrawn their objection.

The applicant has been in discussion with FCS but has not submitted anything direct to

the planning authority. FCS as forwarded these details for our information however as

they are in draft form and not submitted by the applicant they cannot be considered part

of the application. Once details between FCS and the applicant are agreed a

supplementary report will be issued to Members as far in advance of the committee

meeting as is possible.

Although the Council’s roads engineers have not objected to the proposal, in the

absence of the assessment of the delivery route in detail (a Traffic Management Plan

and a detailed Method Statement in relation to access and transport of materials, plant

and equipment have yet to be supplied), it is not possible to conclude with certainty as

to the merits of the access and traffic aspects of the application without additional detail

concerning the delivery route, including the achievability of any off-site improvements or

accommodation works which may be required to facilitate the movement of abnormal

loads. Given that it is the Committee’s experience that it is prudent that access

considerations are dealt with in full up-front, rather than by means of planning conditions,

it is not possible to conclude with certainty that the proposal would be capable of

implementation, if it were to be granted with these matters being left to further

assessment and subsequent consideration. There are no matters raised by other

consultees which are not capable of being addressed by condition.

The application site is located on the southern ridge line of Barr Glen and would be

highly visible from in and around the settlement of Glenbarr. There will be views directly

encompassing both this proposal and the existing Beinn An Tuirc wind farm from the

A83 coastal route, the Kintyre Way and the minor road leading through the glen. At

100m in height, the turbines proposed would dominate the scale of the glen to the

detriment of the adjacent smaller scale landscapes, including settled and farmed

landscapes and the coastal edge, all of which would be sensitive to the intrusion of

development on this scale. As well as casting an immediate effect over the small scale

and settled glen and coast, the influence of the wind turbines would also extend to the

sensitive hills of Kintyre and Gigha. The degree and extent of this influence would

detract from the visual amenity of the area surrounding the site, resulting in significant

visual impacts for residents and visitors to the area.

The proposal does not share the locational advantages of consented windfarm

developments in Kintyre which have been sited to exploit the topographical advantages

of upland spine locations, where they shed comparatively little influence on the more

sensitive coastal landscapes of the peninsula, where settlement, transport routes,

historic environment and tourism assets tend to be concentrated. The proposal is not in

accordance with the recommendations of the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy

Capacity Study’ (2012) which specifically references that turbine development should be

kept off the ridges of Barr Glen. The proposal is not set well back into the interior of

Kintyre but is set on the southern ridge of Barr Glen where it would exert a dominant

influence over the immediate area. The head of the glen is already significantly

influenced by a cluster of existing turbines on high ground at Beinn an Tuirc, and the

development of these turbines on the southern skyline of the glen, plus the possibility

that the current Section 36 application being approved by the government for a large

number of turbines at Creggan along the northern side of the glen, would lead

cumulatively to visual encirclement of the glen as a whole by wind turbines. In this

location the proposal would impinge on the setting and views from the small scale settled

‘Rocky Mosaic’ character type with significant adverse consequences for this LCT in

relation to the Kintyre coast APQ, which has been designated in recognition of its

regional status as a landscape resource, with valued scenic qualities which contribute to

the attraction of this part Argyll as a tourism destination. This inappropriately

conspicuous development would make a disproportionate contribution to the cumulative

impact of wind turbine development in Kintyre and would not conform with the approach

adopted in the approved ‘Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ which is to build upon

the locational advantages of the upland spine interior of the peninsula in seeking to

accommodate further large scale turbine development, in order to avoid inappropriate

influence being exerted upon more sensitive coastal areas, transport routes and

communities. In terms of visual impact, the wind turbines would be prominent in short-

range views from the A83 and the minor road leading through the glen. Residential

properties would experience an overbearing and dominating effect from the turbines

despite being over 1km away.

Notwithstanding the contribution that this proposal could make towards combating

climate change, development giving rise to inappropriate environmental consequences

cannot be viewed as being sustainable; consequently, the proposal is recommended for

refusal on visual and cumulative impact grounds.

The proposal requires the felling of 9.5ha of forestry. In circumstances where forestry

felling is required to enable a development, a separate Felling Licence is not required

from the Forestry Commission. Accordingly, FCS is only able to secure their

requirements by way of the planning process. In this case the Forestry Commission has

indicated through email discussions that they are concerned that the proposal is not

accompanied by an appropriately specified Forest Plan and that there are no details of

woodland management or compensatory planting. The forestry proposals contained in

the ES do not satisfy the development plan with regard to policy LP ENV 7. However,

FCS has advised that they are in discussion with the applicant over the matter. The

applicant has had significant amount of time to address this issue and still has not

submitted any details to the planning authority. Should further information from either

FCS or the applicant be submitted then this will be addressed via a supplementary report

prior to the meeting of the PPSL committee. Insufficient information is available to

reliably conclude whether the proposal ought to be regarded as being compliant with the

requirements of local plan policy LP ENV 7 (Development Impact on Trees/Woodland).

The proposal is considered contrary to: SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice

Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT

RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development; STRAT DC 4: Development in Rural

Opportunity Areas; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 6:

Development in Very Sensitive Countryside; of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002);

Policies LP ENV 1: Development Impact on the General Environment; LP ENV 7

Development Impact on Trees/Woodland; LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of

Panoramic Quality; Policy LP ENV 19: Development Setting, Layout and Design; and LP

REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute

Local Plan’ (2009). It also fails to accord with guidance published by the Council in the

‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2012) and Scottish Natural

Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’(2009).

___________________________________________________________________________

(Q) Reasons why planning permission should be refused: This proposal is inconsistent

with the provisions of the Development Plan due to its adverse visual and cumulative

impacts. It would impinge inappropriately on the setting of and views from the small

scale settled ‘Rocky Mosaic’ landscape character type with significant adverse

consequences for the visual qualities of the designated Kintyre coast APQ which is

identified as a scenic resource of regional value. In the absence of sufficient information

to demonstrate that the implications of forestry operations including compensatory

planting have been satisfactorily addressed, the proposal does not satisfy Forestry

Commission requirements in terms of forest management and replanting. There is

insufficient information provided concerning the delivery route to the site to be able to

conclude that necessary off-site access improvements and accommodation works are

achievable. All other material issues have been taken into account but these are not of

such weight as to overcome the identified adverse impacts, which cannot be overcome

by the imposition of planning conditions or by way of legal agreement.

____________________________________________________________________________

(R) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan:

There is no justifiable reason for a departure to be made from the provisions of the

Development Plan in this case.

____________________________________________________________________________

(S) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: There is no

requirement for notification to Scottish Ministers.

Author of Report: David Love Date: 28th March 2014

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 1st April 2014

Angus Gilmour

Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 11/02525/PP

1. The application site is located on the southern ridge of Barr Glen which constitutes one of

the ‘hidden glens’ of the Kintyre peninsula. The proposed wind turbines would be

prominent in short-range views from the A83, from the minor road through the glen and

from the vicinity of the settlement of Glenbarr. They would frequently skyline in available

views and be and would be prominent visually, distracting from the composition of

elements which contribute to the scenic quality of the surrounding area. The areas of

expected visibility coincide with more frequented areas where sensitive receptors tend to

be concentrated, including the coast, settlement, historic environment and recreation

assets, and extend their influence to hilltops, the Kintyre Way, and road and ferry routes,

all which have value as a recreational and tourism resource. At 100m in height, the

turbines proposed would dominate the glen, impinging inappropriately on the setting of

and views from the small scale settled ‘Rocky Mosaic’ landscape character type with

significant adverse consequences for the visual qualities Kintyre coast APQ, which has

been designated as a scenic resource of regional value. As well as casting an immediate

effect over the small scale landscape of the glen and the settled coast of Kintyre, the

influence of the wind turbines would also extend to the island of Gigha and more distant

coastlines and seascapes. The proposal does not share the locational advantages of

consented wind turbine developments in Kintyre which have been sited to exploit the

topographical advantages of upland spine locations inland, where they shed comparatively

little influence upon those more settled and sensitive coastal landscapes of the peninsula

which contribute to the attraction of this part Argyll as a tourism destination. The proposal

is not in accordance with the recommendations of the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind

Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) which specifically advises that turbine development should

be kept off the sensitive ridges of Barr Glen. The proposal also requires the clearance of

trees and significant engineering works at the proposed site access from the minor road

through the glen. Whilst the adverse effects of these works will be localised and only

experienced by road users over a short distance, they comprise an additional and

unnecessary intrusion into the local environment prompted as a consequence of an

inappropriately located development. The foregoing environmental considerations are of

such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected benefits which a

development of this scale would make to the achievement of climate change related

commitments. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy

and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies

STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive

Countryside, STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 8:

Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine

Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2009) and Policies LP ENV 10:

Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality and LP REN 1: Commercial Wind

Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009) and does

not accord with the guidance published by the Council in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape

Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Siting

and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009).

2. Barr Glen is already subject to the influence of wind turbine development as a

consequence of the presence of Beinn An Tuirc wind farm which is visible on elevated

land beyond the head of the glen. The proposal would introduce the presence of turbines

on the southern side of the glen, where by virtue of their location, scale and movement

they would constitute inappropriately conspicuous development which would not conform

with the approach advocated in the Council’s approved ‘Landscape Wind Energy Capacity

Study’, which seeks to build upon the locational advantages of the upland spine interior of

the peninsula in accommodating further large scale turbine development, in order to avoid

inappropriate influence being exerted upon more sensitive coastal landscapes, transport

routes and communities. The development would be separate from the existing focus of

wind energy development on the spine of Kintyre, where it would cast an unwelcome

additional influence over the glen, which is sensitive to this scale of development, and

where it would be more exposed to receptors, thereby exerting a disproportionate

influence in terms of the experience of simultaneous and sequential views in conjunction

with existing wind turbines. It would therefore give rise to unwelcome cumulative impacts

upon the glen by virtue of its association with Beinn and Tuirc windfarm and would

contribute to the visual encirclement of the glen by wind turbines which could arise in the

event that the current undetermined application for the Creggan windfarm along the

northern side of the glen were to be approved by the Scottish Government. The foregoing

environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset

by the projected benefits which a development of this scale would make to the

achievement of climate change related commitments. The proposal is inconsistent with

the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice


DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside, STRAT DC 6: Development in Very

Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT

RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2009)

and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality and LP REN

1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local

Plan’ (2009) and with the guidance published by the Council in the ‘Argyll and Bute

Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and Scottish Natural Heritage’s

‘Guidance on Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009).

3. The Planning Authority unable to conclude with certainty as to the merits of the access

and traffic aspects of the application in the absence of additional detail concerning the

delivery route, including the achievability of any off-site improvements or accommodation

works which may be required to facilitate the movement of abnormal loads. To that extent

it would wish to see a Traffic Management Plan detailing materials, plant, equipment,

components and labour required during the construction, operation and decommissioning

phase of the development along with a detailed Method Statement in relation to access

and transport of materials, plant and equipment. In the absence of this information it is not

possible to conclude wheter the proposal satisfies in full the requirements of Policies LP

TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and LP TRAN 5:

Off-Site Highway Improvements of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/02525/PP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY & WIND FARM PROPOSALS MAP

As this proposal is under 20MW, the site is not subject to spatial zoning for wind farm

development by the Local Plan Wind Farm Proposals Map. The wind turbine site straddles

Sensitive Countryside and Very Sensitive Countryside subject to the effect of Structure Plan

Policies STRAT DC 5 and 6, with the access through Rural Opportunity Area subject to the

effect of Policy STRAT DC 4.

In special cases both Policy STRAT DC 4 and STRAT DC 5 state that development in the open

countryside and ‘medium or large scale’ development may be supported if it accords with an

Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The proposal constitutes ‘large scale’ development in the

open countryside. However, it is not normal practice for an ACE to be undertaken for a wind

farm which has been subject to EIA, where consideration of alternatives is required as part of

the assessment process.

Policies STRAT DC 4, STRAT DC 5 and STRAT DC 6 also require proposals to be consistent

with all other Development Plan Policies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that the

scale and location of the proposal will integrate sympathetically with its surroundings, without

giving rise to adverse consequences for visual amenity and unwelcome cumulative impacts. For

the reasons detailed below in this report, it is considered that this proposal does not satisfy

development plan policy or associated guidance in respect of wind farm development.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the

provisions of the SPP (2009); Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore

Wind Farms; Policies STRAT DC 4: Development in Rural Opportunity Areas; STRAT DC

5: Development in Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive

Countryside and STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll &

Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policy LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines of the

‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

B. LOCATION, NATURE & DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is for the erection of a 3 turbine wind farm and ancillary development on

commercial forestry land. The site lies approximately 2 km east of the village of Glenbarr. The

site is most readily appreciated from the A83 and the C20 which runs along the length of Barr

Glen. Each wind turbine would have an electrical generation capacity of 2.3MW, providing a

total maximum generating capacity of 6.9MW. The maximum hub height of the turbines would

be 59m, with a rotor diameter of 82m, producing an overall height to the vertical blade tip of

100m.

The following elements are included in the planning application: Three three bladed horizontal

axis turbines with associated external transformers and switchgear; upgrade of the existing

access opposite South Kilmaluaig; improvement of existing access tracks along with new 2.1km

of new access track, the erection of a sub-station compound and control building, and

installation of underground cabling. Three crane hard-standing areas and a construction

compound are also proposed.

The general design of the turbines and ancillary structures follows current wind energy practice.

The design of the substation building is considered acceptable in terms of its design and

appearance. It measures some 14m x 8m however the applicants’ submission details that the

size is indicative pending further design work and that the architectural details and finishes are

to be agreed. It is assumed that the size is generally accurate of the final requirement. Subject

to appropriate detailing and finish this could integrate well with the landscape and have the

appearance of a traditional agricultural structure. The final details could be conditioned in the

event of an approval.

Whilst the design of the proposal is appropriate for a wind farm of this scale, its intended

location is not due to the adverse impacts detailed in this report, and therefore in terms of the

overall sustainability of the proposal, it is considered that it would have unacceptably adverse

landscape, visual, and cumulative impacts upon the receiving environment.


provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind

Farms; Policy STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan;

and, Policies LP ENV 1: Development Impact on the General Environment and LP ENV

19: Development Setting, Layout & Design of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

C. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

Landscape impacts may be considered in terms of the disturbance, damage or loss of individual

features of landscape character, such as streams, woodlands and open moorland. Landscape

character is a fundamental starting point for assessing whether a landscape is suitable for

assimilating wind energy development successfully, without giving rise to unacceptable impacts

upon the countryside.

According to the ‘Argyll and the Firth of Clyde Assessment’ (SNH 1996), the application site lies

within the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic (UFFM) Landscape Character Type (LCT). This is not a

pristine landscape, being heavily influenced by man-made activities, particularly extensive

afforestation with its associated access tracks and other engineering works, along with some

existing wind turbine development. In Kintyre the better prospects for large scale wind farm

development tend to be in the expansive and remoter parts of the UFMM LCT. The scale and

nature of this proposal is not one which would undermine the existing landscape character of

the LCT within which it is to be situated. It would however have consequences for the setting of,

and views from, the adjacent and more sensitive ‘Rocky Mosaic’ LCT and these are considered

in the following section.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of its effect upon the

landscape character of the LCT within which it is situated, this proposal is consistent

with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore

Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 5: Development

in Sensitive Countryside, STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive Countryside;

STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind

Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policies LP ENV 9:

LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality and LP REN 1:

Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’

(2009).

However for the reasons set out in the following section, it fails to satisfy these policies

in respect of its adverse visual impact upon adjacent landscape character types and also

fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by the Council and Scottish

Natural Heritage concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.

D. VISUAL IMPACT

Visual impact relates to the proposal’s visibility and its impacts on views, as experienced by

people. In determining the proposal’s visual impact, the layout of the wind farm has been

assessed from key viewpoints. Visually sensitive viewpoints include those where there are

views to, or from, designated landscapes; however, sensitivity is not confined to designated

interests. Visually sensitive viewpoints can include those which are frequently visited by people

(such as well-used transport corridors, tourist roads, or picnic spots), settlements where people

live, other inhabited buildings or viewpoints which have a landscape value that people

appreciate (and which they might visit for recreational pursuits or areas for hill walking, cycling

or education).

In order to assess the visual impact, the developer has agreed to appraise a series of

viewpoints identified to reflect the sensitivity of receptors. These are located in local

settlements, transportation corridors, places of cultural/historical interest and known popular

viewpoints. It is accepted that photomontages and other visual information can only give an

indication of the relative scale of the proposals in relation to the surrounding landscape. There

is no disguising the visual impact of the proposal, as 100 metre tall structures will be clearly

seen in the surrounding area.

List of Viewpoints assessed in the applicant’s Environmental Statement:

1) Upper Barr

2) Glenbarr

3) Amod Farm

4) Kintyre Way

5) Tayinloan – Gigha Ferry

6) Ardminish – Gigha

7) Kintyre Way near Machrihanish

8) Kennacraig – Port Ellen Ferry

9) Beinn Tarsuinn

Residential Visual Assessment has taken into account the following properties:

1) Auchadaduie (ruin)

2) Blary (ruin)

3) South Kilmaluag

4) Upper Barr

5) Kilmaluag

6) Skernish

7) Charlottan

8) High Margmonagach

9) High Killegruar

10) Sunnyside Farm

Scottish Natural Heritage has has expressed serious concerns as to the acceptability of this

particular site for large scale wind turbine development having regard to the Council’s

‘Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012). SNH has confined its response to one of

advice to the Council in its consideration of the application, given the absence of significant

impacts on national interests. Although the site is located in the Upper Forest Moor Mosaic

(UFFM), it impinges on the adjacent small scale and settled coast and glen. SNH therefore

advises that the proposal on the edge of hills above Barr Glen on the defining skyline makes it

visually prominent from the adjacent more sensitive ‘Rocky Mosaic’ character type and the size

of the proposal will dominate the scale of the glen on the western edge of the UFMM (hills in this

location rising to c200m AOD) and overwhelm the scale of settlement and other landscape

features. The size of the settlement in close proximity provides a ready scale reference. It will

also intrude on the sensitive skylines of the coastal edge including the key transport route the

A83 (designated tourist route), scattered settlement, sensitive coastal areas both onshore and

offshore (the sea and Gigha).

Accordance with recommendations in the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity

Study’

The proposal is not in accordance with the recommendations of the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape

Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) which considers the smaller scale and settled Barr Glen

would be sensitive to larger typologies sited on containing hills and ridges with provide

immediate skylines. Significant intrusion in the setting and views from the adjacent settled and

small scale Rocky Mosaic should be avoided by larger turbines being set well back into the

interior of these uplands. The Council’s WECS seeks to position turbines within the spine of

Kintyre where they are generally situated away from centres of population and in a large simple

landscape that can better accommodate large scale turbines. The proposal does not reinforce

the established pattern of turbine development but exerts influence inappropriately over the

more small scale and settled landscapes of Barr Gen and the coast.

It is the view of both officers and SNH that Auchadaduie is not set well back into the interior but

is close to the edge of the upland area where it is transected by the glen. In this location it

would impinge on the setting and views from the small scale settled Rocky Mosaic character

type with significant adverse impact in relation to the small settled glen and parts of the west

coast of Kintyre. Accordingly the proposal does not meet with the locational guidance specified

in the capacity study.

Scale, layout and design

The relatively small scale and often intimate landscapes of Argyll do not lend themselves to very

large turbines, other than in locations where they are well removed from sensitive receptors and

smaller scale landscape character types, particularly coastal and other scenic locations. SNH’s

guidance: ‘Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (2009) recommends that

development should be “of minor vertical scale in relation to the key features of the landscape

(typically less than one third)’. In this case Auchadaduie is greater than half the height of the hill

on which it is sited. Given the relatively close range at which the site can be experienced (from

the A83 and Barr Glenn) and its proximity to adjacent smaller scale and more sensitive

landscape character types, large scale turbine development which is disproportionate to and

which reduces the apparent scale of the landscape and which produces significant visual

impacts is inappropriate. The development makes little concession to the proximity of settlement

(small houses/farm buildings) which provides ready scale references when seen in the context

of large turbines, emphasising their disproportionate scale. Furthermore, the proposal appears

to have a poor relationship with existing wind farm development on the Kintyre peninsula. The

turbines of in some distant views could be interpreted as an outlier of the existing wind farm

development at Beinn an Tuirc. The final design responds neither to the landform, the scale of

the hill on which it is sited or to the character of farmed/settled areas or the coast, and therefore

does accord with SNH’s published siting and design guidance.

Both SNH and officers consider Auchadaduie to be inappropriately situated close to the edge of

the upland area (UFMM) and where it would give rise to a greater degree of visual intrusion than

consented developments on the spine of the peninsula, particularly in terms of short-range

views from Barr Glenn. Although there is some screening by surrounding landform in the wider

landscape, due to the height of the turbines they would protrude above ridges in views from the

A83, and would be prominent features in available views from the Glenbarr and the scattered

settlement pattern of those properties throughout the glen. The areas of visibility coincide with

more frequented areas where sensitive receptors are concentrated e.g. the coast, settlement,

recreation areas, hilltops, the Kintyre Way, and road and ferry routes.

SNH have identified significant adverse impact from a range of key views/locations including:

- Barr Glenn and Glen Barr (as represented by viewpoints 1, 2 and 3);

- Footpaths in close proximity (e.g. Kintyre Way as represented by viewpoint 4);

- The A83 (which is a designated tourist route).

As well as the turbines and ancillary structures, the proposal also requires the upgrade of an

existing access along the Barr Glen road and the formation of 2.1km of additional access track.

There will also be some 9.5ha of tree felling. The applicant’s assessment does not take this into

account. The extent of this could be quite significant in terms of the overall impact. The

applicant’s submission details that some mitigation to visual impacts will be had from the

presence of tree planting, however this is commercial forestry and is likely to be felled within the

lifespan of the turbines and the felling of 9.5ha will be significant. The access improvements

would result in a wide bellmouth with visibility splays suitable for the length of vehicles required

to access the type of development proposed. The access would extend south eastwards from

the Barr Glenn road, along existing forestry tracks running east and then turning back west

towards the site and the additional 2.1km of new access track. The formation of the access will

require significant engineering works and tree removal. Whilst the adverse effects of these

works will be localised, and would only be experienced by road users and residents of Glen

Barr, it is considered that they will create a further unnecessary visual impact as a consequence

of development.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of visual impact the

proposal conflicts with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice


DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside Policy; STRAT DC 6: Development in Very



and Policies LP ENV 9: LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality;

and LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll &

Bute Local Plan’ (2009). It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance

published by the Council and Scottish Natural Heritage concerning the siting of

windfarms.

E. CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Cumulative impact is difficult to assess and can have significant land use planning implications,

particularly in relation to noise, visual, aviation, landscape, ecological, and hydrological impacts.

The acceptability of proposals depends on the nature and character of the location, and

sensitive visual receptors, wildlife species, and habitats. The Cumulative Impact Assessment

considers other existing or approved wind energy developments and those subject to a scoping

opinion (where information about the development was available). The principal cumulative

concerns in respect of this proposal would be in terms of the visual effects of multiple

developments when experienced from sensitive landscapes.

Existing wind farm development is already a key characteristic of the UFMM character type

which occurs on the spine of Kintyre. These developments are well sited and as a result can be

accommodated in the landscape without significantly detracting from the character, experience

and enjoyment of the peninsula. Barr Glen is currently a renewables ‘hot spot’ with this

application for turbines on the south side, an undetermined application for a large wind farm on

the north side submitted to the Scottish Government, and an application toward the head of the

glen expected in relation to Blary Hill, which has already been the subject of an EIA Scoping

Opinion and where an Environmental Statement is in a state of advanced preparation. The

turbines from the Beinn and Tuirc 1 and 2 windfarms already exert a commanding presence at

the head of the glen, regardless of whether any of these additional sites were to be granted.

SNH consider that there will be significant adverse cumulative visual impacts from the following

locations:

- Barr Glenn where the proposal will be seen in combination with the consented Beinn An

Tuirc 1 and Beinn an Tuirc 2 developments. The addition of Auchadaduie on the

sensitive skyline on the ‘edge hills’ will significantly increase visual intrusion within the

Rocky Mosaic, in particular the narrow settled Barr Glen;

- Fixed and sequential views from the Sound of Gigha and the waters off the west coast of

Kintyre, where Auchadaduie will not be visually associated with the existing clusters of

wind farm developments seen along the long and generally fairly even spine of the

Kintyre peninsula, and where it will extend development closer to the more diverse

landscape of the coast.

Accordingly the development will make an unwelcome and disproportionate contribution to the

presence of wind farms in Kintyre in view of the cumulative consequences it will have for the

appreciation of key views across a wide area surrounding the site. The prospect of this

application being consented in combination with other proposals would lead to the threat of the

glen being encircled and overwhelmed by the presence of turbines, which would seriously

undermine its character and amenity.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of cumulative effects the

proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the SPP and Scottish Government’s

Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable

Development; STRAT DC 4: Development in Rural Opportunity Areas; STRAT DC 5:

Development in Sensitive Countryside Policy; STRAT DC 6: Development in Very



and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; and LP

REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute

Local Plan’ (2009).

F. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT

Habitats

SNH consider the habitats recorded in the development footprint are of limited ecological value

due to their small scale and age category. An exception to this is the stream and streamside

margins which may support a variety of species and the broadleaved plantation woodland which

once fully grown may provide valued habitat. The proposed mitigation measures such as a

buffer zone of 20m around all water courses will be put in place and bank-side vegetation would

be retained where practical. Retention of the broad leaved woodland is also desirable.

Mammals

Otter - The developer recorded signs of otter under the bridge over the Barr Water but no signs

were recorded elsewhere. SNH are in agreement with the ES in that the value of the site for

otter is local and the impacts are not significant. However, although no signs of otter were

found along the tributaries of the Barr Water it does not rule out their presence. The applicant

has suggested mitigation measures including the aforementioned buffer around water courses

and a pre-construction survey as well as passage suitable for otter to be maintained beneath

track crossing points over the tributaries.

Bats - The ES did not identify any bat activity within 300m of the proposed turbine locations

although there were recordings of two bat roosts as well as high activity at the Barr Water.

However, surveys were conducted between June to October as per Natural England guidance.

Survey work in Scotland should be carried out between April and October. With this in mind the

applicant has missed two months of survey work. Despite this SNH are satisfied that activity

within the site and the surrounding area was low and directed away from the proposed turbines.

The roost sites were also more than 500m from the proposed turbines. With this in mind SNH

agree with the findings of the ES and agree that the mitigation measures proposed by the

application (avoidance of felling trees suitable for bat roost habitat).

Badger - The EIA process did not identify any signs of badger activity within the site including

setts. SNH has not raised any concerns regarding this element of the ES and agree with the

proposed mitigation measures including pre-construction survey to ensure no new setts have

been constructed since the previous walk over survey.

Advice provided by SNH in relation to mammals would be required to be incorporated into

relevant planning conditions in the event of permission being granted.

Freshwater Fish

The ES indicates that both the Allt Caillich and the Allt a’Mhuilinn are unsuitable for Atlantic

Salmon given that there are seven weirs which will act as a barrier to these species along the

Barr Water. Contrary to this however is evidence from a survey carried out by Argyll Fishers

Trust in 2005 which found that both salmon and Trout fry and parr were in the Allt a’Mhuillinn

tributary. It did suggest though that the tributary had recently been made impassable to

upstream migrating salmon by the new forestry road culvert.

The Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board are critical of the standard of the application and

raised several queries relating to the proposal. The ADSFB recommend that planning

conditions covering a 50m buffer around watercourses is included should the application is

approved. Additionally they recommend that an Environmental Management Plan is submitted

and agreed prior to the commencement of works. Please note that this would tie in with the

requested conditions by other consultees.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the

provisions of Policies STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development and STRAT

DC 7: Nature Conservation & Development Control of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’

(2002) and Policies LP REN 1 – Wind Farms and Wind Turbines, LP ENV 2: Development

Impact on Biodiversity and LP ENV 6: Development Impact on Habitats and Species of

the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

G. ORNITHOLOGICAL IMPACT

Scottish Natural Heritage advised on 23 March 2012 that this proposal could have a likely

significant effect on the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA and that a Natura ‘Appropriate Assessment’

would be required to be undertaken by the Council as part of the determination of this application.

SNH objected unless a second winter’s Vantage Point results were made available to enable a

robust assessment to be conducted. For the same reason, SNH objected to the proposal in

relation to its adverse impact on the Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI (this SSSI is a component part of

the SPA). Accordingly the application has been held in abeyance for a considerable period to allow

additional survey work to be carried out in response to SNH’s request. Another full season of bird

survey work has been submitted and made available to SNH and the RSPB.

In light of the submission of further survey results and their own assessment, SNH has since

advised that the proposal will not, in their view, adversely affect the integrity of the Kintyre Goose

Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA), or the Kintyre Goose Lochs Site of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI), both notified for Greenland white-fronted geese. A Habitats Regulations

‘Appropriate Assessment’ to that effect based on advice received from SNH is included as

Appendix C to this report.

SNH also provide advice on other bird interests (wider countryside – non-designated site) which

could be affected by the proposal. For hen harriers SNH advise that there is a need for the

developer, if planning permission is given, to produce a pre-construction survey for nesting hen

harriers. The reason for this relates to the surveyors potentially missing a breeding pair in the area

during the survey. A condition to this effect would be required in the event of permission being

granted.

The applicant intends to conduct comprehensive Black Grouse lek surveys prior to any

construction works. It is advised that a buffer zone of 500m around any active lek should be

implemented. Construction works within this buffer zone should not be conducted between one

hour prior to sunset and two hours post sunrise during the core lekking period. If the buffer

zone overlaps the access road then vehicle movements would also need to be constrained to

these specific daylight hours. This could be secured via a planning condition in the event of

permission being granted.

The RSPB objected in response to the initial submission due to potential impacts on the Kintyre

Goose Roost SPA, classified for its internationally important population of Greenland white-

fronted geese. RSPB advised that sufficient information must be provided to enable an

Appropriate Assessment to be carried out by the Planning Authority, under the Conservation

(Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). RSPB advised that impacts on the

Kintyre Goose Roost SPA have potential to be greater than assessed within the ES and that

another season of survey work is required. Concerns were also raised by the RSPB in relation

to: Red-throated diver; Hen harrier; black grouse; golden eagle; and, kestrel. However in their

response dated 28th February 2014 they remove their objection but maintain serious concerns

regarding the impact on the SPA, and recommend that an appropriate assessment is carried out

and that suitable planning conditions are attached to any permission to ensure any

environmental impacts are minimised. Such conditions should secure the future positive

management of the agricultural feeding grounds for Greenland white-footed goose to the west

of the scheme over the period of the operational wind farm. Additional conditions ensuring

adequate work timing and distance restrictions are applied in particular to black grouse and the

timing of the forestry clearance works to avoid the bird breeding season (March to June).

In light of the above, the advice of SNH and the conclusion of the Appropriate Assessment,

notwithstanding residual concerns raised by the RSPB, it is not considered that there are issues

of significance raised by the proposal which would warrant refusal of the application on

ornithological grounds.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent, from the

point of view of ornithological interests, with the provisions of Policies STRAT RE 1:

Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development and STRAT DC 7: Nature Conservation &

Development Control of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policies LP ENV 2:

Development Impact on Biodiversity, LP ENV 6: Development Impact on Habitats and

Species and LP REN 1 – Wind Farms and Wind Turbines of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’

(2009).

H. HYDROLOGICAL & HYDROGEOLOGICAL IMPACT

In regard to pollution prevention and environmental management SEPA requests that a

condition is attached to any grant of planning permission requiring a Construction Environmental

Management Document to be agreed prior to the commencement of development and

implemented in full. A condition to this effect would be required in the event of permission being

granted.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of hydrology and

hydrogeological impact the proposal is consistent with the provisions of: Policy STRAT


and Policy LP REN 1 – Wind Farms and Wind Turbines of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’

(2009).

I. MANAGEMENT OF PEAT/SOIL

SEPA has not raised any concerns regarding peat/soil at this site. They are keen however for

the submission of an Environmental Management Plan at least 2-months prior to the

commencement of works. This would cover issues such as the management of soils, surface

water management etc.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of ground conditions the

proposal is consistent with the requirements of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind

Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policy LP REN 1 –

Wind Farms and Wind Turbines of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’(2009).

J. FORESTRY

The majority of the site lies within a commercial forestry plantation some which has been felled

in recent years. The total area of plantation to be felled and left unplanted for the duration of the

development is approximately 9.5ha. The localised development footprint is not expected to

require wind protection/turbulence zone felling beyond the application site. The main issues to

consider with regards to this proposal are the loss of woodland cover, the acceptability of

intended compensatory planting, as well as any negative implications for the remaining standing

forest areas out with the forest area affected by the wind farm, such as being made more

susceptible to wind blow, or looking unsightly in the landscape.

The government’s ‘Control of Woodland Removal Policy’ requires that in circumstances where

woodland is removed without replanting being proposed, alternative planting should take place

elsewhere. Scottish Planning Policy advises that the ‘Control of Woodland Removal Policy’ is a

material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Woodland removal should

only be allowed where it would achieve significant and clearly defined public benefit. In

appropriate cases compensatory planning may form part of the balance. Where there is a

change in land use requiring a development consent, it is for the consenting authority to satisfy

itself whether the removal of trees is acceptable, and if so, whether compensatory planting

should be required.

FCS’s preference is that proposed mitigation should be identified by prospective developers at

the same time as planning proposals are formulated, so that an assessment can be made as to

whether the proposed mitigation is appropriate and compensates for the negative impacts of

woodland removal. The location, extent, timing and nature of the compensatory planting should

be identified and measures put in place as part of any planning consent to ensure enforceability

(by legal agreement for example).

FCS advise the Council should only approve woodland removal on the condition that a clear,

concise and time limited transition plan is in place. This should include the means by which the

transition of the land to its desired future state will be delivered and how the process will be

monitored to ensure the objectives of the proposed land use change are achieved. Local Plan

policy LP ENV 7 requires that in determining planning applications involving the removal of trees

that adequate provision is made, when appropriate, for the planting of new woodland /trees

including compensatory planting. In this case the effect of the government’s ‘Control of

Woodland Removal Policy’ and the stance taken by FCS is relevant in terms of the

interpretation of the requirements of Policy LP ENV 7.

The applicant has been in discussion with FCS regarding this element of the proposal. On the

basis of additional information supplied FCS has not objected to the application subject to the

imposition of a planning condition requiring compensatory planting.

Having due regard to the above in terms of forestry considerations the application is

complies with the provisions of Policy LP ENV 7 - Development Impact on

Trees/Woodland of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

K. BORROW PITS

The ES states that no borrow pits are proposed as part of the proposal and that all aggregate

required for construction of the wind farm will be imported to the site.

L. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT IMPACT

In their initial consultation response Historic Scotland raised concerns over the lack of

visualisations to assist with the assessment on the impacts on cultural heritage. This was

requested at the scoping stage and because impacts on two monuments are assessed as

moderate.

The two monuments are:

• An Dunan, Dun, WSW of Achadaduie Steading which is located some 900m from the

nearest turbine, and

• Blary, Dun ENE of Blary Steading which is some 1.4km from the nearest turbine.

Both monuments are located on the north facing slopes of Glen Barr and the principal views

they command are along the valley and towards the high ground to the north. However, due to

their location and scale, the proposed turbines are likely to have a significant impact on views to

and from the monuments. It is not considered that the intervening woodland is a suitable means

to screen views to and from the turbines given it is subject to change.

Further to this, the applicant submitted additional details and Historic Scotland subsequently

considered that although there will be an impact this will not be of such magnitude to warrant to

an objection on their part.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) advises that the area is rich in archaeological

value and that the proposal has the potential to uncover further unrecorded artefacts. There is a

requirement for some form of mitigation. The area has been surveyed archaeologically in the

past for a woodland grant scheme from the Forestry Commission and all recorded sites should

be preserved within open ground within the scheme. The proposed new access will run in

proximity to a recorded SMR (Sites and Monuments Record) which should be located on the

ground and fenced off from construction activities to prevent accidental damage. Also, as the

ES suggests there is potential for buried remains in areas of new ground disturbance and so a

watching brief should be maintained. With this in mind a planning conditions relating to the

archaeological issue should be placed on any permission. Should the application be approved

then planning conditions covering an appropriate mitigation scheme and a WSI should be

attached.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the

provisions of Policies STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development and STRAT

DC 9: Historic Environment & Development Control of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’

(2002) and LP ENV 13a: Development Impact on Listed Buildings LP ENV 14; LP ENV 16:

Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments; LP ENV 17: Development Impact

on Sites of Archaeological Importance of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

M. TOURISM IMPACT

The degree to which wind turbines influence the decision as to whether tourists should visit or

return to an area, is open to debate. In dismissing an appeal for a windfarm at Corlarach in

Cowal, the Reporter was persuaded that resource based tourism founded partly on landscape

and scenery was important to Argyll and Bute, in the context of a local economy which is heavily

dependent upon the tourism sector and its associated employment. Accordingly, development

with significantly adverse landscape impacts has been recognised as having potential to

devalue the attraction of Argyll as a tourism destination.

Opinions and attitudes towards wind farms have been the subject of several public opinion

surveys over the past 20 years. In particular, the report of the Sustainable Development

Commission Wind Power in the UK (2005) summarises the findings of 24 surveys conducted

between 1992 and 2005, and reports that across these studies, an average of 80% of

respondents support the development of wind energy technologies. The ES also refers to the

2003 MORI survey undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government)

which concludes that people were three times more likely to say they felt their local wind farm

had a positive impact on the area (20%) than as they were to say it had a negative impact (7%).

People living within 5 km of the local wind farm held the most positive views with 45% saying

they thought the overall impact had been positive and only 6% saying they thought it had been

negative.

In a more recent appeal decision (dismissed 11th July 2013), against refusal of a single wind

turbine (84m to blade tip) on land north-east of Redesdale House, Skipness, Kintyre the

Reporter made a cogent point with regard to reference made by the appellant to research on the

relationship of wind farms and tourism. He took the view that available surveys and research

relate to a pattern of wind farm development which has come about under a fully developed

planning system. They provide no evidence of the effect on tourists (and the tourism industry)

had there been no such system in operation, or if it had been operated less carefully – for

example by permitting an obtrusive turbine in a fine landscape traversed by important tourist

routes. The Reporter therefore gave little weight in deciding the appeal to the conclusions of

surveys referred to by the appellant in support of his proposal.

What is clear, is that appropriately sited and scaled developments with limited consequences for

landscape character, scenic quality and tourism assets have less potential to influence the

decisions of those who might prove sensitive to developments than those forms of wind power

development which are more prominently sited and of larger scale, such that they are less

readily capable of assimilation in their landscape setting.

There are a number of visitor attractions subject to the influence of the proposal: the Kintyre

Way – a long distance walking route spanning 140 km across Kintyre; National Cycle Route 78

from Oban to Campbeltown, historical sites such as Glen Barr Abbey; along with Hotels, Bed

and Breakfasts and holiday cottages across the area.

Whilst it is not possible to be conclusive about the extent of these impacts, or to quantify them in

a manner which would warrant a specific reason for refusal based upon conflict with tourism

economy interests, it is reasonable to conclude that a proposal which will impinge on important

views and the landscape and scenic qualities of an area which is valued as a recreational and

tourism resource, will not be in the interests of the tourism economy.


provisions of SPP and Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; Policy STRAT RE

1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and

Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; LP REN 1:

Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’

(2009).

N. NOISE & AIR QUALITY

Technically, there are two quite distinct types of noise sources within a wind turbine – the

mechanical noise produced by the machine and the aerodynamic noise produced by the

passage of the blades through the air. The Report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from

Wind Farms’ (Final Report, Sept 1996, DTI), (ETSU-R-97) describes a framework for the

measurement of wind farm noise, which should be followed to assess and rate noise from wind

energy developments, until such time as an update is available. This gives indicative noise

levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without

placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise

conditions.

A further report produced by Hayes McKenzie for DECC entitled “An Analysis of How Noise

Impacts are Considered in the Determination of Wind Farm Planning Applications” suggested

that best practice guidance is required to confirm and, where necessary, clarify and add to the

way ETSU-R-97 should be implemented in practice. This report also concludes that there is no

evidence of health affects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by turbines.

The most conclusive summary of the implications of low frequency wind farm noise for planning

policy following on from the Hayes McKenzie report is given by the UK Government’s statement

regarding the finding of the Salford University Report into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind

Turbine Noise (September 2011). This study concluded that although Aerodynamic Modulation

cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of Aerodynamic Modulation resulting from wind farms in

the UK is low. Out of the 133 wind farms in operation at the time of the study, there were four

cases where Aerodynamic Modulation appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for

three out of these four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a wind

turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent installation, investigations are

ongoing.

Public Protection have considered the noise impact assessment and have no objection to the

proposal subject to a series of conditions relating to:

• noise emission levels from turbines;

• noise complaints;

• independent consultant’s assessment and conclusion ( in the event of noise complaints);

and

• wind farm construction hours and methods.

Should members be minded to approve the application then recommended planning conditions

would need to be imposed upon any permission.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of noise and air quality the

proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind

Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policy LP REN 1:

Wind Farms & Wind Turbines of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

O. SHADOW FLICKER & ICE THROW (EQUIPMENT SAFETY)

Government guidance advises that if separation is provided between turbines and nearby

dwellings (as general rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not be a problem. The ES

confirms that the separation between the wind farm and the nearest residential property is

greater than 10x rotor diameter (10 x 80m = 800 metres). Under accepted good practice and

guidance, this will ensure that shadow flicker will not present a problem and Public Protection

has not raised any concern in this regard.

Ice throw is not a matter which falls under the auspices of Planning or Public Protection. This

said, companies supplying products and services to the wind energy industry are required to

operate to a series of international, European and British Standards and the operator has a duty

of care not to prejudice the health and safety of site operatives or other persons frequenting the

site.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of shadow flicker and ice

throw the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind

Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policy

LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

P. TELEVISION RECEPTION

Television reception can be affected by the presence of turbines although this has become less

of a problem since the switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting. The applicant’s

submission does suggest that terrestrial television signal might be affected to certain properties,

however they have indicated willingness to undertake appropriate mitigation. In the event that

reception is impaired then it is the developer’s responsibility to rectify the problem. This would

need to be secured by condition in the event that planning permission is granted.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms

of any potential impact on television reception and is therefore consistent with the

Provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll &

Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policy LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines of the


Q. AVIATION MATTERS

There have been no objections to this element of the proposal from any consultees. However,

HIAL has recommended that a red obstacle light be attached should permission be granted.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of aviation interests the

proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Policy STRAT RE 1:

Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policies

LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development and Policy LP TRAN

7: Safeguarding of Airports of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

R. ELECTRO-MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE TO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Telecommunications operators have been consulted to determine whether their systems would

be affected by electro-magnetic radiation associated with electricity generation. Scottish

Planning Policy and local plan policy highlights telecommunications interference as a material

consideration in considering the acceptability of wind turbines.

The Joint Radio Company has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal. The

applicants’ ES details consultation with a number of providers none of whom raised concern. At

time of writing no response has been received from CSS Spectrum Management and Ofcom

despite consultation.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of communications

systems the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Policy

STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002)

and Policy LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the


S. ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT

The ES states that the proposed route to the site for the delivery of abnormal loads is the A83

north from the port of Campbeltown to the site. The ES states that a single option or

combination of options for the delivery of both normal construction traffic and abnormal loads

will be used for the construction of the development.

As far as transport related site works are concerned, the proposal involves: the upgrade of the

existing access to Achadaduie and Blary ruins opposite South Kilmaluag; upgrading of existing

tracks (2.5km); formation of new tracks (2.1km); formation of turning heads and passing places;

and parking for up to 30 cars/construction vehicles plus a receiving area for incoming vehicles

within the enabling works compound.

The ES states that there will be some 3,196 vehicle movements. Wheel wash facilities will be

provided to reduce dust impact and all roads improvements will be carried out within the road

verge. Furthermore, the applicant will submit a Traffic Management Plan prior to the

commencement of works.

There has been no objection from Transport Scotland. The Council’s Roads Engineers consider

that access to the site for wind turbine components is practicable and they do not object in

principle. They have advised that conditions should be attached to address the details of the

works required, which are confined to locations to which landowner agreement is in place :

• Traffic Management Plan to be submitted for approval by Roads & Amenity Services,

prior to any work starting on site. The Traffic Management plan should include details of

all materials, plant, equipment, components and labour required during the construction,

operation and decommissioning phase.

• A detailed Method Statement in relation to access and transport of materials, plant and

equipment to be submitted for approval by Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work

starting on site.

• New passing places to be provided and existing passing places to be extended where

required with locations and construction details to be agreed with Roads & Amenity

Services prior to any work starting on site.

• Carriageway widening to be carried out, locations and construction details to be agreed

with Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work starting on site.

• The sections of temporary carriageway widening to be soiled and seeded on completion

of construction works, to the satisfaction of Roads & Amenity Services.

• The applicant to inspect and submit a report which identifies areas of road which will be

vulnerable to the proposed traffic loading. The report will include an assessment of any

culverts or other structures. The report will include measures to mitigate against any

likely damage. Details of the report to be agreed with Roads & Amenity Service prior to

any work starting on site.

• A detailed condition survey to be carried out between the A83 and the application site

prior to any work starting on site. The condition survey to be recorded by means of video

and photographs. A copy of the video and photographs to be submitted to Roads &

Amenity Services for approval prior to any work starting on site.

• Public road between the A83 and application site to have inspections carried out on a

weekly basis to ensure the carriageway remains in a safe condition. Details of inspection

to be agreed with Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work starting on site.

Additionally, the applicant has been made aware that there will be no financial contributions

from Argyll & Bute Council towards the work required to facilitate the works or to make good any

damage directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm, and that that they will be

responsible for making good any damage to the public road which is directly attributable to the

construction of the wind farm.

The applicant has been advised of the need of a Traffic Management Plan and Method

Statement but has declined to provide this up front, preferring that it de dealt with by way of

condition. Members will be aware that in view of experience elsewhere where the achievability

of off-site access works has frustrated the implementation of a wind turbine planning consent, it

is the wish of the Committee that all aspects of the transportation of components and other

materials to the site should be assessed in detail at the application stage, rather than being

dealt with by means of condition.

The proposal requires the significant upgrade of an existing access point from the Barr Glen

road through an area of trees rising up above the glen, the location of which follows an existing

forestry track for 2.5km and then a new track will be formed for the final 2.1km. This location

will require significant engineering works and tree removal in order to enable the construction of

a suitable road capable of serving the abnormal load requirements associated with windfarm

construction. Whilst the adverse effects of these works will be localised and only experienced by

road users over a short distance, they comprise an additional and potentially significant intrusion

into the local environment prompted as a consequence of an inappropriately located

development.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of access requirements

there is insufficient information to conclude whether proposal is consistent with the

provisions of Policies LP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access

Regimes and LP TRAN 5: Off-Site Highway Improvements of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local

Plan’ (2009).

T. INFRASTRUCTURE

No requirement for public water or foul drainage connection is identified. Scottish Water has

commented that there are no sewers or public water supplies in the area. Additionally,

Environmental Heath has not raised any concerns over impact on private water supplies. A

condition will be required to secure a sustainable drainage strategy for the roads, turbine

hardstanding areas, and the construction yard to ensure adequate protection of the water

environment from surface water run-off.

Having due regard to the above, it is concluded that in terms of drainage and water

supply, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LP SERV 1: Private

Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. Drainage) Systems, LP SERV 2:

Incorporation of Natural Features/Sustainable Drainage Systems and LP SERV 4: Water

Supply of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

U. WIND REGIME

In order to more accurately gauge the wind speed and direction, permission was sought for the

erection of a 80m meteorological mast which was approved in January 2012 for a two year

period. This has been erected on site and is operational. Data from the meteorological mast is

not included in the ES and there is no requirement for it to be provided in support of the

planning application. The ES simply states that the wind speed has been assessed as

appropriate for wind energy generation and the site is accessible.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the

Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.

V. GRID NETWORK & CABLES

Connection to the National Grid is not a matter of land use policy, however, it should be

considered ‘in the round’ as part of the planning application process. The Environmental

Statement states that: each turbine would be connected to the onsite control building by

underground cable and that the grid connection is likely to involve a 33kV overhead line

connection to the substation near Brackley, north of Carradale. This connection will be the

subject of an application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 to the Scottish

Government, which will be the subject of consultation with the Council as planning authority.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the

Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.

W. COMMUNITY BENEFIT

Community Benefit is not considered to be a ‘material planning consideration’ in the

determination of planning applications. In the event that permission were to be granted, the

negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the

auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process.

X. DECOMMISSIONING

Should Members determine to grant planning permission, a requirement for decommissioning

and site restoration should be included in the planning condition(s) and/or legal agreement,

which will be triggered by either the expiry of the permission or if the project ceases to operate

for a specific period. This will ensure that at the end of the proposal’s operational life: the

turbines would be decommissioned and principal elements removed; the site would be restored

to its former use leaving little if any visible trace of the turbines; the foundations, new tracks and

hardstandings would be covered over with topsoil and reseeded; the cables would be de-

energised and left in place, and any cables marker signs removed; and, the electrical

substation building would be demolished to ground level with the foundation covered with topsoil

and reseeded.

Having due regard to the above, as decommissioning could be controlled by

condition/Section 75 Legal Agreement it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in

that regard in terms of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the

‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policy LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines

of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009), and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice

Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.

Y. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICY & ADVICE

The commitment to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources is a

vital part of the response to climate change. Renewable energy generation will contribute to

more secure and diverse energy supplies and support sustainable economic growth (SPP). The

current target is for 100% of Scotland’s electricity and 11% of heat demand to be generated

from renewable sourced by 2020 (2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland).

SPP advises that wind farms should only be supported in locations where the technology can

operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.

Furthermore, that the criteria for determining wind farm proposals varies depending on the scale

of proposal and its relationship to the characteristics of the surrounding area, but usually

includes: landscape and visual impact, effects on the natural heritage and historic environment,

contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets, effect on the local and

national economy and tourism and recreation interests, benefits and disbenefits for

communities, aviation and telecommunications, noise and shadow flicker, and cumulative

impact. Finally, that the design and location of any wind farm should reflect the scale and

character of the landscape and the location of turbines should be considered carefully to ensure

that the landscape and visual impact is minimised.

For the reasons given above, the turbines proposed are out of scale with the receiving

environment to the detriment of landscape and visual amenity interests, both of which are cited

in SPP as valid material considerations in the assessment of the acceptability of wind farms.


provisions of SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore

Wind Farms.

Z. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS & ARGYLL & BUTE’S

CONTRIBUTION

In assessing the acceptability of wind farm proposals, it is necessary to have regard to the

macro-environmental aspects of renewable energy (reduction in reliance on fossil fuels and

contribution to reduction in global warming) as well as to the micro-environmental

consequences of the proposal (in terms of its impact on its receiving environment).

Installed onshore wind energy generation capacity in Scotland in 2013 was 6.5GW and is

expected to continue to grow in response to the Scottish Government target of meeting 100% of

demand from renewable sources by 2020. As a consequence, planning authorities have to

consider more frequently turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, where design

elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed (Scottish Government’s Specific Advice

Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms).

Whilst the 6.9 MW maximum capacity of the proposal would add to Argyll & Bute’s contribution

to Scotland’s renewable energy commitments, it is not considered that the macro-environmental

benefits of the proposal in terms of renewable generating capacity are such as to warrant the

setting aside of the other development plan policy considerations identified above which have

prompted the recommendation for refusal.

APPENDIX B - REPRESENTATIONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/02525/PP Objectors

1. Mrs D Roberts An Acail, Glenbarr, Tarbert, Argyll, pA29 6UZ

15/09/2012

2. Mr Ronald Knight Achavraid, Clachan, Tarbert 05/09/2012

3. Mr Oliver Seddon 29 Bryan Street, Farsley, Leeds 23/07/2012

4. Mrs Claire Seddon Flat 61, The Foundry, 2A Lower Chatham Street, Manchester

23/07/2012

5. A E Roberts An Acail, Glenbarr, Tarbert, Argyll, PA29 6UZ

05/12/2012

6. Ms Louise Duncan North Beachmore, Musadale, Tarbert 03/07/2012, 29/07/2012

7. Mrs Lesley Cowan Oatfield House, Oatfield, Campbeltown 27/05/2012

8. Mrs Vivienne Wall 5 Hillside View, New Mills, High Peak 23/07/2012

9. Mr Michael Sullivan 5 Hillside View, New Mills, High Peak 23/07/2012

10. Mr William Crossan Gownbank, Kilkerran Road, Campbeltown 23/02/2012, 27/11/2012

11. Mr John Cowan Oatfield House, Oatfield, Campbeltown 27/03/2012

12. Mr Robin Nolan Camas Na Gaul, Tayinloan, Tarbert 19/03/2013

13. Ms Louise Duncan North Beachmore, Tarbert 14/01/2014

14. Mr John Seddon Kilmaluag Cottage, Glenbarr, Tarbert 15/12/2012, 06/02/2012, 20/07/2012

15. Ms Mairi Beaton 29 Bryan Street, Farsley, Leeds 23/07/2012

16. Mr James Seddon Flat 61, The Foundry, 2A Lower Chatham Street, Manchester

23/07/2012

17. Mrs Michelle Seddon Kilmaluag Cottage, Glenbarr, Tarbert 30/05/2012

18. Miss Nina Seddon 2/2, 23 Barlanark Road, Glasgow 23/07/2012

19. Mr Duncan McIsaac 6 Glenbarr Cottages, Glenbarr, Tarbert 26/07/2012

20. Ms Hannah O’Hanlon Beacharr, Tayinloan, Tarbert, Argyll, PA29 6XF

11/09/2012

21. Ms Christine O’Hanlon Beacharr, Tayinloan, Tarbert, Argyll, PA29 6XF

02/09/2012

22. Mrs Mary Isaac 6 Glenbarr Cottages, Glenbarr, Tarbert 26/07/2012, 20/08/2012

23. Mr Ronald Stretton Greenpark Cottage, Glenbarr, Argyll, PA29 6UT

09/09/2012

24. Mr James Daniels 2 Briarlea, Low Askomill, Campbeltown 07/10/2012

25. Mrs Fiona Fox The Secret Garden, Clachan, Tarbert 17/11/2012

26. Mrs Susan Little 10/09/2012

27. Mrs Stephanie Stretton Greenpark Cottage, Glenbarr, Argyll, PA29 6UT

09/09/2012

28. Mrs Violet Wright 7 Church View, Mullavilly, Tandragee, Co. Armagh

14/08/2012

29. Ms Lorraine McPhail Skernish Farm, Glenbarr, Tarbet PA29 6UZ

24/08/2012 - R

30. Mr Andrew Vivers Arniefoul, Glamis, Forfar, DD8 1UD 13/09/2013

31. Mr Mike Harrison Glencroft, Torrisdale, Campbeltown 28/02/2014

APPENDIX C – APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

THE CONSERVATION (NATURAL HABITATS AND C) REGULATIONS 1994 AS AMENDED

ERECTION OF 3 WIND TURBINES (100 METRES HIGH TO BLADE TIP) CONTROL

BUILDING, NEW AND IMPROVED ACCESS TRACKS AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT

LAND SOUTH OF AUCHADADUIE, BARR GLEN, GLENBARR, KINTYRE

It is considered by Scottish Natural Heritage that the above planning application (reference

11/02525/PP) has the potential to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the

Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA). As a consequence Argyll and Bute

Council is required to carry out an appropriate assessment, as per the Conservation (Habitats

and C) Regulations 1994 (as amended), as a result of the conservation objectives for the site’s

qualifying interests. This assessment is detailed below.

Characteristics of the development

The proposal is for the erection of a 3 turbine wind farm and ancillary development on

commercial forestry land. The site lies approximately 2 km east of the village of Glenbarr. The

site is most readily appreciated from the A83 and the C20 which runs through Barr Glen. Each

wind turbine would have an electrical generation capacity of 2.3MW, providing a total maximum

generating capacity of 6.9MW. The maximum hub height of the turbines would be 59m, with a

rotor diameter of 82m, producing an overall height to the vertical blade tip of 100m.

Assessment of Potential Impact

It is necessary to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant

disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained;

and to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

• Population of the species as a viable component of the site;

• Distribution of the species within the site;

• Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species;

• Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species;

• No significant disturbance of the species.

Population of the species as a viable component of the site

It is advised that to be ‘beyond reasonable scientific doubt’ that the population of Greenland

white-fronted geese will remain as a viable component of the site, there should be a minimum

95% probability that impacts from the proposed development will not lead to any further decline

of the population. Therefore it is considered that up to a 5% increase in the risk of further

population decline is ‘beyond reasonable scientific doubt’ in terms of complying with Natura

2000 regulations and ensuring maintenance of the Greenland white-fronted goose population.

The predicted annual collision rate of 0.08 geese per year for the proposed development does

not exceed this 5% level (approximately 20 birds per year) of additional mortality. Thus it is not

expected that the proposal will have a negative impact on the population of the species as a

viable component of the site.

A cumulative collision risk assessment was not included in the supplementary ornithological

information supplied by the applicants. It is considered that this should have included Freasdail

wind farm (refused but at appeal). Freasdail has a very low predicted collision figure therefore it

is considered that the overall rate will remain low regardless of the outcome of the appeal

procedure.

Distribution of the species within the site

The site of the proposed development is located approximately 5km from the Kintyre Goose

Roosts SPA boundary and approximately 1km from the nearest foraging field at Glenbarr. It is

unlikely that the proposed development will have an effect on the distribution of Greenland

white-fronted geese within the SPA.

Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species

None of the habitats identified at the development site are suitable for Greenland white-fronted

geese foraging and/or roosting. Therefore the proposed development should not have an impact

on the distribution and extent of habitats supporting the Greenland white-fronted goose

population.

Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species

As noted above, the proposed development should not have an impact on any habitats

supporting the Greenland white-fronted geese.

No significant disturbance of the species

Due to the distance of the proposed development from the nearest foraging field and SPA, and

the low predicted collision rates, it is considered that the potential for significant disturbance of

the Greenland white-fronted goose population is unlikely.

The collision risk assessment calculation incorporates a 25% downtime. Typically, calculations

include 10-15% downtime. In addition, it is noted that a 50% overlap was included when

calculating the area occupied by the turbine blades. Although the current location plan indicates

that two turbines could be in line with each other, this does not account for the possibility that

locations could change due to micro-siting. However, even if accounting for these anomalies,

the collision risk is still within the level that is considered safe.

It should be highlighted that an apparent misunderstanding of terminology used in the

supplementary environmental information provided by the applicant when assessing the impact

of the development in line with Natura 2000 regulations. A ‘Likely Significant Effect’ should be

judged on whether the development may have a connection to a Natura site and therefore

whether there is potential for the development to have an effect on the qualifying interests of the

Natura site. In this case, the development is connected to Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA and the

potential for an effect on the Greenland white-fronted goose population cannot be ruled out

without further assessment. This ‘Appropriate Assessment’ tests whether or not there will be an

adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura site, according to the conservation objectives for the

site.

Although it is considered that the proposal will have a significant effect on the qualifying interest

of the site, it is concluded that, with appropriate mitigation measures secured through suitable

planning conditions, there shall be no adverse impact upon the integrity of the SPA.

Argyll and Bute Council Development & Infrastructure · The Royal Society for the Protection of...

Documents

Transcript of Argyll and Bute Council Development & Infrastructure · The Royal Society for the Protection of...