Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Environmental Report
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application
June 2019
Ref: 044-190523-3118
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 2
This page has intentionally been left blank
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 3
Community Windpower Ltd
1st Floor, 2 Parklands Way Maxim Business Park Eurocentral Motherwell ML1 4WR Tel: 01698 209084 Fax: 01698 209101 www.communitywindpower.co.uk www.begreencentres.co.uk Document History
CONFIDENTIALITY (Confidential or not confidential):Not confidential
Project Number: 044 Project Name Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application
Report Title: Environmental Report
Reference Number: 044-190604-3118
Issued by: Community Windpower Limited
Unit Approval Name Signed Date
Author: Julie Turner 05/06/2019
Checked: Rob Fryer
06/06/2019
Approved: Rob Fryer
12/06/2019
The content of this document remains the property of Community Windpower Ltd and, unless agreed in writing by
Community Windpower Ltd, no other party may use, make use of or rely on any contents of the report.
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 4
Contents
1 Introduction 5
2 Variation Description and Evaluation 5
Assessments
3 Noise 11
4 Ornithology 14
5 Aviation 15
6 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 16
7 Conclusion 25
Figures
Figure 1 - Site Layout 6
Figure 2 - Regional Location 7
Figure 3 - Proposed Variation 8
Figure 4 - Wind Farms Overview 9
Figure 5 - Agreed Infra-Red Warning Lighting Locations 15
Figures 6.1 – 6.31 Landscape & Visual Assessment Comparative Wirelines 24
Appendices
Appendix A - Proposed Variations to Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Consent for Aikengall IIa
Wind Farm as part of the S36C Application to Vary Single Turbine (T16). 26
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 5
1 Introduction
1.1 This document details the Environmental Report (ER) completed for the proposed variation of one single
turbine (T16) at the approved Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm. This proposed variation is to align all
the approved 19 turbines of Aikengall IIa to a tip height of 145m. The only affected turbine (T16) was
previously consented at 125m as part of a Section 36 approval.
2 Variation Description and Evaluation
2.1 Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm is situated on the border of East Lothian and Scottish Borders,
approximately 12.5 kilometres (km) south of Dunbar, 6.6 km south of Innerwick and 6 km northeast of
Cranshaws.
2.2 The Regional Location of the site is shown on Figure 2.
2.3 Community Windpower Limited (’CWL’) currently have the benefit of section 36 consent and deemed
planning permission to construct and operate Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm, a 19 turbine wind farm
which will have a generating capacity in excess of 50MW.
2.4 The scheme was granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and deemed planning
permission under section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 by on 19th October
2017 by the Scottish Ministers. The consented layout comprises 18 turbines at a 145m tip height and a
sole turbine (T16) at 125m tip height.
2.5 The consented scheme is shown on Figure 1, this is taken directly from the consent notice issued by the
Scottish Ministers.
2.6 This consent followed the application and Environmental Statement (submitted on 11 February 2014) and
Further Environmental Information (submitted on 10 December 2014) and was subject to 34 Conditions.
2.7 The Environmental Statement combined with the Further Environmental Information described the
consented scheme. They evaluated the scheme and drew conclusions on the suitability and acceptance of
the development. The document considered many aspects and were divided into various sections for easy
reading.
2.8 These sections were;
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Detailed Project Description
Section 3: Site Selection and Evolution
Section 4: Planning and Policy
Section 5: Socio-Economic and Community Involvement
Section 6: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Section 7: Ornithology
Section 8: Ecology
Section 9: Cultural Heritage Assessment
Section 10: Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology
Section 11: Noise
Section 12: Transport Assessment
Section 13: Forestry
Section 14: Other Considerations, including Aviation
2.9 Whilst developing this scheme for delivery it has become apparent that the single consented turbine at
125m to tip would be difficult if not impossible to procure. Therefore, CWL wish to procure all 18 turbines
at 145m height to blade tip to expedite implementation of the consent. Such a variation could also realise
additional renewable energy benefits and assist in meeting national climate change targets.
2.10 The proposed variation and Environmental Report follows this similar section approach. However, the
variation only affects the tip height of one turbine (T16).
2.11 The proposed variation is shown on Figure 3, noting that this is based upon the consented layout, with
only T16 varied to align with the other 18 consented turbines.
2.12 The location of T16 and its associated infrastructures; access roads, hardstands and the like, remain
unchanged from the consented scheme. Therefore, several of the sections from the consented documents
would remain similarly unchanged.
2.13 On reviewing each section within these consent documents, it was considered that only the following
sections should be revisited to take into account the minor variation in the single turbine (T16) tip height.
2.14 The four sections that were revisited are:-
Section 11: Noise
Section 7: Ornithology
Section 14: Aviation
Section 6: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
2.15 Each of these sections is revised in this Environmental Report. Given that the location of the varied turbine
(T16) is unchanged, it is considered that there is no requirement to complete an Environmental Impact
Assessment to cover this variation as previous Environmental Information has been submitted and
consented by the Scottish Ministers.
2.16 The closest operational third party wind farm to the consented Aikengall IIa scheme is Crystal Rig Wind
Farm, which is located to the northwest of the proposed site. A number of other third party consented
schemes are located within 5 km of the consented Aikengall IIa site including Ferneylea, Hoprigshiels,
Quixwood, Neuk Farm and Penmanshiel. These are shown on the Figure 4 – Wind Farm Overview and set
the consented scheme and proposed variation in context with the surrounding wind farms
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 6
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 7
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 8
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 9
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 10
Assessments
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 11
3 Noise
3.1 As part of the environmental review it was considered that the ‘Noise’ section of the Environmental Statement
should be revisited, due to the proposed variation of turbine (T16) tip height. Therefore, the Noise Consultant,
ACIA, for the consented scheme was commissioned to review its findings, reassess and prepare conclusions
with the varied T16 turbine in situ. The following pages are those findings and conclusions.
Report number: 4664.09
COMMUNITY WINDPOWER LTD
AIKENGALL IIa COMMUNITY WIND FARM
PROPOSED VARIATION TO TURBINE T16
IMPACT ON NOISE ASSESSMENT
Prepared for: Community Windpower Ltd Godscroft Lane Frodsham Cheshire WA6 6XU
Ian F Bennett BSc CEng MIOA
8 May 2019
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 12
1 INTRODUCTION
ACIA was commissioned by the applicant and developer, Community Windpower Ltd to provide acoustical consultancy services in connection with the Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm. The wind farm consists of 19 turbines which was reduced from a previous submitted scheme of 27 turbines through a Further Environmental Information submission. The project received planning consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and deemed planning permission under section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 following a Public Local Inquiry held on 5-7 October 2016. The approved scheme is subject to conditions including limits for noise immission levels and the procedures to be followed in the event of a complaint about noise from the operational wind farm.
The matrix of consented turbines consists of 18 turbines with a maximum tip height of 145m (referred to as ‘type 1’ in the noise impact assessment) and a single turbine with a maximum tip height of 125m (type 2) at the location designated T16. The developer now proposes to vary the tip height of T16 to 145m, so all the turbines comprising the development will be identical ‘type 1’ turbines.
This report assesses the effects on noise immission levels resulting from the change of turbine type and tip height. The results are assessed against the guidelines available for wind energy developments, including PAN45 and the 2011 web-based guidance in Scotland, the ETSU-R-97 report The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms and the Institute of Acoustics’ Good Practice Guide on the application of ETSU-R-97, May 2013 together with the supplementary guidance published in 2014. The same best practice guidelines had been used to derive the noise limits in the extant planning permission. 1
2 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
2.1 Noise limits
A development of this type is assessed using the DTI ETSU-R-97 report The assessment and rating of noise from
wind farms: the web-based guidance prescribes this approach. The DTI report describes a framework for the
measurement of wind turbine noise and indicates desirable noise levels, so that without placing unreasonable
restrictions on wind energy developments, neighbouring residential properties can be protected from
excessive noise.
A primary objective of the report was to suggest noise limits in a form suitable for adoption as planning
conditions. The Noise Working Group that produced the report considered that absolute noise limits
regardless of wind speeds were not suited to wind energy schemes in the UK, and that it was more appropriate
in the majority of cases to set noise limits relative to background noise.
The background noise levels are to be measured over a range of wind speeds so that the impact of turbine
noise, which is also wind-speed dependant, can be evaluated. The parameters to be measured include the
equivalent continuous noise level and the 90% exceedance level. One of the most important recommendations
in the ETSU-R-97 report is that the statistical index LA90,10min should be used for both the background noise and
the wind farm noise. This allows reliable measurements to be made without them being corrupted by louder,
transitory noise events from other sources, which would be unavoidable in the countryside. The report notes
that for the typical wind turbine, the LA90,10min is between 1.5 and 2.5 dB lower than the LAeq over the same
measurement period. In the present assessment, a constant difference of 2dB between the LA90,10min and the
LAeq is assumed.
A methodology is provided for the measurement of background noise levels under various wind conditions. A
curve is then fitted to the raw data (having discarded doubtful measurements) in order to determine the
typical variation in background noise level with wind speed. The exercise is carried out for ‘quiet’ daytime
amenity periods and night-time periods, defined as follows. Daytime amenity periods are from 18.00h to
23.00h on weekdays, 13.00h to 23.00h on Saturdays, and all day Sunday. Night-time is between 23.00h and
07.00h daily. All other periods (weekdays and Saturday mornings) are defined as normal daytime, when it
would be expected that the ambient noise levels may be somewhat elevated because of human activity,
distant road traffic, and natural noise sources. Two sets of receptor-specific noise limits are then derived, these
are annexed to planning condition 17: Table 1 applies to ‘night-time’ between 23.00h and 07.00h and Table 2
applies at all other times.
The day-time level of the LA90,10min of the wind farm noise is 40dB or 5dB above the derived background noise
curve, whichever is the greater. This offers a reasonable degree of protection to the neighbours of wind
turbines without placing unreasonable restrictions on developments. A lower fixed limit of 43dB (a higher
figure) is often set for night-time. Both the daytime and night-time lower fixed limits are increased to 45dB to
provide a greater margin above background where the occupier of the property in question has a financial
interest in the project.
2.2 Turbine noise emission characteristics
The consented wind farm consists of 18 ‘type 1’ turbines with a tip height of 145m and a single ‘type 2’ turbine with a tip height of 125m. The warranted noise emission characteristics of the two types were provided in the noise assessment (Section 11) of the Further Environmental Information dated 5 December 2014 and are reproduced below.
TABLE 1: Turbine sound power levels LwA dB for standardised wind speeds at 10m height
V10 m/s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Type 1 95.1 99.7 104.5 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0
Type 2 99.0 102.0 104.1 106.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0
TABLE 2: A-weighted octave band frequency spectra at v10 = 8m/s for candidate turbines
Hz 63 125 25-0 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Overall
Type 1 91.9 94.5 97.8 100.0 100.0 99.1 95.7 86.3 106.0
Type 2 81.8 93.7 100.4 100.4 100.4 92.5 81.6 78.3 107.0
2.3 Turbine locations
The turbine coordinates are unaffected by the current proposals and the coordinates used for previous
modelling of noise impacts are still current.
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 13
3 RESULTS AND ASSSESSMENT
The type 1 turbine has a slightly lower overall noise emission, despite its greater tip height. This is in part
because the noise data in either case are warranted, and thus include the manufacturers’ allowances for
uncertainty. Nevertheless, the input data to the model are ‘worst case’ within the meaning of the Good
Practice Guide.
The change in noise immission levels at the various receptor locations resulting from the change of turbine
T16 from a type 2 to a type 1 turbine is between zero and -0.2dB, with the proposed type 1 always being the
quieter.
The results of the solus and cumulative noise immission levels when rounded to the nearest whole decibel, as
in Tables 5 (solus) and 14 (cumulative) in Section 11 of the Further Environmental Information dated 5
December 2014, are unaltered. It is therefore concluded that the proposed change of turbine tip height and
type to turbine T16 will result in no change to the residential amenity.
Ian F Bennett BSc CEng MIOA
Partner
ACIA Engineering Acoustics 39 Garners Lane Stockport SK3 8SD
tel: 07977 441334 e-mail: [email protected]
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 14
4 Ornithology
4.1 As part of the environmental review it was considered that the ‘Ornithology’ section of the Environmental Statement
should be revisited, due to the proposed variation of turbine (T16) tip height. Therefore, the Ecological Consultants,
Starling Learning, for the consented scheme were commissioned to review their findings, reassess and prepare
conclusions with the varied T16 turbine in situ. The following pages are those findings and conclusions
Comment on the Effect on Ornithology interests of the proposed Increase in height of Turbine 16 (T16),
Aikengall IIa Wind Farm
Aikengall IIa is an approved 19 turbine scheme comprising 18 turbines with a tip height of 145m and a single
turbine with a tip height of 125m. The developer, Community Windpower, is proposing to vary the tip height of
the single 125m turbine (T16) to match the other approved turbines at 145m to tip.
The potential impacts of this minor change on ornithology are commented as follows.
Within the original environmental statement in Section 7 on Ornithology a collision risk analysis was included.
This was, however, calculated on the original 27 turbine scheme and not the consented 19 turbine scheme. No
further collision risk analysis was carried out for this reduced scheme as it was accepted that the risks would have
been less due to the omission of turbines. Therefore it is correct to assume that the proposed increase in tip
height of T16 will still result in a lower risk than original calculated and presented in the original 27 turbine
scheme, which was approved as part of the reduced 19 turbine scheme. The number of birds predicated to collide
over a period of 25 years was as follows based on the original 27 turbine scheme:
Species Collision risk over 25 years
(number of birds)
Hen Harrier 0.10
Peregrine 2.78
Merlin 0.14
Goshawk 2.22
Golden Plover 2.16
Curlew 0.79
Snipe 1.11
Pink-footed Goose 7.84
Greylag Goose 18.38
From the original submitted flight lines only Snipe, Greylag Goose, Pink-footed Goose and a single Curlew flight
flew within a 500m buffer of the T16 position. The adverse impacts of collision risk are therefore considered to
be of low magnitude or negligible and not significant; this was accepted by the various consultees.
It is, therefore, the professional opinion of Starling Learning that the proposed tip height increase of T16 will
have no significant adverse impacts on the ornithological interests of this site.
Yours sincerely Starling Learning
2 Braehead
Liz Parsons Lochwinnoch
Renfrewshire PA12 4AS
Tel 01505 843849
8 May 2019 [email protected]
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 15
5 Aviation
5.1 As part of the environmental review it was considered that the ‘Aviation’ section, within the Other
Considerations Section of the Environmental Statement should be revisited, due to the proposed variation of
turbine (T16) tip height, which may alter any potential affects the turbines could have on aviation assets.
5.2 However, in reviewing the Planning Conditions, relating to aviation assets or matters namely; Condition 5 (Air
Defence Radar Mitigation Scheme), Condition 6 (Infra-Red Warning Lighting) and Condition 29 (Aviation
Safety) it was concluded that a variation in tip height of one single turbine to align it with the other consented
turbines would not alter the requirements within those conditions.
5.3 Condition 5 (Air Defence Radar Mitigation Scheme) is currently being finalised with the Ministry of Defence
(MOD) and relates to the number and location of the turbines, rather than the tip heights. Therefore, a varying
the tip height of a single turbine (T16) to align with the other consented turbines would not alter the mitigation
scheme.
5.4 Condition 6 (Infra-Red Warning Lighting) has been discharged by the Scottish Ministers following consultation
with the MOD. The Condition related to which turbines were fitted with Infra-Red Warning Lighting; T16 was
not a turbine that was agreed to have an Infra-Red lighting system fitted. See Figure 5 for the agreed IR lighting
locations. Therefore, varying the tip height of a single turbine (T16) to align with the other consented turbines
would not affect the agreed IR lighting locations.
5.5 Condition 29 (Aviation Safety) is a requirement to notify the Planning Authorities, MOD, Defence Geographic
Centre and NATS various information relating to the turbine locations, heights and heights of construction
equipment. This will be provided prior to commencement of development and will include the finalised height
of T16.
Figure 5 – Agreed Infra-Red Warning Lighting Locations
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 16
6 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
6.1 As part of the environmental review, it was considered that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’
section, of the Environmental Statement should be revisited, due to the proposed variation of turbine (T16)
tip height, which may alter any potential effects the turbines could have on Landscape and Visual Impact.
6.2 Therefore, the Landscape Consultant, Optimised Environments (OPEN), for the consented scheme were
commissioned to review their findings, reassess and prepare conclusions with the varied T16 turbine in situ.
The following pages are those findings and conclusions.
Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm Section 36C Application
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
1. Introduction
In February 2014, Optimised Environments (OPEN) produced a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for
Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm as part of the Environmental Statement (ES) that accompanied the original
application for 27 turbines. In December 2014, Further Environmental Information (FEI) was submitted, which
assessed a reduced layout of 19 turbines. This reduced layout was consented in October 2017 after an Inquiry
process.
The consented layout for the proposed development has 18 turbines with a tip height of 145m and one turbine
(Turbine 16) with a tip height of 125m. It is now proposed to vary the tip height of Turbine 16 to 145m in order to
be consistent with the other 18 turbines and to enhance the effectiveness of the wind generation capability of the
approved scheme.
In May 2019, OPEN was commissioned by Community Windpower Limited to undertake a review of the December
2014 FEI in order to identify any changes to its findings that may arise as a result of the proposed alteration to the
consented height of Turbine 16.
The proposed increase in height of Turbine 16 is the only proposed alteration to the consented layout, with all other
turbines remaining at 145m to blade tip, and all turbine locations remaining as per the consented scheme.
The assessment carried out in this report is based on a comparative review of the proposed revised Aikengall IIa
Community Wind Farm with the consented Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm. The comparative assessment,
figures and visualisations serve to illustrate the difference between the two schemes rather than a full assessment
of the proposed revised scheme, given that the principle of a wind farm on the site has already been established
through the granting of consent in 2016.
2. Methodology
The purpose of this report is to assess the effects that may arise from the proposed change in the height of Turbine
16 and ascertain whether or not this proposed revision would alter the findings of the December 2014 FEI (which
assessed the landscape and visual effects of the consented layout).
The February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI were informed by a series of 34 viewpoints that were chosen in
agreement with East Lothian Council, Scottish Borders Council and Scottish Natural Heritage to represent the views
of the proposed development that may be gained from around the study area. In this report, the assessment of the
proposed revision to Turbine 16 is carried out in relation to these 34 viewpoints, with graphic productions as
described in Section 3 below.
The ES viewpoints were selected to represent the key landscape and visual receptors that may be affected by the
proposed development. This means that the findings of the revised viewpoint assessment are considered to reflect
the overall implications of the proposed change to Turbine 16, and conclusions in relation to potential effects on
other landscape and visual receptors can be drawn from the revised viewpoint assessment.
The revised viewpoint assessment is in Section 4 below.
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 17
3. Illustrations
A number of figures have been produced to illustrate this report, including Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)
diagrams, wirelines and photomontages.
Two ZTVs have been produced, one for the proposed revised layout and one that shows a comparison between the
visibility of the consented layout and the proposed revised layout.
The February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI were informed by a series of 34 viewpoints that were chosen to
represent the views of the proposed development that may be gained from around the study area. In this report,
comparative wirelines have been produced for those of the ES viewpoints that lie within a 15km radius of the
proposed development and gain visibility of Turbine 16 (a total of 24 viewpoints). Viewpoints that gain no visibility
of Turbine 16 are not included as they will not be affected by the proposed revision, while those that lie beyond
15km from the proposed development are not illustrated as the proposed variation in height of Turbine 16 is
unlikely to be discernible from these more distant locations.
While the majority of viewpoints are illustrated by wirelines, which clearly show the consented and proposed
revised Turbine 16, supplementary photomontages have been produced for the four viewpoints where Turbine 16
constitutes a relatively close-proximity and apparent element in the outlook.
The February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI included a Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA), which
described and illustrated (with wirelines) the potential theoretical visibility of the proposed development from
residential properties that lie within a 2km radius of the proposed development. For this review, comparative
wirelines have been produced for the residential properties that gain theoretical visibility of Turbine 16.
The baseline photographs and wirelines that accompanied the February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI were
produced prior to the full adoption of current SNH visualisation guidance, and covered a field of view of 72-degrees
on an A3 sheet. Given the relatively minor nature of the change proposed in this application, and in order that the
wirelines for the current revised proposal can be directly compared with these earlier documents, the wirelines that
accompany this report have also been set up on A3 sheets to cover a 72-degree field of view. For each viewpoint, a
wireline showing the consented layout is shown on the upper part of each page, and a wireline showing the layout
with the proposed revised Turbine 16 on the lower part of each page. This allows a direct comparison to be made
between the consented Turbine 16 and the proposed revised Turbine 16. Where the proposed development covers
more than 72-degrees of the view, the wireline is spread over the required number of pages.
The February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI included photomontages for a number of viewpoints. These were
produced with a field of view of 72-degrees, in the same format as the wirelines, and also with an enlargement to
a 45-degree field of view on a separate page. The original format of 72-degree and 45-degree photomontages has
been replicated in this report in order that a direct comparison with the previous visualisations can be made.
Given the localised nature of the proposed revision, it is not considered necessary to update the most recent
cumulative assessment, which was carried out at the request of the Reporter as FEI in September 2015, prior to the
Public Local Inquiry. Cumulative wind farms, other than the phases of Aikengall Community Wind Farm, are
therefore not shown on the wireline views.
The figures that accompany this Report are as follows:
Figure 6.1 – ZTV for the Revised Layout (with Viewpoints)
Figure 6.2 – Comparative ZTV for the Consented Layout and Revised Layout (with Viewpoints)
Figure 6.3 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 1 (Wester Dod)
Figure 6.4 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 2 (Crichness Farm)
Figure 6.5 – Comparative Wireline and Photomontage for Viewpoint 3 (Minor road to south of site)
Figure 6.6 – Comparative Wireline and Photomontage for Viewpoint 4 (Dunglass Common)
Figure 6.7 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 5 (Ecclaw)
Figure 6.8 – Comparative Wireline and Photomontage for Viewpoint 6 (Minor road near Ecclaw Hill)
Figure 6.9 – Comparative Wireline and Photomontage for Viewpoint 7 (Southern Upland Way)
Figure 6.10 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 8 (Cockit Hat, Oldhamstocks)
Figure 6.11 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 9 (Blackcastle Hill)
Figure 6.12 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 11 (Cockburnspath (old A1))
Figure 6.13 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 12 (Cockburnspath (SUW))
Figure 6.14 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 15 (John Muir Way near Torness)
Figure 6.15 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 16 (Brunt Hill)
Figure 6.16 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 17 (Edin’s Hall broch)
Figure 6.17 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 18 (Cockburn Law)
Figure 6.18 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 19 (A6112 near Berryhill cottage)
Figure 6.19 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 20 (A6112 north of Preston)
Figure 6.20 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 21 (Old Cambus to Grantshouse road)
Figure 6.21 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 22 (Wether Law)
Figure 6.22 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 24 (Dirrington Great Law)
Figure 6.23 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 25 (Middle Rig)
Figure 6.24 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 26 (Duns Law)
Figure 6.25 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 27 (Twin Law)
Figure 6.26 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 29 (St Baldred’s Cradle)
Figure 6.27 – Comparative Wireline for Middle Monynut/ Middle Monynut Cottage
Figure 6.28 – Comparative Wireline for The Star (Shepherd’s Cottage), Dunglass Common
Figure 6.29 - Comparative Wireline for Paitshill Farm/ Paitshill Cottage
Figure 6.30 – Comparative Wireline for Luckieshiel Farmhouse
Figure 6.31 – Comparative Wireline for Bushelhill/The Cottage, Bushelhill
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 18
4. Revised Viewpoint Assessment
Table 1 below lists the 34 viewpoints that were illustrated and assessed in the February 2014 ES and the December
2014 FEI. For each of these viewpoints, the table describes the likely implication of a variation to the blade tip height
of Turbine 16 from its consented height of 125m to 145m.
The boxes where text is shown in grey rather than black indicate those viewpoints where turbine 16 is not visible,
and no further comment is required. These viewpoints are not illustrated by wirelines due to the lack of visibility of
Turbine 16.
The boxes shaded in green indicate those viewpoints/properties where Turbine 16 is visible, and the level of
visibility/proximity to turbine 16 means that the proposed variation requires to be assessed. These viewpoints are
illustrated by comparative wirelines and photomontages.
The remaining boxes, with standard black text and no shading, are those viewpoints where Turbine 16 is visible but
the proposed revision to this turbine is unlikely to be readily discernible. These viewpoints are illustrated by
comparative wirelines
Table 1 Viewpoint Review
Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
1. Wester
Dod
Grid ref:
371174/668158
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 1.44km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 2.5km
away and in the context of
Aikengall II – Wester Dod -
and other turbines in the
proposed development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
2. Crichness
Farm
Grid ref:
368197/666277
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 1.88km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen as a blade only from
approx. 4.6km away, behind
other turbines in the
proposed development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
3. Minor
road to
south of site
Grid ref:
372729/664878
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 0.91km
Yes: an apparent
component in the view,
seen at full height from
approx. 1.5km away
Yes: due to the level of
visibility of T16
The proposed increase in the
height of T16 may be
perceived in relation to the
adjacent T20. However, T16 is
not the closest turbine and
will be no more apparent than
a number of other consented
Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
turbines. Its elevation/tip
height above ground will also
be considerably lower than
other turbines.
The magnitude of change will
remain high and the effect of
the proposed development
will remain significant
4. Dunglass
Common
Grid ref:
374183/666551
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 1.36km
Yes: an apparent
component in the view,
seen at nearly full height
from approx. 1.4km away
Yes: due to the level of
visibility of T16
The proposed increase in the
height of T16 may be
perceived in relation to the
adjacent T11. However, T16 is
not the closest turbine and
will be no more apparent than
a number of other consented
turbines. Its elevation/tip
height above ground will be
similar to that of T20, which is
the closest turbine.
The magnitude of change will
remain high and the effect of
the proposed development
will remain significant
5. Ecclaw Grid ref:
375789/668142
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 3.23km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
lying approx.
3.5km away with the tower
screened by landform and
the hub/ blade likely to be
largely screened by trees on
the skyline
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
6.Minor road
near Ecclaw
Hill
Grid ref:
376109/666915
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 3.27km
Yes: an apparent
component in the view,
seen at full height from
approx. 3.3km away
Yes: due to the level of
visibility of T16
The proposed increase in the
height of T16 may be
perceived in relation to the
adjacent T11. However, T16 is
not the closest turbine and
will be no more apparent than
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 19
Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
a number of other consented
turbines. Its elevation/tip
height above ground will be
lower than that of other
turbines.
The magnitude of change will
remain medium-high and the
effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
7. Southern
Upland Way
Grid ref:
376451/665212
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 3.80km
Yes: an apparent
component in the view, the
nearest turbine to the
viewpoint
Yes: due to the level of
visibility of T16
The proposed increase in the
height of T16 may be
perceived in relation to T15,
which lies immediately
behind. However, T16 will be
no more apparent than a
number of other consented
turbines and its elevation/tip
height above ground will be
lower than that of T15 as well
as other consented/
operational turbines.
The magnitude of change will
remain medium-high and the
effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
8. Cockit
Hat,
Oldhamstock
s
Grid ref:
374235/670837
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 3.73km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
lying approx.
4.7km away with the tower
screened by landform and
the hub/ blade likely to be
screened by woodland
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
9.
Blackcastle
Hill
Grid ref:
371902/
671387
Distance to
nearest
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 5.1km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain
Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
turbine: 3.96km proposed development; the
proposed variation will be
beneficial in the integration
of T16 with surrounding
turbines in the proposed
development in terms of
scale
significant
10.
Cranshaws
Grid ref:
369126/661807
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 4.52km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
11.Cockburn
s- path (old
A1)
Grid ref:
377771/670088
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 5.79km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 6.2km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
12.
Cockburns-
path (SUW)
Grid ref:
377825/671215
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 6.42km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen as a blade only from
approx. 6.9km away and
likely to be screened by
woodland
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
13.A1107 at
Pease Bay
junction
Grid ref:
379530/670195
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 7.44km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
14. A1
Bilsdean
Grid ref:
375967/673025
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 6.48km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
15. John
Muir Way
near Torness
Grid ref:
375211/674968
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 7.92km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen as a blade only from
approx. 9km away and likely
to be partly screened by
woodland
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 20
Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
16. Brunt Hill Grid ref:
368709/674413
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 6.91km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen as a blade only from
approx.9km away and
behind a turbine in
Aikengall II – Wester Dod
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
17. Edin’s
Hall broch
Grid ref:
377304/660248
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 7.39km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 7.6km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
18. Cockburn
Law
Grid ref:
376574/659741
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 7.32km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 7.6km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development and
Aikengall II – Wester Dod;
the proposed variation will
be beneficial in the
integration of T16 with
Aikengall II – Wester Dod in
terms of tip height
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
19. A6112
near
Berryhill
cottage
Grid ref:
380674/663856
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 8.23km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from 8.23km away
(T16 is the nearest turbine
to the viewpoint), in the
context of other turbines in
the proposed development/
Aikengall II – Wester Dod,
and behind Quixwood Wind
Farm
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
20. A6112
north of
Preston
Grid ref:
379454/659481
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 9.48km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 9.5km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development/
Aikengall II – Wester Dod,
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
and behind the Weirburn
turbines; the proposed
variation will be beneficial
in the integration of T16
with the proposed
development/ Aikengall II –
Wester Dod in terms of tip
height
21. Old
Cambus to
Grantshouse
road
Grid ref:
383176/667463
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
10.36km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 10.4km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development; the
proposed variation will be
beneficial in the integration
of T16 with other turbines
in the proposed
development in terms of tip
height
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
22. Wether
Law
Grid ref:
365498/660694
Distance to
nearest
turbine: 7.54km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 9.3km
away with the lower tower
screened, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
23. Moss Law Grid ref:
360656/664669
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
9.52km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
24.
Dirrington
Great Law
Grid ref:
369812/654930
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
10.78km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 11.8km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
25. Middle Grid ref: Yes: but a minor No: the proposed variation is
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 21
Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
Rig 372388/654338
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
11.24km
component in the view,
seen from approx. 12.1km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
26. Duns
Law
Grid ref:
378600/654762
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
12.60km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 13km
away, in the context of
turbines in Aikengall II –
Wester Dod
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
27. Twin Law Grid ref:
362480/654798
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
14.04km
Yes: but a minor
component in the view,
seen from approx. 15.5km
away, in the context of
other turbines in the
proposed development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
28. Dunbar
Harbour
Grid ref:
368121/679355
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
11.89km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
29. St
Baldred’s
Cradle
Grid ref:
363817/681296
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
14.96km
Yes: but a very minor
component in the view,
seen as a blade tip only
from approx. 17.4km away,
in the context of other
turbines in the proposed
development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
30.
Whitekirk
Golf Club
Grid ref:
360196/682293
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
17.57km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
31. Lammer
Law
Grid ref:
352365/661812
Distance to
Yes: but a very minor
component in the view,
seen as a hub and blade
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be discernible
The effect of the proposed
Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
nearest
turbine:
18.28km
from approx. 21km away, in
the context of other
turbines in the proposed
development
development will remain not
significant
32. A1 near
Ayton
Grid ref:
391056/661727
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
18.80km
Yes: but a very minor
component in the view,
seen as a hub and blade
from 18.80km away (T16 is
the nearest turbine to the
viewpoint), in the context
of other turbines in the
proposed development and
Aikengall II – Wester Dod
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
33.
Whitsome
Grid ref:
386347/650632
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
20.59km
Yes: but a very minor
component in the view,
seen as a hub and blade
from approx. 20.70km away
in the context of other
turbines in the proposed
development and Aikengall
II – Wester Dod
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
34. North
Berwick Law
Grid ref:
355630/684220
Distance to
nearest
turbine:
21.85km
Yes: but a very minor
component in the view,
seen as a blade tip only
from approx. 24.8km away,
in the context of other
turbines in the proposed
development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
The assessment carried out in Table 1 above indicates that at the great majority of viewpoints the proposed revision
to Turbine 16 will not be readily discernible/discernible. There are four viewpoints – Viewpoints 3, 4, 6 and 7 –
where Turbine 16 is likely to be a more notable component in the view due to its proximity to the viewpoint, but
even here the proposed revision will not notably alter the appearance of the proposed development in the view,
and the findings of the viewpoint assessment in the December 2014 FEI will not be altered.
On the basis of the revised viewpoint assessment, it may therefore be concluded that the proposed revision to
Turbine 16 will not alter the findings of the December 2014 FEI in respect of any landscape and visual receptors or
viewpoints.
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 22
5. Revised Residential Visual Amenity Assessment
Table 2 below lists the properties that were considered in the RVAA in both the February 2014 ES and December
2014 FEI and describes the likely implication of a variation to the blade tip height of turbine 16 from its consented
height of 125m to 145m.
The boxes where text is shown in grey rather than black indicate those properties where Turbine 16 is not visible,
and no further comment is required. These viewpoints are not illustrated by wirelines due to the lack of visibility of
Turbine 16.
The boxes shaded in green indicate those properties where Turbine 16 is visible, and the level of visibility/proximity
to Turbine 16 means that the proposed variation requires to be assessed. These viewpoints are illustrated by
comparative wirelines.
The remaining boxes, with standard black text and no shading, are those viewpoints where Turbine 16 is visible but
the proposed revision to this turbine is unlikely to be readily discernible. These viewpoints are illustrated by
comparative wirelines.
Table 2 Revised Residential Visual Amenity Survey
Property Distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
1. Upper
Monynut
(financially
involved)
Distance to
nearest turbine:
0.48km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
2. Middle
Monynut/
Middle
Monynut
Cottage
(financially
involved)
Distance to
nearest turbine:
0.71km
Yes: but a lesser
component in the view,
seen from approx.
1.5km away with the
lower tower screened
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
3. The Star
(Shepherd’s
Cottage),
Dunglass
Common
Distance to
nearest turbine:
1.61km
Yes: an apparent
component in the view,
seen as an upper tower,
hub and blades from
approx. 1.63km away
Yes: due to the level of
visibility of T16
The proposed increase in the
height of T16 is likely be
perceived due to its proximity
to the property and screening
of the lower tower. However,
T16 is not the closest turbine
and will be no more apparent
than a number of other
consented turbines. Its
elevation/tip height above
ground will be similar to that
Property Distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
of T20, which is the closest
turbine.
The magnitude of change will
remain medium/medium-high
and the effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
4. Nether
Monynut/Net
her Monynut
Cottages
Distance to
nearest turbine:
1.31km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant
5. Paitshill
Farm/ Paitshill
Cottage
Distance to
nearest turbine:
1.85km
Yes: an apparent
component in the view,
seen at full height from
approx. 1.9km away
Yes: due to the level of
visibility of T16
The proposed increase in the
height of T16 is likely be
perceived due to its proximity
to the property. However, T16
is not the closest turbine and
will integrate in terms of scale
and proximity with other
consented turbines. Its
elevation/tip height above
ground will be lower than that
of T20, which is the closest
turbine to the property.
The magnitude of change will
remain medium-high and the
effect of the proposed
development will remain
significant
6. Luckieshiel
Farmhouse
Distance to
nearest turbine:
2.10km*
Yes: an apparent
component in the view,
seen from 2.10km away
(T16 is the nearest
turbine to the property)
Yes: due to the proximity of
T16 (it should be noted that at
the time of the December
2014 FEI, visibility was
screened by coniferous
woodland around the
property, and this appears to
remain in place)
Should the forestry be felled,
the proposed increase in the
height of T16 may be
perceived in relation to T19,
which lies adjacent. However,
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 23
Property Distance to nearest turbine
Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?
T16 will be no more apparent
than a number of other
consented turbines and its
elevation/tip height above
ground will be similar to that
of T14 as well as other
consented/ operational
turbines.
The magnitude of change will
remain low with forestry in
place (medium/medium-high
if the forestry is felled) and
the effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant (significant if
forestry is felled)
7. Crichness
Farmhouse/
Crichness
Farm Cottage
Distance to
nearest turbine:
1.77km
No visibility of T16 No
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant (significant if
forestry is felled)
8. Bushelhill/
The Cottage,
Bushelhill
Distance to
nearest turbine:
1.84km
Yes: but a lesser
component in the view,
seen from approx.
2.5km away, in the
context of other
turbines in the proposed
development
No: the proposed variation is
unlikely to be readily
discernible
The effect of the proposed
development will remain not
significant (significant if
forestry is felled)
9.Aikengall/ Park Cottage (both financially involved)
Distance to nearest turbine: 3.06km* (not visible)
No visibility of T16 No The effect of the proposed development will remain not significant
*these properties are included in the Residential Visual Amenity Assessment despite lying outwith a 2km radius of
the nearest turbine in the proposed development. This is because they lay within a 2km radius of the nearest turbine
in the original (February 2014) 27-turbine layout of the proposed development.
The assessment carried out in Table 2 above indicates that at the majority of residential properties the proposed
revision to Turbine 16 will not be readily discernible/discernible. There are three properties– The Star, Paitshill
Farm/Paitshill Cottage and Luckieshiel Farmhouse – where Turbine 16 is likely to be a more notable component in
the view due to its proximity to the property, but even here the proposed revision will not notably alter the
appearance of the proposed development in the view, and the findings of the RVAA in the December 2014 FEI will
not be altered.
6. Summary and Conclusions
This short report has assessed the likely effects that would arise from the proposed revision to the dimensions of
one turbine – Turbine 16 – from its consented height of 125m to a tip height of 145m. This change would bring
Turbine 16 in line with the other 18 turbines in the proposed development, all of which have a consented tip height
of 145m. This assessment is based on the theoretical visibility of the proposed revised height of Turbine 16 as seen
from the 34 representative viewpoints that were used to inform the February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI.
The revised assessment of effects on the viewpoints has indicated that the proposed change to Turbine 16 will be
theoretically visible at 28 of the 34 viewpoints, with no change to visibility of the proposed development at the
remaining six viewpoints (Viewpoints 10, 13, 14, 23, 28 and 30) as Turbine 16 is not visible at these locations. The
revised assessment has concluded that at the 28 viewpoints where Turbine 16 is theoretically visible, the proposed
change will not result in any variation to the findings of the December 2014 FEI. This is due to the fact that the
proposed revisions will bring Turbine 16 in line with all of the other consented turbines in the proposed
development and its resultant integration with surrounding turbines, the limited height increase, and distance from
the proposed development.
The assessment has also considered the effect that the proposed change to the height of Turbine 16 would have on
residential visual amenity. Of the nine residential receptors that were considered in the RVAA in the February 2014
LVIA and the December 2014 FEI, four will gain no visibility of Turbine 16 and so will not be affected by the proposed
revision. The assessment has concluded that at the five residential receptors where Turbine 16 is theoretically
visible, the proposed change will not result in any variation to the findings of the December 2014 FEI. As with the
viewpoint assessment, this is due largely to the fact that the proposed revisions will bring Turbine 16 in line with all
of the other consented turbines in the proposed development and its resultant integration with surrounding
turbines.
The viewpoints are intended to represent the key landscape and visual receptors that may be affected by the
proposed development. This means that while the revised assessment has not considered each individual landscape
and visual receptor, the findings of the revised viewpoint assessment are considered to reflect the overall
implications of the proposed change to the height of Turbine 16. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed
change to Turbine 16 will not result in any material changes to the effects on the landscape and visual receptors as
assessed and reported in the December 2014 FEI.
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 24
This page has been intentionally left blank
!
!!!! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!! !
!!
!
!!
!! ! !
!
! ! !
EAST LOTHIAN
MIDLOTHIAN
NORTHUMBERLAND
SCOTTISH BORDERS
34
33
3231
30
28
23
14
13
10
98
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
29
27 2625
24
22
21
20
19
1817
1615
12
11
330000 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000
63
00
00
64
00
00
65
00
00
66
00
00
670
00
06
80
00
06
90
00
070
00
00
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2019.
Figure 6.1ZTV for the Revised Layout
(with Viewpoints)
Ref No:
28/05/2019
0 5 102.5
Kilometres [
1:280,000
Coordinate System:
Scale: Drawing Size:
Created By: Rev No:
Date:A3
2TH130559
BNG OS GB 1936 Datum
Legend
! Aikengall IIa Turbines
! Aikengall I & II Operational Turbines
Aikengall IIa 5km Distance Bands
Aikengall IIa 35km Study Area Boundary
Local Authority Boundary
Aikengall IIa Blade Tip ZTV (145m)
No. of Theoretically Visible Turbines
1 - 4
5 - 8
9 - 12
13 - 16
17 - 19
This ZTV was created in ESRI ArcGIS 10.6 using OS Terrain 50 DTM data.
No surface features, such as trees or buildings, are included in this analysis.
1 Wester Dod 18 Cockburn Law
2 Crichness Farm 19 A6112 near Berryhill cottage
3 Minor road south of site 20 A6112 (North of Preston)
4 Dunglass Common 21 Old Cambus to Grantshouse road
5 Ecclaw 22 Wether Law
6 Minor road near Ecclaw Hill 23 Moss Law B6355
7 Southern Upland Way 24 Dirrington Great Law
8 Cockit Hat, Oldhamstocks 25 Middle Rig
9 Blackcastle Hill 26 Duns Law
10 Cranshaws 27 Twin Law (SUW)
11 Cockburnspath Old A1 28 Dunbar Harbour
12 Cockburnspath SUW 29 St Baldreds cradle
13 A1107 at Pease Bay Junction 30 Whitekirk Golf Club
14 A1 Bilsdean 31 Lammer Law
15 John Muir Way near Torness 32 A1 near Ayton
16 Brunt Hill 33 Whitsome
17 Edins Hall broch 34 North Berwick Law
S36c Application
!.Viewpoints that are not illustrated in thisReport
!.Viewpoints that are illustrated withcomparative wirelines in this Report
AIKENGALL IIa WIND FARM
!
!!!! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!! !
!!
!
!!
!! ! !
!
! ! !
EAST LOTHIAN
MIDLOTHIAN
NORTHUMBERLAND
SCOTTISH BORDERS
34
33
3231
30
28
23
14
13
10
98
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
29
27 2625
24
22
21
20
19
1817
1615
12
11
330000 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000
63
00
00
64
00
00
65
00
00
66
00
00
670
00
06
80
00
06
90
00
070
00
00
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2019.
Figure 6.2Comparative ZTV for the Consented
Layout and Revised Layout (with Viewpoints)
Ref No:
28/05/2019
0 5 102.5
Kilometres [
1:280,000
Coordinate System:
Scale: Drawing Size:
Created By: Rev No:
Date:A3
2TH130559
BNG OS GB 1936 Datum
Legend
! Aikengall IIa Turbines
! Aikengall I & II Operational Turbines
Aikengall IIa 5km Distance Bands
Aikengall IIa 35km Study Area Boundary
Local Authority Boundary
This ZTV was created in ESRI ArcGIS 10.6 using OS Terrain 50 DTM data.
No surface features, such as trees or buildings, are included in this analysis.
1 Wester Dod 18 Cockburn Law
2 Crichness Farm 19 A6112 near Berryhill cottage
3 Minor road south of site 20 A6112 (North of Preston)
4 Dunglass Common 21 Old Cambus to Grantshouse road
5 Ecclaw 22 Wether Law
6 Minor road near Ecclaw Hill 23 Moss Law B6355
7 Southern Upland Way 24 Dirrington Great Law
8 Cockit Hat, Oldhamstocks 25 Middle Rig
9 Blackcastle Hill 26 Duns Law
10 Cranshaws 27 Twin Law (SUW)
11 Cockburnspath Old A1 28 Dunbar Harbour
12 Cockburnspath SUW 29 St Baldreds cradle
13 A1107 at Pease Bay Junction 30 Whitekirk Golf Club
14 A1 Bilsdean 31 Lammer Law
15 John Muir Way near Torness 32 A1 near Ayton
16 Brunt Hill 33 Whitsome
17 Edins Hall broch 34 North Berwick Law
!.Viewpoints that are not illustrated in thisReport
!.Viewpoints that are illustrated withcomparative wirelines in this Report
Visibility of both Aikengall IIa ProposedVaried Development & Aikengall IIa
Visibility of Aikengall IIa ProposedVaried Development only
S36c Application
AIKENGALL IIa WIND FARM
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 26
Appendix A
Proposed Variations to Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Consent for Aikengall IIa Wind Farm as part of the S36C Application to Vary Single Turbine (T16).
Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report
Page 27
Proposed Variations to Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Consent for Aikengall IIa Wind Farm as part of the S36C Application to Vary Single Turbine (T16).
Proposed variation as completed as ‘tracked changes’ for ease.
Annex 1 Description of the Development
The Aikengall lIa wind farm with a generating capacity which exceeds 50 MW, comprising a 19 turbine wind-powered electricity generating station, located on land approximately 12.5KM south of Dunbar 6.6KM south of Innerwick and 6KM North East of Cranshaws crossing the border between Scottish Borders Council planning area and East Lothian Council as described in the application and Environmental Statement (submitted on 11 February 2014), and Further Environmental Information (submitted on 10 December 2014) and S36C Variation application (Submitted in June 2019). This is subject to the conditions in Annex 2.
The principal components and ancillary development of the wind farm comprise:
The development consists of 19 wind turbines, with18 of which will be a maximum of 145 metres to blade tip (hub height 90 metres); and 1turbine of up to 125 metres to blade tip (hub height 74.5 metres) as shown on the attached plan, with a total generating capacity of over 50MW;
approximately 6.9 kilometres of new access tracks, typically five metres wide, with cable trenches alongside;
two borrow pits of approximately 10,000 square metres to provide about 135,000 cubic metres of rock for construction purposes;
a temporary construction compound near Heart Law;
a permanent meteorological mast, 90 metres high, at the southern end of the site.
Access to the site for construction and maintenance along the minor public road which runs south-westwards from the A1 trunk road past Thurston Mains and through the narrow valley of the Aikengall Water
all as more particularly shown on the plans provided in the Environmental Statement (submitted on 11 February 2014), and Further Environmental Information (submitted on 10 December 2014) and S36C Variation application (submitted in June 2019).
Annex 2
Part 1 - Conditions attached to Section 36 Consent.
All Condition to Remain as Consented Part 2 -Conditions attached to Deemed Planning Permission
The Following Conditions are proposed as amended, all others to Remain and Consented; 8. Implementation in accordance with approved plans and requirements of this permission
Except as otherwise required by the terms of this permission, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the application, including the drawings shown in the Environmental Statement dated February 2014, as amended by the Further Environmental Information dated December 2014 and S36C Variation application (Submitted June 2019), and other documentation lodged in support of the application.
Reason: to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
9. Design and operation of the wind turbines
There shall be no commencement of development unless full details of the proposed wind turbines (including, but not limited to, the power rating and sound power levels, the size, type, external finish and colour which should be non-reflective pale grey semi-matt), any anemometry masts and all associated apparatus have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authorities. The wind turbines shall be consistent with the candidate turbine or range assessed in the Environmental Statement, and the tip heights shall not exceed 125 metres (Turbine 16) and 145 metres (all other wind turbines) above ground level as shown in Figure 2.1A of the Further Environmental Information dated December 2014. The development shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the approved details and maintained in the approved colour, free from external rust, staining or discolouration, until such time as the wind farm is decommissioned. All wind turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.
Reason: To ensure that the environmental impacts of the wind turbines forming part of the development
conform to the impacts of the candidate turbine assessed in the environmental statement and in the
interests of the visual amenity of the area.
Top Related