Argyll and Bute CouncilDevelopment & Infrastructure Services

Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle

Reference No: 15/00205/PPPlanning Hierarchy: MajorApplicant: PI Renewables LtdProposal: Erection of wind farm comprising 13 wind turbines (maximum

height of 100 metres) together with ancillary infrastructure including a permanent wind monitoring mast, access tracks, crane hardstandings, substations, control building, temporary construction compound and borrow pit search areas

Site Address: Escart Farm, Skipness

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

Erection of 13 wind turbines (100m to blade tip) with external transformers at the base of each turbine (2m x 3m x 3m high);

Erection of substation and control building compound (20m x 25m), control building (12m x 18m x 4.9m high), septic tank and 2.4 m high palisade fence;

Formation of 13 crane hardstandings (40m x 30m); Extension to existing access from the A83(T) serving Freasdail wind farm

(subject of separate planning application 16/01448/PP); Formation of on-site access tracks (9.7km, 3m wide minimum with

passing places); Erection of permanent anemometer mast (60m high); Formation of temporary construction compound with car parking and

laydown area (100m x 50m) and security fencing (2.5m high); Installation of watercourse crossings; Installation of on-site underground cabling.

(ii) Other specified operations

Grid connection - 33kV buried cable in the public road verge (3km long); Forestry felling along access route (subject to separate planning

application 16/01448/PP); Formation of 2 borrow pit workings (subject to requirement for separate

mineral planning consents).

(B) RECOMMENDATION: The application is recommended for REFUSAL for the reasons stated in this report.

(C) CONSULTATIONS:

Scottish Natural Heritage (1st May 2015) – in summary has responded as follows:

SNH advise that the location of the proposal towards the east coast of Kintyre, the scale of turbines, the coastal context in which the site is viewed and the relationship with existing and approved wind farms on Kintyre results in a proposal that would have significant landscape, visual and cumulative effects that cannot be mitigated.

SNH advise that the work on Golden eagle (Schedule 1 Bird species – Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) is inadequate and should be reassessed.

SNH advise that the proposal is close to the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA) classified for its non-breeding Greenland white-fronted geese and that the site’s status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 as amended apply. Consequently, the council in its capacity as competent authority is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA before it can be approved by means of a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ (See Appendix B to this report).

Claonaig Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - There are natural heritage interests of national importance close to the site, but these will not be affected by the proposal.

It is for the Planning Authority to consider the above advice on natural heritage impacts within the context of its own policies when determining this application.

Comment: Members should note that in the absence of any significant effects upon national designations SNH has confined its response to one of advice to the planning authority in this case, as its current policy is only to object to proposals which significantly prejudice national interests. The absence of an objection should not be construed as indicating that SNH are in any way content with the proposal given the nature of the concerns which they have expressed.

National Air Traffic Services (NATS) (6th March 2015 and 13th July 2016) – no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Glasgow Airport (2nd March 2015 and 14th July 2016) – no objection

Glasgow Prestwick Airport (12th March 2015) – no objection

Outdoor Access Team (11th March & 23rd August 2015) – no objection subject to conditions relating to protection of the Core Path C303, Kintyre Way and provision of a car park, and a Section 75 Legal Agreement to mitigate the impact on users of the Kintyre Way by ensuring that it is maintained at a high standard. An access plan showing the impacts of the development on Core Paths and other routes throughout the construction process will be required. A Section 208 Order will be required for the temporary or permanent diversion of any Core Paths (28 day consultation period).

OFCOM Spectrum Licensing (3rd March 2015 and 15th July 2016) – no objection

WS Atkins on behalf of Scottish Water (15th July 2016) – no objection

Ministry of Defence (27th March 2015 and 15th August 2016) – no objection. In the interests of air safety the MOD requests that the perimeter turbines are fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting at the highest practicable point.

Transport Scotland (27th February 2015, 11th March 2015 and 15th July 2015) –no objection subject to conditions to: secure approval of the proposed route for any abnormal loads on the trunk road network; secure approval of any accommodation measures required including the removal of street furniture, junction widening and traffic management; and, to ensure acceptable additional signing or temporary traffic control is undertaken by a recognised Quality Assured traffic management consultant.

Historic Environment Scotland (25th March 2015 and 21st July 2016) – no objection.

SEPA (7th April 2015) - no objection subject to conditions to secure submission of the finalised Construction Environmental Management Plan and finalised Peat Management Plan. If these conditions are not to be applied, then SEPA’s response should considered as an objection.

SEPA (1st August 2016) - acknowledge the ES Addendum has been submitted to assess and address the environmental impacts arising from the proposed revision to the access road to the site. SEPA would confirm that while they have no objection in principle to the proposed new access route, they do not agree that the potential impact from this new section of roadway has been fully assessed and in this regard they will require the provision of further information to address their outstanding concerns. SEPA object to this planning application on the grounds of lack of information on the potential impact to fisheries interest, the potential for micrositing of the new access route and the provision of an updated peat management plan. SEPA will review their objection if these issues adequately addressed.

The Joint Radio Company Limited (27th February 2015 and 15th July 2016) – no objection

Council’s Marine and Airports Manager (5th March 2015) – no objection

Council’s Area Roads Engineer (25th March 2015) – originally recommended refusal of the application, advised the applicant to investigate an alternative access through Freasdail Wind Farm, from the A83, as the B8001 is not suitable for the type of development proposed, due to it horizontal/vertical alignment, construction and carriageway width.

Council’s Area Roads Engineer (27th July 2016) – following submission of Supplementary Environmental Information, which revised the access route in accordance with the previous advice of Area Roads (directly from A83 via Freasdail), no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to ensure that no construction traffic is permitted to use the B8001 without written permission from Roads & Amenity Services and that all construction traffic uses the direct access from the A83 Tarbet – Campbeltown Trunk Road.

Council’s Public Protection Officer (12th March 2015) – no objection subject to conditions relating to: limitations on the level of noise immissions from the combined effects of the proposed wind turbines; provision of a report demonstrating compliance with agreed noise limits; independent assessment of noise immissions in the event of a complaint being received; provision of independent assessment; wind speed, wind direction and power generation to be continuously logged; submission of a

scheme for protecting the nearest residential housing from substation noise; restrict hours of vehicular movements during construction; and provision of construction method statement (to address air quality issues. The Public Protection Officer has no comment to make in regards to lighting or private water supplies.

RSPB (1st May 2015) – In RSPB’s opinion, the information submitted is insufficient to enable a proper assessment of impact on golden eagles and they object to this proposal. RSPB would be prepared to review their position if further information became available. Details of mitigation for other species, red-throated diver, hen harrier and black grouse, is also considered insufficient and RSPB advise that further information should be submitted. RSPB also have concerns that the ES may underestimate potential impacts on important peatland habitats. As a minimum, mitigation measures should be secured in relation to blanket bog as suggested within the ES.

RSPB (9th August 2016) – RSPB Scotland position remains unchanged in regards to the wind farm proposal. In regard to the access track alteration RSPB advise that the track crosses (NN8357) an area of peat habitat (Annex 1 blanket bog habitat) with a depth estimated at 0.5 – 1m and over. A black grouse lek is also thought to occur in the area and such wet bog habitat can be an important foraging resource for black grouse chicks. RSPB would advise that the track should be routed to avoid this area ideally through the forestry to the east to avoid any potential peat, habitat and species impacts. Should this application be passed unaltered RSPB advise that mitigation measures as mentioned in the conclusions of the Survey & Recommendations report by Ace Surveyors should be implemented with the additional undertaking of restoration a similar sized (or larger) area of peatland habitat as part of any potential Habitat Management Plan. RSPB are aware that red throated diver may use Loch Cruinn and advise that a screen of trees is maintained between the track and the loch to reduce potential for disturbance.

Highlands And Islands Airports Limited (13th March 2015 and 13th July 2016) – no objection

Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) (8th April 2015 and 25th July 2016) – while the development of the wind farm itself does not directly impact on woodland the proposed access track runs through existing woodland and will require woodland removal. Unfortunately, it would appear that no mention has been made of Scottish Governments Control of Woodland Removal Policy (CoWRP), appropriate compensatory planting (CP) or application of UK Forest Standard (UKFS) to the tree related activity. FCS would not object to the proposal as it stands providing a statement on woodland removal and Compensatory Planting is secured.

Council’s Flood Risk Assessor (5th March 2015 and 16th July 2016) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure that: the watercourse crossings have a soffit elevation equivalent to the 1 in 200 year flood level plus an allowance for climate change and freeboard; to ensure that appropriate surface water drainage measures are designed and adopted; watercourse crossings to be designed to allow free passage of the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event plus an allowance for freeboard; Surface water drainage design to be designed to the satisfaction of Argyll and Bute Council and SEPA; SuDS to be designed per CIRIA C697 and the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event to be allowed for in design.

Council’s Biodiversity Officer (4th August 2016) – no objection, requests that mitigation statement for badgers is included within the CEMP; watching brief for wild cat, pine marten and red squirrels should be included in the CEMP; and Species Protection Plan to be included in the CEMP to ensure that none of the ecological or ornithological interests on the site are compromised.

Kintyre Way (26th July 2016) – object to the proposal on the following grounds: adverse visual impact; potential safety of walkers and users of the Kintyre Way; and diminishing of the socio-economic benefit of the Kintyre Way to local economy. They agree with Argyll & Bute Council’s Access Department that a in the event of permission being granted a Section 75 Agreement be appended to the Escairt Wind Farm Planning process requiring measures to mitigate the significant impact of this proposal on the Kintyre Way.

South Knapdale Community Council (5th April 2015) – object to the proposal on the grounds of lack of consultation with developer; and the increasing density of wind farms around the north eastern end of West Loch Tarbert; adverse cumulative visual impact; and damage to the local economy. SKCC contends that West Loch Tarbert, its coastlines, and immediate areas are vulnerable to this. SKCC is unaware of any forward-looking planning or guidance on such density issues.

South Knapdale Community Council (16th June 2016) – Note that the original application was updated by an addendum dated May 2016. The South Knapdale Community Council continues to object to the proposal in regards to: lack of consultation by the developer with SKCC despite the fact that the proposal would visible both from locations along SKCC’s southern shoreline on West Loch Tarbert and from the South Knapdale Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ); the growing density of wind farms in the areas of North Kintyre, above West Loch Tarbert, and down Kintyre’s west coast and their visibility in the views broadly to the south of South Knapdale. SKCC is concerned that this potential turbine density cannot be directly controlled, and if many of these wind farms are consented the result will be akin to a highly visible industrial ribbon development stretching along a very sensitive coastal landscape. The proposal would contribute to the cumulative impact of turbines on SKCC’s residents, on its APQ, and on West Loch Tarbert and its approaches. The cumulative impact is being created by wind farms that are either approved, subject to planning application, or progressing through an ever expanding scoping pipeline.

West Kintyre Community Council (18th March 2015) – West Kintyre Community Council has not been approached by any local residents either concerned or in support of this application. WKCC therefore remain neutral with regards to this application.

West Of Scotland Archaeology Service – no response

Scottish Water – no response

Civil Aviation Authority – no response

Kilfinan Community Council – no response

Argyll And District Salmon Fishery Board – no response

North Ayrshire Council – no response

Tarbert and Skipness Community Council – no response

CSS Spectrum Management Service – no response

BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding – no response

(D) HISTORY:

None relevant to the location of the proposed wind farm. The access to the proposed development is to be by means of sharing and extending the existing access serving Freasdaill wind farm. The planning application for this access (16/01448/PP) is reported separately on the agenda for consideration by PPSL committee on the 21st September.

11/02309/PP - Erection of a 80 metre high meteorological mast for a temporary period of 2 years, Land South East Of Loch Freasdail, South Of Whitehouse, By Tarbert – application approved

12/02150/PP - Proposed windfarm (Freasdail Wind Farm) comprising 11 No. wind turbines (100 metres to blade tip), temporary and permanent anemometer masts, substation building, access tracks, construction compounds and ancillary development, Land South East Of Loch Freasdail, South Of Whitehouse, By Tarbert – application refused, appeal subsequently allowed (PPA-130-2036).

13/02890/PP - Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission 11/02309/PP (Erection of a 80 metre high meteorological mast for a temporary period of 2 years.) - extension of time until 30/01/2016, Land South East Of Loch Freasdail, South Of Whitehouse, By Tarbert – application approved

15/01924/PP - Amendment to planning application 12/02150/PP (Freasdail Wind Farm) approved by planning appeal reference PPA-130-2036 (Proposed windfarm comprising 11 No. wind turbines (100 metres to blade tip), temporary and permanent anemometer masts, substation building, access tracks, construction compounds and ancillary development). Amendments relative to conditions 1, 16 and 18 (turbine model, control building design and materials), Land South East Of Loch Freasdail, South Of Whitehouse, By Tarbert – application approved

15/02955/FDP - Forest Design Plan, Freasdail Forest, Whitehouse – no objection

16/00003/MIN - Temporary mineral working in association with windfarm development (part retrospective), Land At Freasdail Windfarm, East of A83 at Gartnagrenach and South of Whitehouse, Tarbert – application approved

16/00004/MIN - Temporary mineral working in association with windfarm development (part retrospective), Land At Freasdail Windfarm, East of A83 at Gartnagrenach and south of Whitehouse, Tarbert – application approved

16/01662/NMA - Non Material Amendment to Planning Permission 15/01924/PP (Freasdail Wind Farm) (Amendment to planning application 12/02150/PP approved by planning appeal reference PPA-130-2036 (Proposed windfarm comprising 11 No. wind turbines (100 metres to blade tip), temporary and permanent anemometer masts, substation building, access tracks, construction compounds and ancillary development). Amendments relative to conditions 1, 16 and 18 (turbine model, control building design and materials).) Change of materials used for external walls and modification to roof, Land East Of Loch Freasdail And North Of Loch Cruinn, Whitehouse, by Tarbert – application approved.

16/01448/PP - Formation of new access road (revised access arrangement relative to Escairt wind farm 15/000205/PP), Escart Farm, Skipness – pending consideration

(E) PUBLICITY:

Regulation 20, Major Application and EIA Advert (local newspaper and Edinburgh Gazette) – expired 3rd April 2015.Addendum EA Advert – expired 8th July 2016.

(F) REPRESENTATIONS: At time of writing a total of 9 letters of objection have been received to the proposal from 12 individuals.

Against

James Crainey, via email (25th July 2016) (Awaiting withdrawal of this representation. It was submitted on the misunderstanding that the proposal would be sharing the site access for Cour Wind Farm. Key concern raised was adverse impact of construction traffic)

David Bridge and Valerie Wells, Redesdale House, Skipness, Tarbert, PA29 6YG (30th July 2016)

Mrs Fiona Buckle, Glebe House, Skipness, Tarbert, PA29 6XT (11th August 2016) Mr Gordon Cameron, The Old School, Whitehouse, Tarbert, PA29 6XR (11th

August 2016) Dalibor and Martina Kolcava, Rockfield House, Claonaig, Skipness, Tarbert,

PA29 6YG (29th July 2016) Dr Stephen Ashford, Claonaig Old Church, Claonaig, Skipness, Tarbert, PA29

6YG (26th July 2016) Shelagh & Simon Oakes, Creggan, Claonaig, Skipness Tarbert, PA29 6YG (7th

August 2016) Mr Peter Jensen, Tigh An Abhainn, Skipness, Tarbert, PA29 6XT (7th August

2016) Leonard Sculthorp, Dunmore and Carsaig Estates, 115 St Andrews Drive,

Glasgow, G41 4RA (1st September 2016)

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:

Ornithological & Ecological Impact

Looking at the bird survey information contained in the application it also seems that there are potential impacts on some very important species including eagles. The flight paths of golden eagles pass directly through the site;

The effect on wildlife, especially the birds, could be catastrophic. The northern part of Kintyre is a great habitat for deer and many other wild animals and birds;

Landscape Impact

The proposal would be hugely detrimental to the landscape of north Kintyre and would cause irreversible damage to an unique landscape. It would add to the damage which will be caused by the Freasdaill installation whose prominence is becoming apparent as its construction progresses. It is now quite obvious that the appeal reporter’s assertion that its impact would be lessened by its distance from the B8001 was as ridiculous, as anyone properly familiar with the area knew it to be when the report was published.

Visual Impact

The various planning policies, which seek to locate these machines in ways which minimise their visual impact on the majority of residents and visitors, would be contravened;

The visual impact of yet another series of turbines is detrimental to the hills and moorland around us.

Cumulative Impact

The proposal would have an adverse cumulative impact with Freasdaill wind farm;

Another wind farm on the spine of Kintyre will overload the area with man-made developments to the detriment of the natural environment. The visual impact is also of serious concern, given the number of other wind turbines in this area which are visible from the tourist sites such as Skipness castle, the B8001 and Lochranza on Arran;

The visual impact, particularly from the B8001 and especially in conjunction with the wind farm already being constructed at Freasdail. This amounts to several km of windfarms lining the road and a huge impact on all who live along that stretch on the B8001;

Tourism & Recreation

The proposal’s impact on the Kintyre way, which is beginning to bring people to the area, would be hugely detrimental. This proposed windfarm would be situated very close to a long stretch of the route thereby dominating the views & skyline for walkers. It would be a liability to the tourist industry - our most important asset in North Kintyre.

If this area is to move beyond its current economic problems tourism is hugely important. The existence of a wide variety of wildlife to complement the landscape is very important to that tourism; planting huge industrial machines in locations such as that proposed will degrade both;

My partner and I have given our reasons for rejecting such an intrusion on our Holiday Business in our submission against Freasdail which was undemocratically set aside by a Reporter employed by the Scottish Government who appear to be determined to destroy our beautiful countryside to meet their emissions Policy! Unfortunately, we have been proved correct in our fear of the effects to our Holiday Letting Business which is having a very difficult year even though the detrimental effects are still mainly for the future as Freasdail is still in the early stages of construction.

Precedent

If this planning is granted then there is prospect of other wind farms 'daisy-chained' all the way to Crossaig, forming a continuous belt of turbines and disrupting habitats and wildlife for this entire stretch of the peninsula.

Population Decline

It is especially disappointing to our plans to support the efforts to stop the disastrous 20% reduction in population experienced in this area of Kintyre.

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 representation 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: 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: Yes

Environmental Statement (January 2015); Addendum: Revised Access, Supplementary Environmental Information (February 2016); Planning Statement (January 2015); Pre-Application Consultation Report (January 2015).

In support of the proposal

Four letters of support have also been submitted on or on behalf of the applicant by:

Darrin Rooney, PI Renewables Ltd, Westwood House, Five Sisters Business Park, Westwood, West Calder, EH55 8PN (Applicant) (31st August 2016 x 3)

James Welch FLI, Optimised Environments Ltd, Quartermile Two, Level 2, 2 Lister Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9GL (31st August 2016 x 1)

These letters are in response to: the outstanding ornithological matters; the issues raised by SEPA; and the concerns raised by SNH on the landscape, visual and cumulative impact of the proposal. They are summarised below and full copies of the correspondence can be viewed on the Council’s website.

Ornithology – the applicant has submitted a letter outlining concerns that they will be unable to address the outstanding ornithological issues in time for September PPSL and have highlighted difficulties they are having securing the further information sought by SNH on golden eagle from the local raptor study group.

Concerns raised in SEPA’s consultation response – the applicant has submitted a letter in response to the concerns raised by SEPA in respect of fisheries data, pollution prevention and ecological impacts. They advise that in view of the limited time available prior to the September PPSL it will not be possible to undertake and report on the additional work required by SEPA. In summary, they acknowledge the need to

comply with CAR and have highlighted the integration of the new access track into the CEMP for Eascairt Wind Farm. They have confirmed that the access track design has been an iterative process in order to avoid areas of deep peat and clarified that there is micrositing potential. This should address those specific points raised by SEPA. They also propose that fisheries surveys and an updated Peat Management Plan are provided prior to construction as specific planning conditions should the proposal be successful in obtaining planning permission.

Landscape, Visual and Cumulative impact - the letter submitted on behalf of the applicant by James Welch (OPEN) in regard to the Landscape, Visual and Cumulative Impact of the proposal reaches the following conclusions:

Location of the wind farm: conclusion – the location of the wind farm in an upland setting, where it appears on the skyline of Kintyre in association with baseline Kintyre wind farms, is fundamental to its acceptability. OPEN maintains that the wind farm is located within an upland, interior area that is appropriate for wind farm development in terms of scale, land cover, land use patterns, levels of development, and visual sensitivity, and is not, as suggested by SNH, in an area that “is more sensitive to wind farm development”, or an area that has a “close visual relationship with smaller scale coastal landscapes”. This is demonstrated by the very similar location of Eascairt to Cour. It is also considered that the wind farm has a high level of integration with baseline Kintyre wind farms, by way of its landscape character setting, elevation, appearance as well as in the dimensions and number of turbines. To understand the suitability of the site for wind farm development, it is important that the setting is considered in three dimensions, and not just as it appears on plan, with reference made to the visualisations that are included within the LVIA.

Visual Impacts: conclusion - OPEN find that in its response SNH has overstated the visibility of the wind farm from a number of sensitive visual receptors around the study area, or implied a greater level of visibility than will actually be gained. These receptors include the settlement of Lochranza, the B842/NCR 78, the B8001/NCR 78, the Kintyre Coast between Cour and Skipness, the settlement of Skipness, the Claonaig to Lochranza ferry, and the Kintyre Way. In the absence of any further explanation from SNH, of the conclusions that have been drawn in relation to visual impacts, OPEN are not able to consider the factors that have determined SNH’s assessment of significant effects, and they consider that the LVIA continues to provide a robust and justified judgement of the level of visual effects arising from the wind farm. OPEN therefore maintain that, as described in the LVIA and summarised above, significant visual effects arising from the wind farm will be considerably less extensive than is implied by SNH. It is of great importance that the actual level of visibility that is likely to be gained from the specific visual receptors referred to by SNH is fully understood in the consideration of the merits of the wind farm.

Landscape Impacts: conclusion – OPEN consider that, in its response, SNH has overstated the influence that the wind farm will have on specific landscape character receptors, or implied a greater level of influence than will actually be gained. These receptors include units 1 and 2 of rocky mosaic LCT; units 1 and 2 of raised beach coast; and unit 1 of rugged granite uplands. In the absence of any further explanation from SNH, OPEN are not able to consider the factors that have determined

SNH’s assessment of significant effects, and consider that the LVIA continues to provide a robust and justified judgement of the level of effect in these areas. They therefore maintain that, as described in the LVIA and summarised above, the effects on these areas of landscape character will in fact be limited, with no significant effects arising from the influence of the wind farm.

Cumulative Impacts: conclusion - OPEN consider that in its response SNH has overstated, or over-implied, the occurrence of significant cumulative effects that the wind farm will have on specific landscape character receptors and visual receptors, as described above. These receptors include units 1 and 2 of rocky mosaic LCT; unit 1 and unit 2 of rugged granite uplands; the settlement of Lochranza; hilltops at Meall Biorach and Goatfell; the Kintyre Way; the B842 and the B8001. In the absence of any further explanation or justification of these conclusions from SNH, OPEN are not able to consider the factors that have determined SNH’s assessment of significant cumulative effects, and they consider that the LVIA continues to provide a robust and justified judgement of the level of cumulative effects that will arise from the addition of the wind farm to other wind farms.

Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2012) - conclusion – SNH considers that Eascairt wind farm is contrary to the Council’s LWECS study. This is primarily due to its location in an area that SNH considers is not set back well from the coastline of Kintyre. OPEN do not agree with SNH’s assessment on this point. Particularly with reference to the physical elevation, landscape character and appearance of Eascairt wind farm site, OPEN do not agree with SNH’s assessment that the wind farm is located proximate to the coast, in a manner that will lead to an unacceptable relationship in landscape and/or visual terms. The choice of site is supported by a comparison of the wind farm with Cour wind farm, which occupies land at an identical elevation and very similar distance from the coast. Furthermore, it is OPEN’s firm opinion (supported by the various consents that have been secured on Kintyre since it was published and which do not ‘accord’ with it (Freasdail and Tangy 3) that the LWECS document is a high level strategic document which should not be used to assess the merits of a proposal on a site specific basis. It provides a high level context which cannot replace the detail of a site specific Environmental Assessment.

Conclusion – OPEN remains firmly of the opinion that the effects that are identified in the ES are within the tolerances or thresholds found elsewhere in other developments on Kintyre and the fact that sites such as Cour have been permitted in similar landscape contexts, similar to Eascairt, underpins this finding.

The applicant has also submitted a letter to accompany OPEN’s response detailed above in which they highlight the fact that they do not agree with SNH’s conclusions that the proposal does not comply with the Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study.

NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the letters of support referred to above, have been summarised and that the full letters of support are available on request and are also available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 agreement required: Due to the recommendation of refusal a legal agreement is not required. In the event that Members are minded to approve the application a Section 75 Legal Agreement would be required to secure the Planning Gain recommended by the Access Officer and a Habitat Management Plan.

(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 and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015

LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable DevelopmentLDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management ZonesLDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our EnvironmentLDP 4 – Supporting the Sustainable Development of our Coastal ZoneLDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of RenewablesLDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and DesignLDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing our ConsumptionLDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure

Local Development Plan Schedules

Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2015’ (Adopted March 2016)

SG LDP ENV 1 – Impact on Habitats, Species and our BiodiversitySG LDP ENV 4 – Impact on SSSIs and National Nature ReservesSG LDP ENV 6 – Impact on Trees / WoodlandSG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the EnvironmentSG LDP ENV 9 – Development Impact on Areas of Wild LandSG LDP ENV 10 – GeodiversitySG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat ResourcesSG LDP ENV 12 – Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs)SG LDP ENV 13 – Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs)SG LDP ENV 14 – LandscapeSG LDP ENV 15 – Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed LandscapesSG LDP ENV 16(a) – Impact on Listed BuildingsSG LDP ENV 19 – Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs)SG LDP ENV 20 – Impact on Sites of Archaeological ImportanceSG LDP PG 1 – Planning GainSG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour DevelopmentSG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design PrinciplesSG LDP SERV 3 – Drainage Impact AssessmentSG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water ConservationSG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – Risk Framework

SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the OutdoorsSG LDP TRAN 4 – New & Existing, Public Roads & Private Access RegimesSG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking ProvisionSG LDP 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

(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 3/2013.

Scottish Planning Policy (2014); Scottish Government Advice Note on Onshore Turbines (2012); ‘Argyll and the Firth of Clyde Landscape Character Assessment’ SNH (1996); ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ SNH and A&BC

(2012); ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape ’SNH

(2009); Planning Advice Note 1/2013 ‘Planning and Environmental Impact

Assessment; Circular 2/2011 ‘Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment’; Scottish Historic Environment Policy; Cumulative Landscape & Visual Assessment of Wind Energy Development

in Kintyre, prepared by LUC for Argyll & Bute Council, December 2015; Views of statutory and other consultees; Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters.;

(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: This proposal is a Schedule 2 EIA Development and 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): Yes

(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 (PAN41 or other): Based on the small number of representations received, the fact that they are all objections to the proposal; the fact that the proposal constitutes a conflicts with the Local Development Plan and Officer’s recommendation of refusal, a hearing is not considered necessary or beneficial to the determination of this case.

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

The application seeks the construction of a wind farm comprising 13 wind turbines 100 metres to blade tip along with access works and ancillary development. The site

lies towards the east of Kintyre to the south of the Kennacraig – Claonaig road (B8001) and to the east of Freasdail Wind Farm (refused but allowed on appeal and under construction). Access to the site was originally proposed from the B8001 but has been revised during the consideration of the application following objection by the Council’s roads engineers to the use of the B8001 for a construction project of this type. It is now intended that access should be taken from the A83 (T) via an extension of the existing wind farm access serving the site of Freasdail Wind Farm (this revised means of access is the subject of separate planning application 16/01448/PP which is reported elsewhere on the agenda).

The principal issues in this case are the consequence of the presence of the development on the landscape character of the site and for adjoining landscape character areas, visual impact and cumulative impact with other approved and proposed wind farm developments and ornithological impact.

Serious concerns have been expressed by Scottish Natural Heritage as to the adverse landscape, visual, cumulative and ornithological impacts of the development. The application has not prompted a formal objection on their behalf due to the absence of significant impacts upon national interests, but nonetheless it is clear that SNH considers that the proposal will give rise to significant landscape, visual, and cumulative effects which would be incapable of mitigation.

The RSPB has objected to the proposal on the grounds that insufficient information has been submitted to enable proper ornithological assessment of the proposal. SEPA objects to the proposal on the grounds of lack of information to enable proper assessment of fisheries interests, they also consider that a CEMP and Peat Management Plan should be conditioned, and in the event that they are not, should be treated as further reasons for objection on their part. The Kintyre Way also object to the proposal on the grounds that it will have an adverse impact on the route of the Kintyre Way. The Access Officer recommends that a Section 75 Legal Agreement should be attached in the event that the proposal receives planning permission to secure mitigation for the Kintyre Way and the Kintyre Way concurs with that view. South Knapdale Community Council also object to the proposal on the grounds of lack of consultation and adverse cumulative visual impact. All other consultees are satisfied with the proposal subject to conditions detailed in this report.

At time of writing a total of 9 letters of representation have been received, which include objections from 12 individuals, which raise concerns over ornithological & ecological impact, landscape impact, visual impact, cumulative impact, tourism & recreation impact, population decline and precedent. Four letters of support have also been submitted by or on behalf of the applicant. These letters are in response to: the outstanding ornithological matters, the issues raised by SEPA and the concerns raised by SNH on the landscape, visual and cumulative impact of the proposal.

The proposal is considered contrary to the adopted Local Development Plan policy in terms of its inappropriate landscape, visual, cumulative and ornithological impacts. It fails to accord with guidance published by the Council in the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012), Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009) and Scottish Planning Policy.

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No

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

inconsistent with the provisions of the Development Plan due to its adverse landscape, visual, cumulative and ornithological impacts. All other material considerations have been taken into account, including the contribution the development would make to renewable energy production, but this is 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.

(S) 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 Local Development Plan in this case.

(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: As SEPA’s objection does not relate to flood risk and SNH have not formally objected, no notification is prompted in the event the application was to be approved contrary to their advice.

Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 5th September 2016

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 9h September 2016

Angus GilmourHead of Planning & Regulatory Services

REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 15/00205/PP

1. The proposed wind farm is sited towards the north and east edge of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic Landscape Character Type (LCT). This edge area is more sensitive to wind farm development because of the close visual relationship with smaller scale coastal landscapes. It is considered that the proposal would have significant landscape impacts on the landscape character of the following: Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT at the north surrounding the site, and where the wind farm has a significant effect landscape character between Cour and Skipness Point (Rocky Mosaic LCT); the landscape character of the west coast and west coastward hills of the North Arran NSA (Raised beach LCT and Rugged Granite Uplands LCT); and the landscape character of the west coastward hills within the North Arran Wild Land Area (Rugged Granite Uplands LCT).

It is considered that the proposal would appear more closely associated with the coast than existing and consented wind turbine developments, when viewed from the sensitive settled west coast of Kintyre, the Lochranza-Cloanaig ferry crossing, and the North Arran NSA. The landform on which the proposal sits forms a key part of the wider views from Arran across the Kilbrannan Sound and to Kintyre. The wind farm itself is likely to form a new and prominent feature in the view, and doing so draws further attention to the existing and consented wind farms that are less visible on the spine. The size of the turbines of the wind farm, although in line with other proposals on the peninsula, would be out of scale with the receiving landscape owing to its closer proximity to the smaller scale landscape of the coast, when viewed from the Arran ferry route and the NSA. The presence of scale indicators in the form of settlement, and also the pylon route, would increase the perception of the scale of the turbines.

All other material considerations have been taken into account, including the contribution which the development would make to renewable energy production but this is not of such weight as to overcome the identified adverse landscape impacts, which cannot be overcome by the imposition of planning conditions or by way of legal agreement.

The proposal is considered inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design; SG LDP ENV 9 – Development Impact on Areas of Wild Land; SG LDP ENV 12 – Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs); SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape; and SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (adopted 2015); 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).

continued…

It is considered that the proposal by virtue of its scale and location would lead to significant visual effects being experienced from the following locations: Skipness

2. Castle/St Brendan’s Church; the settled east coast of Kintyre from Skipness to Cour (representative viewpoints 3, 6, 8, 10); and Catacol, Lochranza and Pirnhill within North Arran NSA (viewpoints 12, 13 & 15). It is considered that significant visual effects would be experienced from the following routes: Cloanaig Lochranza Ferry (viewpoint 9); the Kintyre Way (viewpoint 1); the B842/National Cycle Route 78 North of Cour (viewpoints 6 and 8); and the B8001/National Cycle Route 78 Kennacraig to Skipness (viewpoints 4 and 5). From Skipness and the North of Arran, particularly around the Cloanaig-Lochranza ferry route and Lochranza itself the proposed wind farm would be more widely visible and more prominent than the existing operational and consented wind farms, including Cour and Freasdail.

The proposal would lead to significant visual effects being experienced from a range of locations on the Isle of Arran including: Lochranza, Catacol, the west of the Cock of Arran, (Viewpoint 13) and also Lochranza North Bay, overlooking Kilbrannan Sound. The proposed wind farm, given its turbine size and proximity to receptors, would be prominent and unlike the other operational and consented wind farms on the Kintyre Upland, Eascairt would be seen as more closely associated with the coast. From the ferry route the proposal would introduce relatively large scale turbines, which would be visible for the duration of the route and in the focus of the view on the Lochranza-Cloanaig journey.

From Skipness Castle, Point and Bay the proposal would introduce large scale wind turbines into a small scale coastal setting, where people enjoy the views to both Arran and the Kilbrannan Sound, given the southward orientation of the bay, and where consented turbine development would be more distant and less prominent in these views. It is also considered that there would be a significant visual effect from the Kintyre Way, at three stretches of the route: to the east of Cnoc a’Bhaile-shios (approximately 700 m long); to the east of Claonaig (1.8 km long); and to the north and west of the site intermittently over a total distance of 7.5 km. These significant effects arise from a combination of the proximity and level of visibility of the wind farm and the sensitivity of the route.

All other material considerations have been taken into account, including the contribution which the development would make to renewable energy production but this is not of such weight as to overcome the identified adverse visual impacts, which cannot be overcome by the imposition of planning conditions or by way of legal agreement.

The proposal is considered inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design; SG LDP ENV 12 – Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs); SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape; and SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (adopted 2015); 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).

continued…

3. It is considered that the proposal, when viewed from the north and east would not be perceived as a cohesive group with operational and consented proposals on the spine of Kintyre, and would appear rather more associated with Freasdail. It is considered that the Eascairt proposal would be significantly more visible from the sea and lowland areas of Arran than Freasdail, and given its closer proximity, would be more prominent when both developments are visible. The introduction of Eascairt would be prominent in itself and would increase the prominence of the other wind farms in the view, whereas at present they are not as dominant a feature as Eascairt would be. For example in VP9, Ferry Route where Freasdail is in the main behind the intervening landform and more distant, and Cour is more distant from Eascairt.

The proposal would have significant cumulative landscape effects on the following: Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT at the north surrounding the site and, where the wind farm has a significant effect; Landscape character between Cour and Skipness Point (Rocky Mosaic LCT); the landscape character of the west coast and west coastward hills and Goatfell of the North Arran NSA (Raised beach LCT and Rugged Granite Uplands LCT); and the landscape character of the west coastward hills and Goatfell within the North Arran Wild Land Area (Rugged Granite Uplands LCT).

It is considered that the proposal would have significant visual cumulative impacts when viewed from the following: North Arran NSA – Catacol, Lochranza, Meall Biorach, Pirnhill, and Goatfell; North Arran Wild Land Area – Goatfell, Meall Biorach; Cloanaig – Lochranza ferry; Skipness; Kintyre Way; B842/National Cycle Route 78; and the B8001/National Cycle Route 78.

The proposal would also contribute towards cumulative effects on the Kintyre Way between Tarbert and Carradale and from the area represented by VP11 Dun at Torinturk.

The location of the site is contrary to the recommendations of the Council’s ’Cumulative Landscape & Visual Assessment of Wind Energy Development in Kintyre’ (LUC 2015). This document concludes that the proposed site is located in an area where the high sensitivity of landscape and visual receptors to potential cumulative effects is considered to be a limiting factor to further development.

All other material considerations have been taken into account, including the contribution which the development would make to renewable energy production but this is not of such weight as to overcome the identified adverse cumulative impacts, which cannot be overcome by the imposition of planning conditions or by way of legal agreement.

The proposal is considered inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design; SG LDP ENV 12 – Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs); SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape; and SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (adopted 2015); and with the guidance published by the Council in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012); the Council’s ’Cumulative Landscape & Visual Assessment of Wind Energy Development in Kintyre’ (LUC 2015); and Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009).

continued…

4. Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB are unable to reach a conclusion on the ornithological impact of the proposal in the absence of additional survey information

5.

concerning the potential impact of the proposal on Golden Eagles. In the absence of this information it is not possible to conclude that the proposal satisfies in full the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and SG LDP ENV 1 – Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (adopted 2015).

The intended means of vehicular access to this site is being promoted by accompanying planning application 16/01448/PP which supersedes the originally means of access as detailed in this application and the accompanying Environmental Statement. Following consultation SEPA are of the view that the application for the alternative means of access includes insufficient information to satisfy their interests in terms of the impact of the intended means of access to this proposal upon water environment interests and peat resources and accordingly their position is one of objection. For the avoidance of doubt the originally proposed means of access from the B8001 remains unacceptable for the type of traffic associated with the proposed wind farm, due to it horizontal/vertical alignment, construction and carriageway width. In the absence of certainty that the intended alternative means of access is capable of being consented, the proposal does not for the time being benefit from a suitable means of access to serve either the construction or operational requirements of the proposed wind farm. In this absence of an agreed means of access it is not therefore possible to conclude that the proposal is capable of satisfying in full the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources and SG LDP ENV 1 – Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity and SG LDP TRAN 4 – New & Existing, Public Roads & Private Access Regimes of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (adopted 2015).

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 15/00205/PP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

The proposed wind farm is located within ‘very sensitive countryside’ as defined by the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. Policy LDP DM1– Development within the Development Management Zones supports sustainable forms of renewable energy development on appropriate sites in very sensitive countryside. Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables only supports renewable energy developments where they are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects, whether individual or cumulative, including on local communities, natural and historic environments, landscape character and visual amenity, and that the proposals would be compatible with adjacent land uses.

In this case, it has not been demonstrated that the scale and location of the proposal will integrate sympathetically with the landscape, without giving rise to adverse consequences (including cumulative) for landscape character and visual amenity of its surroundings. Furthermore, insufficient information has been provided to enable satisfactory assessment of the ornithological impact of the proposal, potential impact upon fisheries interest, and peat resources. For the reasons detailed below in this report, it is considered that this proposal does not satisfy Local 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 (2014); the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms and relevant Local Development Plan Policy in this regard.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The proposal comprises the erection, operation for a 25 year term and subsequent decommissioning of a 13 turbine wind farm, approximately 6.2 km from the south-west of Skipness (to the nearest turbine). The site is generally undeveloped upland moorland lying on an elevated undulating plateau set to the south-west of the Ben Wyvis range. The Kintyre Way footpath runs around the northern and western sides of the site, where it follows the valleys of Allt a’Bhuic and Larachmor Burn. The proposed turbines would be up to 100m to the rotor blade tips comprising a hub height of 60m supporting a rotor blade of 80m in diameter.

The proposal also includes associated infrastructure comprising electricity transformers, underground cabling, access tracks, road widening works, rotor assembly pads, crane hard standings, access track turning heads, control building and substation compound, borrow pits and a 60m permanent free-standing wind monitoring mast. There would be a number of temporary works including a construction compound, laydown area and construction welfare facilities. The originally proposed means of access to the site from the B8001 has been superseded by an alternative proposal to access the site from the A83 (T) via an extension to the access serving the Freasdail Wind Farm (allowed on appeal and under construction).

The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principle of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects, whether individual or cumulative, including on local communities, natural and historic environments, landscape character and visual amenity, and that the proposals would be compatible with adjacent land uses.

Having due regard to the material considerations assessed below it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP (2014) and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012) and the relevant Local Development Plan Policy in this regard.

C. Landscape Character & Landscape Impact

Scottish Natural Heritage advises that the proposal would exert significant adverse effects on landscape character and it would extend the influence of wind farms into a coastal landscape; detracting from the existing pattern of development and resulting in an adverse impact on the North Kintyre and Arran landscape areas and the sensitive Argyll coast and North Arran NSA and Wild Land Area, including people’s views and appreciation of them.

The proposal is situated within the ‘Upland Forest Moor Mosaic’ Landscape Character Type (LCT) towards the northern end of the Kintyre Peninsula, and on the skyline that forms a back drop to the ‘Rocky Mosaic’ Landscape Character Type as viewed from the Kilbrannan Sound and North Arran. SNH advised at EIA scoping stage that they considered it would be extremely difficult to accommodate the proposal in this location and that the proposal may be seen as more closely associated with the highly sensitive coast and seascape than the larger scale of the uplands. SNH note that the turbine size has remained at 100m and that the number of turbines has now reduced from 17 to 13, however, this does not address the constraints raised at scoping. SNH maintain their position that this location is an extremely difficult place to site a wind farm. The ‘significant’ landscape visual and cumulative effects identified in the Environmental Statement for the proposed wind farm support this view.

Impacts on landscape designations – North Arran National Scenic Area

The main designation which would experience significant adverse effects is the North Arran National Scenic Area (NSA) and SNH’s advice on designations focuses on this. The proposal is at a distance of less than 7km from the North Arran NSA boundary. Despite this distance, the intervening seascape and coastal setting, along with the scale of the turbines in this setting are key considerations. SNH advises that although the integrity of the North Arran NSA as defined by its cited ‘special qualities’ is not adversely affected by the proposal, SNH wish to make clear their stance on the value of Kintyre in the setting of Arran – ‘If the island contributes to all its neighbouring districts by its dramatic presence, it must also be said that views from it to Bute, Cowal and Kintyre also add to the quality of the scene in Arran’.

Landscape Impacts

The proposal is sited towards the north and east edge of the ‘Upland Forest Moor Mosaic’ Landscape Character Type (LCT). This edge area is more sensitive to wind farm development because of the close visual relationship with smaller scale coastal landscapes. SNH advise that the Eascairt proposal will have significant landscape impacts on landscape character of the following:

­ Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT at the north surrounding the site and, where the wind farm has a significant effect;

­ Landscape character between Cour and Skipness Point (Rocky Mosaic LCT);

­ The landscape character of the west coast and west coastward hills of the North Arran NSA (Raised beach LCT and Rugged Granite Uplands LCT);

­ The landscape character of the west coastward hills within the North Arran Wild Land Area (Rugged Granite Uplands LCT).

North Arran NSA / Coastal Impacts

SNH considers that the proposal is more closely associated with the coast than previously consented wind farm developments, when viewed from the sensitive settled west coast of Kintyre, the Lochranza/Cloanaig ferry crossing, and the North Arran NSA. The landform on which the proposal sits forms a key part of the wider views from Arran across the Kilbrannan Sound and to Kintyre. The wind farm itself is likely to form a new and prominent feature in the view, and in doing so draw further attention to the existing and approved wind farms that are less visible on the spine of the peninsula. The size of the proposed turbines, although in line with other proposals on the peninsula, is out of scale with the receiving landscape owing to its closer proximity to the smaller scale landscape of the coast, when viewed from the Arran ferry route and from the NSA. The presence of scale indicators in the form of settlement, and also the pylon route, increase the perception of the scale of the turbines.

The prominence and scale issues which impact on landscape character are evident in the field, and would be more evident in the LVIA information had the visuals been prepared in accordance with SNH’s new guidance, particularly the image size (Comment; it should be noted that SNH agreed to submission of the proposal in its current format, reflecting the transitional arrangements for the introduction of updated guidance).

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

The capacity study was written prior to both Cour and Freasdail being approved and as such does not consider either Cour or Freasdail in the baseline. SNH considers that the current proposal, although within the boundaries of the less sensitive Upland Forest Moor Mosaic landscape of the Kintyre Peninsula, is contrary to the development recommendations of the Capacity Study. SNH’s main reasons for this opinion relate to the location of the proposal. The site is north of the simpler lower middle section of the peninsula, when the capacity study recommends the restriction of turbines to the lower middle section of skyline; and the turbines are not set well back from the coastal edge considering the size of turbine used. The proposal would be sited such that extensive views are available from the sea (Kilbrannan Sound) and the Isle of Arran, and this would result in significant landscape and visual effects, including cumulative, as illustrated by the LVIA. As a result of the Eascairt wireframes and photomontages not being supplied to the standard since required by new Visual Representation of Wind Farms guidance 2014 standard, they do not provide as realistic an impression of scale and distance as is currently recommended.

Wild Land Areas

SNH advises that the Wild Land Area data used is from 2013, and that the Wild Land Areas were updated in 2014, in line with the publication of NPF3 and SPP (2014). SNH advise that the boundary of the Wild Land Area differs from that of the Search Area for Wild Land. As a result of using outdated data the LVIA may underplay the significance of effects from the North Arran Wild Land Area, as the boundaries have changed.

Mitigation

It may be possible to make some improvements to layout. However, considering the proximity to the coast and the significant landscape, visual and cumulative impacts, SNH advise that it would be difficult to significantly reduce landscape and visual effects through mitigation. Any mitigation to reduce the effects of the proposal would likely alter the proposal to such an extent that it would, effectively, be a different proposal. For example, considerable design changes such as reductions in turbine height and removing turbines from the elevated areas and lower slopes more associated with the east coast.

SNH advise that the location of the proposal towards the east coast of Kintyre, the scale of turbines, the coastal context in which the site is viewed and the relationship with existing and approved wind farms on Kintyre results in a proposal that would have significant landscape effects that cannot be mitigated.

Letters submitted by the applicant and their consultants OPEN in response to SNH’s consultation response are summarised in Section G of the main report above. No further comment has been provided by SNH. Based on the current advice provided by SNH and notwithstanding the letters of support from OPEN and the applicant, it has been concluded that, the location of the proposal towards the east coast of Kintyre, the scale of the turbines, the coastal context in which the site is viewed and the relationship with existing and consented wind farms on Kintyre results in a proposal that would result in significant landscape effects that cannot be mitigated and which would be unacceptable in terms of government advice, development plan policy and guidance provided in the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that this proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan; and the Wind Energy Capacity Study.

D. Visual Impact

SNH advises that the proposal will have significant visual effects from the following locations: Skipness Castle /St Brendan’s Church; Settled east coast of Kintyre from Skipness to Cour (representative viewpoints 3, 6, 8 and 10); Catacol, Lochranza and Pirnmill within North Arran NSA (viewpoints 12, 13 and 15).

SNH advises that the proposal will have significant visual effects from the following routes: the Cloanaig Lochranza Ferry (viewpoint 9); The Kintyre Way (viewpoint 1); The B842/ National Cycle Route 78 North of Cour (viewpoints 6 and 8); and the B8001/ National Cycle Route 78 Kennacraig to Skipness (viewpoints 4 and 5).

SNH notes that from Skipness and North of Arran, particularly around the Cloanaig-Lochranza ferry route, and Lochranza itself, the wind farm would be more widely visible and more prominent than the existing operational and approved wind farms, including Cour and Freasdail.

North Arran within the NSA

The proposal will have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of Arran from a range of places including: Lochranza, Catacol, the west of the Cock of Arran, (Viewpoint 13) and also Lochranza North Bay, overlooking Kilbrannan Sound.

The wind farm, given its turbine size and proximity to receptors, would be prominent and unlike the other operational and approved wind farms on the Kintyre upland, Eascairt will be seen as more closely associated with the coast.

From the ferry route the proposal would introduce relatively large scale turbines which at close proximity will be visible for the duration of the route and in the focus of the view on the Lochranza-Cloanaig journey.

Skipness

From Skipness Castle, Point and Bay the proposal would introduce large scale wind turbines into a small scale coastal setting, where people enjoy the views to both Arran and the Kilbrannan Sound, given the southward orientation of the bay. The views are enjoyed by a wide range of users including residents, tourists (day and long stay),

walkers and cyclists. At present, wind farm development as viewed from Skipness is more distant and less prominent in the views; the proposal at Eascairt would significantly increase the prominence of wind farms.

Kintyre Way

SNH consider that there would be a significant visual effect from the Kintyre Way, and that the sequential cumulative effects of wind farm development on the Kintyre Way should be taken into account for the entire study area in reaching a decision on the acceptability of cumulative effects on the Kintyre Way between Tarbert and Carradale.

The ES concludes that there would be a significant visual effect from the Kintyre Way, at three stretches of the route: to the east of Cnoc a’Bhaile-shios (approximately 700 m long); to the east of Claonaig (1.8 km long); and to the north and west of the site intermittently over a total distance of 7.5 km. These significant effects arise from a combination of the proximity and level of visibility of the windfarm and the sensitivity of the route. The highest level of visibility is as seen in Viewpoint 1.

The location of the proposal towards the east coast of Kintyre, the scale of the turbines, the coastal context in which the site is viewed and the relationship with existing and consented wind farms on Kintyre results in a proposal that would have significant visual effects that cannot be mitigated.

Letters submitted by the applicant and their consultants OPEN in response to SNH’s consultation response are summarised in Section G of the main report above. No further comment has been provided by SNH.

Based on the current advice provided by SNH and notwithstanding the letters of support from OPEN and the applicant, it has been concluded that, the location of the proposal towards the east coast of Kintyre, the scale of the turbines, the coastal context in which the site is viewed and the relationship with existing and consented wind farms on Kintyre results in a proposal that would result in significant visual effects that cannot be mitigated and which would be unacceptable in terms of government advice, development plan policy and guidance provided in the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that this proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan; and the Wind Energy Capacity Study.

E. Cumulative Impact

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts

SNH considers that the proposal, when viewed from the north and east would not sit as cohesive group with operational and approved proposals on the spine of Kintyre, and would appear to be more associated with Freasdail. However the proposal would be significantly more visible from the sea and lowland areas of Arran than Freasdail, and given its close proximity, would be more prominent where both developments would visible.

In SNH’s opinion the introduction of Eascairt would be prominent in itself and would increase the prominence of the other wind farms in the view, where at present they are not as dominant feature as Eascairt would be, for example in VP9, Ferry Route where Freasdail is in the main behind the intervening landform and more distant and Cour is more distant than Eascairt

SNH advises that the proposal would have Significant Cumulative Landscape effects on the following:

­ Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT at the north surrounding the site and, where the wind farm has a significant effect

­ Landscape character between Cour and Skipness Point (Rocky Mosaic LCT);

­ The landscape character of the west coast and west coastward hills and Goatfell of the North Arran NSA (Raised beach LCT and Rugged Granite Uplands LCT);

­ The landscape character of the west coastward hills and Goatfell within the North Arran Wild Land Area (Rugged Granite Uplands LCT).

SNH advises that the proposal will have significant Visual Cumulative Impacts when viewed from the following:

­ North Arran NSA – Catacol, Lochranza, Meall Biorach, Pirnmill, Goatfell;

­ North Arran Wild Land Area – Goatfell, Meall Biorach;

­ Cloanaig-Lochranza ferry;

­ Skipness;

­ Kintyre Way;

­ B842/NCR78;

­ B8001/NCR78.

In addition, SNH considers that there would be cumulative visual impacts that could be significant when viewed from the area represented by VP11 Dun at Torinturk. SNH consider that given the poor relationship and layout with Freasdail, the effects from this viewpoint border on significant.

The ES concludes that there would be a significant visual cumulative effect from the Kintyre Way, at three stretches of the route: to the east of Cnoc a’Bhaile-shios (approximately 700 m long); to the east of Claonaig (1.8 km long); and to the north and west of the site intermittently over a total distance of 7.5 km. These significant effects arise from a combination of the proximity and level of visibility of the windfarm and the sensitivity of the route. This applies to scenarios with baseline wind farms, and with baseline wind farms and the application-stage sites.

The location of the site is also contrary to the recommendations of the Council’s ’Cumulative Landscape & Visual Assessment of Wind Energy Development in Kintyre’ (LUC 2015). This document (which has the status of a technical working note rather than supplementary guidance) concludes that the proposed site is located in an area where the high sensitivity of landscape and visual receptors to potential cumulative effects is considered to be a limiting factor to further development.

Letters submitted by the applicant and their consultants OPEN in response to SNH’s consultation response are summarised in Section G of the main report above. No further comment has been provided by SNH. Based on the current advice provided by SNH and notwithstanding the letters of support from OPEN and the applicant, it has been concluded that, the location of the proposal towards the east coast of Kintyre, the

scale of the turbines, the coastal context in which the site is viewed and the relationship with existing and consented wind farms on Kintyre results in a proposal that would result in significant cumulative effects that cannot be mitigated and which would be unacceptable in terms of government advice, development plan policy and guidance provided in the Council’s ‘Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ and the Council’s ’Cumulative Landscape & Visual Assessment of Wind Energy Development in Kintyre’.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that this proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan; the Landscape & Wind Energy Capacity Study; and the Council’s ’Cumulative Landscape & Visual Assessment of Wind Energy Development in Kintyre’ (LUC 2015).

F. Ecological Impact

SNH notes that some of the turbines are on areas of deep peat. However they welcome the mitigation measures that are proposed in order to minimise impacts. SNH also advises that Claonaig Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is close to the site, but conclude that this natural heritage interest of national importance will not be affected by the proposal. SNH notes there is no species protection plan provided with the ES, though the information supplied within the Eascairt Environmental Statement, Chapter 8: Ecology, has all the requirements of a Species Protection Plan. Provided the development is carried out strictly in accordance with this, the proposal is unlikely to require a species licence under protected species legislation.

From an ecological point of view, with the exception of inadequate information to allow an assessment of impacts on freshwater fisheries as detailed in Section H below, SEPA are otherwise satisfied with the information submitted with this application. SEPA acknowledges the presence of Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) at the site, however it is evident the applicant has taken account of the need to minimise the impact to these wetland habitats and as a consequence they have modified their application to avoid these areas to an acceptable degree. The applicant has acknowledged the requirement to provide through drainage on tracks where they anticipate potential impact on identified GWDTEs (to maintain hydraulic connectivity) and if required they are also prepared to further modify their drainage proposals if they encounter additional GWDTEs during the construction phase of the process. It is SEPA’s opinion that the losses of GWDTE habitat which will occur at the site is within acceptable limits. The draft peat management plan undertaken and provided for the site is also very thorough and addresses SEPA’s interests and has been prepared in accordance the current best practice guidelines.

The Local Biodiversity Officer does not object to the proposal but requests the following in the event that the proposal receives planning permission: that a mitigation statement for badgers is included within the CEMP; watching brief for wild cat, pine marten and red squirrels should be included in the CEMP; and Species Protection Plan to be included in the CEMP to ensure that none of the ecological or ornithological interests on the site are compromised.

Having due regard to the above, and subject to fishery concerns being addressed separately in Section H below, it is considered that this proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); and the relevant Local Development Plan Policy in terms of its impact on ecological interests.

G. Ornithological Impact

SNH has advised that the work on Golden Eagle (Schedule 1 Bird species – Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) should be reassessed (further information can be found on this in the Confidential Annex which accompanies their response - this can be made available for Members upon request).

SNH advise that Red-throated diver impacts both alone and cumulatively are likely to be within the levels the NHZ14 population can withstand, however they do highlight that predicted cumulative collision risks for this species are growing and will need careful assessment in future.

Furthermore, SNH advise that there are several issues with the Vantage Point survey including long days and potential disturbance effects. Vantage Point 2 is almost within Vantage Point 1’s viewshed and the diver VP is used erroneously with a 360 degree ‘arc’ risking missing flights to/from breeding lochans. SNH estimate that these issues are not of such concern as to totally undermine the survey results, but they do make them less reliable.

Collision Risk modelling in detail

SNH advise that the Vantage Point survey has a few potential issues. Vantage Point 2 is located in an area predicted to have higher golden eagle activity (more detail is provided on this within the confidential annex submitted with SNH’s response) and may have influenced activity.

There are a lot of simultaneous or largely overlapping watches for VPs 1 & 2. As VP2 is on the edge of the VP 1 viewshed and the turbine array area, it may have affected bird activity recorded.

There are a few cases of watches not conforming to SNH guidance with no breaks between them (e.g. 17th May 2012) and some overall long field days (e.g. 12hrs VP watches on the 29th September 2010 by the same observer).

The diver VP is stated to be operated within a 360 ‘arc’ which is not recommended practice and the applicant admits this may have been underestimated flight activity. Stating that birds on a loch would be noted if a flight was missed does not fully address the issue as a) a bird present on a nest unseen may move onto the loch from the shore/island and b) flights by outgoing birds would not lead to a bird on a loch.

All of these present issues for the data gathered to a greater or lesser extent. The simultaneous watch issue appears to have been accounted for by weighting the data for collision risk modelling. Finally, SNH note that the ES states that the Collision Risk Modelling was carried out using 660 hours of observation, however, it is also noted that this was later calculated at 678. It is not clear to SNH why the Collision Risk Modelling was not amended before submission.

RSPB Scotland has concerns that this proposal will impact upon golden eagle interests. The ES predicts a ‘significant’ (moderate) effect on golden eagle yet no details of mitigation are provided. Despite RSPB’s EIA scoping advice, the assessment lacks up to date survey information. This eagle range is now active and the wind farm site is likely to provide important foraging habitat for eagles. In RSPB’s opinion, the information submitted is insufficient to enable a proper assessment of impacts and therefore they object to this proposal. RSPB would be prepared to review their position if further information becomes available. Details of mitigation for other species, red-throated diver, hen harrier and black grouse, is considered insufficient and RSPB advise that further information should be submitted.

RSPB have concerns that the ES may underestimate potential impacts on important peatland habitats. As a minimum, mitigation measures should be secured in relation

to blanket bog as suggested within the ES. Notwithstanding the RSPB’s position, if the Council is minded to approve this application, they advise that suitable conditions/legal agreements are applied to help minimise the environmental impacts of the development. These should include a full Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to be agreed prior to any construction for all key species. RSPB should be a full consultee on the development of the HMP, and any subsequent review of the HMP. This should include mitigation for loss of important foraging habitat for golden eagle. In relation to red-throated diver, the RSPB advise that there should be a contribution towards survey work within Kintyre and wider Argyll (in coordination with Cour wind farm) and the provision of breeding rafts.

The proposal is close to the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA) classified for its non-breeding Greenland white-fronted goose. The site’s status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) apply. Consequently, the Council in its capacity as competent authority is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA before it can be approved by means of a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’. This can be found in Appendix B to this report, which concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA and that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site for the qualifying interests.

The applicant has advised in their letter of support dated 31st August 2016 that in view of the limited time available prior to the September committee date it would not be possible to report the further information requested by SNH on golden eagle activity prior to the deadline for completion of this report. Furthermore, that they have been undertaking further survey work since early this year, which was completed at the end of July. The purpose of this further work was to update the original survey effort in light of the inferred potential change of use, to provide real information to support the SNH PAT model. Whilst this work has not yet been fully reported, it is clear that there does not appear to be any significant change in activity of golden eagle on the site. To help provide SNH the further assessment they seek, the applicant’s advisors have been in consultation with SNH to understand the specifics of their concern. SNH has advised that they seek this information from the local raptor study group. At the time of the original ES assessment, the applicant advises that this study group failed to provide any information, which continues to be the case, despite assurances to the applicant that it is being investigated.

The applicant advises that prior to committee, it should be possible to report more formally on the updated survey work undertaken this year on golden eagles, and they understand that there is due process to allow such further assessment to be reported to committee in the form of a supplementary report, should this be required. It is not clear however, what information if any will be forthcoming from the local raptor group to facilitate this. The applicant has stated that they would be happy for this matter to be dealt with by planning condition in the event of the proposal receiving planning permission. They have also been advised that at present this lack of information prompts an ornithological reason for refusal.

Having due regard to the above and the absence of sufficient information to provide reassurance that ornithological interests will not be significantly prejudiced, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the relevant Local Development Plan Policy in this regard.

H. Hydrological & Hydrogeological Impact

In response to the original application (prior to amendment of the intended access route), SEPA had no objection subject to conditions to secure submission of the finalised Construction Environmental Management Plan and finalised Peat Management Plan. If these conditions were not to be applied, then however SEPA’s

response should considered as an objection.

However, having completed their review of the supplementary environmental information following revision of the means of access, whilst they have no objection in principle to the new route they do not agree that the potential impact from this new section of roadway has been fully assessed, and in this regard they have required the provision of further information to address their outstanding concerns in respect of the associated planning application 16/01448/PP.

SEPA object to this planning application on the grounds of lack of information on the potential impact to fisheries interests, the potential for micrositing of the new access route and the requirement for an updated peat management plan. They do not consider that these matters should be addressed by means of condition. The applicant has submitted a letter in response to the concerns raised by SEPA. They advise that in view of the limited time available prior to the September PPSL it will not be possible to undertake and report on the additional work required by them. In summary, they acknowledge the need to comply with CAR and have highlighted the integration of the new access track into the CEMP for Eascairt Wind Farm. They have confirmed that the access track design has been an iterative process in order to avoid areas of deep peat and clarified that there is micrositing potential. They also propose that fisheries surveys and an updated Peat Management Plan are provided prior to construction as specific planning conditions should the proposal be successful in obtaining planning permission. A copy of the applicant’s letter has been forwarded to SEPA for further comment. At time of writing no response has been received.

For the purposes of this application, in the absence of the finalised Construction Environmental Management Plan and finalised Peat Management Plan, and based on the Officer’s recommendation, it must be concluded, in light of SEPA’s response that the absence of this further information constitutes a reason for refusal as the proposal does not benefit from a means of access which is free of outstanding concerns falling within SEPA’s remit. SEPA has no objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds. Notwithstanding this they still expect Argyll & Bute Council to undertake their responsibilities as the FloodPrevention Authority. The Council’s Flood Risk Assessor has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to ensure that: the watercourse crossings have a soffit elevation equivalent to the 1 in 200 year flood level plus an allowance for climate change and freeboard; to ensure that appropriate surface water drainage measures are designed and adopted; watercourse crossings to be designed to allow free passage of the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event plus an allowance for freeboard; surface water drainage design to be designed to the satisfaction of Argyll and Bute Council and SEPA; SuDS to be designed per CIRIA C697 and the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event to be allowed for in design.

Having due regard to the above and the absence of sufficient information to provide reassurance to SEPA that their water environment interests will not be significantly prejudiced by the intended means of access to this proposal, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the relevant Local Development Plan Policy in this regard.

I. Forestry

Forestry Commission Scotland advises that the development of the wind farm itself does not directly impact on woodland, however, that the proposed access track runs through existing woodland and will require woodland removal. FCS raise concern that no mention has been made of Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy (CoWRP), appropriate compensatory planting (CP) or application of UK Forest Standard (UKFS) to the tree related activity. Whilst, the revised access was the subject

of the EIA Addendum (February 2016), accompanying the wind farm application, it is, being considered by means of a separate planning application (16/01448/PP). Consequently, the concerns raised by FCS will be dealt with under the auspices of 16/01448/PP. It is important to note that whilst FCS raise these concerns they further note that they do not object to the proposal and expect the developer to produce a statement on woodland removal and Compensatory Planting.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the relevant Local Development Plan policy in terms of forestry interests.

J. Borrow Pits

The ES states that two borrow pits are likely to be required to provide a local source of construction aggregate, which will minimise the amount of material required to be imported to the site. These will be the subject of individual mineral consent applications in the event that planning permission is granted for the wind farm.

K. Historic Environment

Historic Environment Scotland (HES) do not object to the proposal but recommended that consultation should be undertaken with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. At time of writing no consultation response has been received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service and it must therefore be concluded that they have no concerns regarding the proposal.

There are a number of heritage assets within Historic Environment Scotland’s remit in the vicinity of the proposal and they have reviewed the assessment in the ES and the potential impacts upon the settings of the following heritage assets: Skipness Castle & Chapel (Scheduled Monument) and Cour House, Saddell (Category A listed building).

Historic Environment Scotland note that the proposal will be largely visible from Skipness Castle, at a distance of 7.3km. As noted in the ES, the turbines will appear in the periphery of the view down the Kilbrannan Sound, which is a key element contributing to an understanding of the castle’s strategic position. However, due to the intervening distance, and the location of the development in the extreme west of views south down the sound, they do not consider that this impact will significantly affect an understanding of this element of the castle’s setting.

The magnitude of impact on Kilbrannan Chapel, scheduled as part of the Skipness Castle site, is likely to be of the same level as that on the castle itself, and Historic Environment Scotland consider it unlikely that this will be significant for their interests. They note that the assessment considers the chapel to be of reduced sensitivity to visual impacts on the grounds of its condition. It is particularly noted that signage on site states that the chapel is unsafe to enter. They do not consider issues such as visitor access and site condition to be relevant to a consideration of setting impacts. However, they consider it likely that the chapel is less sensitive to impacts on setting than the castle, which is sited specifically for strategic defensive purposes. For this reason, they agree that the significance of impact on this heritage asset is likely to be lower than that for Skipness Castle.

The category A listed Cour House is located approximately 6.6 km from the proposal, and will have partial visibility of the wind turbines. Given the intervening distance, and the orientation of the house, with views over the Kilbrannan Sound, Historic Environment Scotland are content to agree with the findings of the ES, that this will not represent a significant impact upon this asset.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant Local Development Plan Policy in trems of historic environment interests.

L. Noise, Air Quality & Lighting

The main issues of concern to the Public Protection Officer are operational noise, construction noise, air pollution (such as dust during the construction phase), lighting during the construction phase and effects upon private water supplies.

The site is relatively remote from residential premises. The nearest noise-sensitive property is ‘Escart Farm’ at 1,460 metres distance (this property has a financial interest in the development) and the next nearest is ‘Allt Romain’ at 1,695 metres. The report states that ‘Oragaig Farm’ (at ~1,400 metres) is used as an office (i.e. not a noise sensitive receptor), however, this property is classed as a dwelling for Council Tax purposes and should therefore be considered as a potential residence and is included in the condition suggested below.

An assessment of operational noise has been undertaken in accordance with the simplified method in ETSU-R-97 ‘Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ with consideration of the Institute of Acoustics ‘Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the ‘Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise’ (May 2013). (Planning Advice Note 1/2011 ‘Planning and Noise’ provides advice on the role of the planning system in helping to prevent and limit the adverse effects of noise and refers to ETSU-R-97 in regard to wind turbine developments).

The results indicate that none of the nearest noise-sensitive properties would be exposed to noise levels above the permitted ETSU limits for both the proposed and approved wind farms and Public Protection recommend that in the event of planning permission being granted that conditions should be imposed to restrict the level of noise immissions from the proposal, to secure submission of a report (prior to installation) for approval which demonstrated compliance with the agreed noise limits, to secure an independent noise consultant to assess the level of noise immissions should a complaint be received, the provision of independent assessment; wind speed, wind direction and power generation to be continuously logged, the submission of a scheme for protecting the nearest residential housing from sub-station noise, a restriction upon the hours of vehicular movements during construction and provision of a construction method statement to address air quality issues.

The main construction site is at a sufficient distance from the nearest housing to avoid any significant dust emissions, however dust may be a problem from the access track during dry weather. The applicant has stated that a Dust Management Plan would be implemented to deal with potential emissions from the site, access tracks / roads and vehicles. Their proposals include potentially washing or dampening down roads, particularly during dry weather; sheeting vehicles and facilities for the cleaning of vehicles before leaving the site compound. As this is a draft statement, Public Protection recommend that a suitable condition requiring a Construction Method Statement to be submitted and agreed with the local planning authority in advance of the development commencing be attached in the event of the proposal obtaining planning permission.

All lighting during the construction phase would be directed to where it is needed and would be switched off when not required. Given the distance between main construction site and the nearest noise-sensitive receptors and bearing in mind the likely screening provided by intervening ground, Public Protection would not anticipate any significant glare or intrusive light issues. The Public Protection Officer has no comment to make in regards to private water supplies.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant Local Development Plan Policy in this regard.

M. Tourism & Recreation Impact

The Kintyre Way footpath runs around the northern and western sides of the site, where it follows the valleys of Allt a’Bhuic and Larachmor Burn. There is no direct vehicular access to the site, although this section of the Kintyre Way is accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles. The value of views from the Kintyre Way is high as the route is a waymarked and recognised long-distance footpath that gains views of the North Arran, Knapdale and Jura NSAs. The overall experience of the route is widely varied and scenic, ranging from complex coastal and upland landscapes with long, open views across the sea and surrounding landform to enclosed wooded and forested landscapes.

The Access Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to ensure that the Core Path C303 Kintyre Way is kept open and free from obstruction at all time during the development, all path closures to be agreed in writing with the Access Officer and should be for the minimum duration possible and provision of a car park with sufficient capacity for eight cars. The Access Officer also recommends that in order to mitigate the impact on users of the Kintyre Way a Section 75 agreement should be negotiated to provide an annual sum of £15,000 to maintain the route at a high standard. This sum has been negotiated and agreed between the applicant and The Kintyre Way in the event that the application should be approved contrary to their objection expressed below. The Council would hold such funds and pay the Kintyre Way or a similar organisation to maintain the Long Distance Paths on behalf of the Council. Any surplus would to be used to maintain or improve the Core Path Network in Argyll & Bute within 15km of the wind farm. The Access Manager also advises that all the Paths and Tracks should be of the same standard or better than those to which they connect. The level of any new road crossing a path should be tied into it so that the movement of walkers, cyclists or horse riders is not impeded. Any gates erected on paths or tracks should be provided with a bridle gate to allow public access, in order to stop livestock from straying this should be fitted with a self-closing device. An access plan showing the impacts of the development on Core Paths and other routes throughout the construction process will be required to be secured by planning condition. A Section 208 Order would be required for the temporary or permanent diversion of any Core Paths (28 day public consultation period).

Despite the position adopted by The Kintyre Way in the event that permission is granted, they nonetheless object to the proposal on the grounds of adverse visual impact, potential safety of walkers and users and diminishing of the socio-economic benefit of the Kintyre Way to local economy. They consider that the proposed wind farm would have a major visual impact on the landscape to the Kintyre Way and the surrounding area. The wind farm would in their view be highly visible to core path users and the cumulative impact on Kintyre of the large number of wind farm sites currently in planning or approved is of great concern. The environment which is such an attraction to walkers at the moment would be forever blighted due to the height and number of the turbines and the industrial nature of the development will affect walkers who choose the Kintyre Way looking for solitude. The proliferation of turbines on the Kintyre landscape would have a cumulative effect on tourism businesses dependent on walkers looking for a particular landscape, which up to now has been one of the area’s main selling points. The application would in their opinion have significant adverse impact on the landscape arising from the cumulative impact of the proposed turbines in combination with the already consent wind farm developments located in this area, such as Freasdail which is currently in construction to the north of the proposed wind farm. The Kintyre Way at this section would suffer adverse visual impact in relation to wind turbines from both the north and south. In the opinion of the Kintyre

Way this application tips the balance in a manner that will change the landscape from one which contains wind turbines, to one where the turbines become a dominant and defining landscape feature.

Access & Safety Issues

The ‘Kintyre Way’ advises that as a Core Path the Kintyre Way should not be obstructed at any time during construction according to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act (LRSA). Where a long-term closure is proposed a path may be diverted or a new route provided. Given that the main access road for the proposed wind farm crosses the Kintyre Way the above is not possible. Users of the Core Path would need to cross a heavily used construction access route. Even under Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 this would cause safety issues for users. The health and safety of walkers as well as their enjoyment of the walk would be compromised due to the increase of site traffic and heavy machinery close to the Kintyre Way route both during construction and in operation. The provision of temporary signposting and crossing points would not add positively to the walking experience through a construction site. The dust and noise from a construction site would not be conducive to a peaceful walk in the country which is one of the Kintyre Way’s biggest selling points. The atmosphere created during construction would be detrimental to visitor enjoyment. The incremental marketing cost would be substantial. Information about diversions would have to be published widely via leaflets and website changes and the damage to the reputation of the Kintyre Way in giving such a negative message to users over at least 2 years would be significant.

The Kintyre Way is working with Scottish Government, Scottish Natural Heritage, Cycling Scotland, British Horse Society (BHS) and the local council to improve multi-use access for all under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act (LRSA) and Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC). This includes access for horse riders which the Kintyre Way is actively encouraging to ensure the route is both accessible and safe. This is being financed by SNH and Coastal Communities Fund (CCF). Therefore the Kintyre Way path directly adjacent to the proposed wind farm will see major financial investment and improvement in relation to multi-use access in 2016. Due to the nature of a construction site, safety for all users will be compromised but no mitigation can be made for the impact to the safety for horses and riders. BHS recommends a separation distance of four times the overall height of the wind turbine from core paths. T7 and T11 of the proposed wind farm does not meet this recommendation. In addition, the blades of T11 have the potential to over sail the Kintyre Way. The Socio-Economic benefit of the Kintyre Way – the Kintyre Way contributes over £1,000,000 per annum to the local economy and any circumstances which would cause it to suffer will affect the community in Kintyre.

The landscape, visual and cumulative impact of the proposal are considered earlier in this report. Bearing this in mind, based on the recommendations of the Council’s Access Officer it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in this regard, providing that the recommendations of the Access Officer are adhered to and mitigation for impacts upon the Kintyre Way is secured by means of legal agreement requiring a financial contribution from the developer towards maintenance of this long-distance route, on the basis of the agreement which has been negotiated between the Kintyre Way and the developer in the event that permission is granted.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Local Development Plan Policy in this regard.

N. Shadow Flicker & Ice Throw (Equipment Safety)

Government guidance advises that if separation is provided between turbines and nearby dwellings (as a general rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not

generally result in adverse effects. The ES confirms that the separation between the wind farm and the nearest residential property is greater than 10 x rotor diameters (10 x 80 = 800). The nearest property is at a distance of approximately 1.4km from the nearest turbine. 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, in terms of shadow flicker and ice throw, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); and the relevant Local Development Plan Policies in this regard.

O. 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. In this location due to poor reception properties tend anyway to rely on satellite signals so no measures are required to address any deterioration in conventionally broadcast signals.

Having due regard to the above, in terms of television reception, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); and the relevant Local Development Plan Policies in this regard.

P. Aviation Matters

The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. The MOD has no objection to this proposal. However, in the interests of air safety they request that the perimeter turbines are fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point.

National Air Traffic Services has confirmed that they have no safeguarding objection to the proposal. Glasgow Airport has confirmed that the proposal is located outwith their radar consultation zone and they have no objection. Glasgow Prestwick Airport has confirmed that the proposal does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria and they have no objection. Highlands and Islands Airports Limited has confirmed that their calculations show that, at the given position and height, the proposal would not infringe the safeguarding surfaces for any of the HIAL Airports. Therefore, they have no objections to the proposal. The Marine and Airports Manager has confirmed that the proposal does not affect aviation operations from Oban and they have no objection to the proposal.

The proposal does not have any identified conflict with civil aviation, military low flying or radar and there are no concerns raised by consultees in this regard. Infra-red

aviation lighting would be employed so that in what is characteristically a ‘dark’ area, lighting would not be visible to the naked eye.

Having due regard to the above, in terms of aviation interests, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); and the relevant Local Development Plan Policies in this regard.

Q. Electro-Magnetic Interference to Communication Systems

The relevant operators have been consulted to determine whether their systems would be affected by electro-magnetic radiation associated with electricity generation. SPP (2014) and Local Development Plan Policy highlights telecommunications interference as a material consideration in considering the acceptability of wind turbines.

The Joint Radio Company Limited advises that the proposal is cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by: Local Electricity Utility and Scotia Gas Networks, thus confirming that it does not have the potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements. Ofcom Spectrum Licensing and WS Atkins on behalf of Scottish Water are also satisfied with the proposal and make no objection.

No interference with UHF or microwave telecommunication links has been identified in this case and there have been no objections from relevant consultees.

Having due regard to the above, in terms of communication interests, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); and the relevant Local Development Plan Policies in this regard.

R. Road Traffic Impact

The Area Roads Engineer originally recommended refusal of this application due to shortcomings of the B8001 and advised that the applicant should investigate a possible alternative access from the recently approved Freasdail Wind Farm, which takes access from the A83 Tarbet to Campbeltown trunk road. The reason for this recommendation was that the B8001 Redhouse – Skipness Road is not suitable for the type of development proposed due to it horizontal/vertical alignment, construction and carriageway width. Following submission of Supplementary Environmental Information (Addendum, February 2016), which revised the access route in accordance with their previous advice (directly from A83(T) via an extension of the access serving Freasdail), the Area Roads Engineer now has no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions to ensure that all construction traffic uses the direct access from the A83(T) and no traffic associated with the development is permitted to use the B8001 without written permission from Roads & Amenity Services.

Transport Scotland in its capacity as Trunk Roads Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to secure approval of the proposed route for any abnormal loads on the trunk road network, to secure approval of any accommodation measures required including the removal of street furniture, junction widening and traffic management and to ensure acceptable additional signing or temporary traffic control is undertaken by a recognised Quality Assured traffic management consultant.

It is recommended that the requirements of Area Roads and Transport Scotland are secured by a condition requiring a Traffic Management Plan in the event that committee is minded to approve the application. Members will be aware of the normal requirement of Committee that all access matters are addressed prior to determination

rather than by means of condition, so that there is assurance that access for abnormal loads is assured. However, in this case it is considered acceptable for the TMP to be secure by condition as the proposal will be using the existing Freasdail wind farm access, which is direct from at trunk road and which has been specifically constructed for this purpose and is already in use. Consequently, it has already been demonstrated that there is a suitable means of construction access for wind farm purposes and the additional use of this to serve a second wind farm does not pose further difficulties.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in access and traffic terms, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012) and relevant Local Development Plan Policy in this regard.

S. Infrastructure

The proposal will not be connecting to public water or drainage infrastructure. Public Protection note that the applicant has submitted information which identifies two private water supplies within 5km of the proposed site (1.7km and 2.4km east of the site) but none within the application boundary. As neither of the sources are located within the catchment area for the development, no risk assessment is considered necessary.

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 SPP; Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms (2012); and the relevant Local Development Plan Policies in this regard.

T. Wind Regime

The ES states that during the site selection process wind resource at the site was determined with reference to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) wind database as being in excess of 8 m/s on average across the site at the available data height of 45m. Furthermore, that alternative sites considered in the area, particularly to the southeast and northeast had substantially lower wind speeds. There is no meteorological mast on site at present, there is therefore no wind speed and direction data which has been collected on site, to add to the data obtained from the DETR. There is however, no requirement for it to be provided in support of the planning application. It must be concluded then that the information available to the applicant from the DETR, provided satisfactory evidence that the wind resource at the site is sufficient for wind energy generation.

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.

U. 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 the wind farm will be connected to the grid via the switchgear located in the proposed substation and control building. The means by which the existing grid will be extended to this building will be the responsibility of SSE Power Distribution (SSE) who have statutory responsibility for the grid in this part of Scotland. This may require a separate application depending on the works and if so, would be prepared by SSE and not the Applicant. However, based on current discussions, the preferred option is for a connection at the recently completed Crossaig sub-station. This is expected to involve a single underground 33kV buried cable in the

verge alongside the public road. The proximity of the connection at Crossaig, at under 3km, is notable.

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. 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.

W. Decommissioning

Should Members determine to grant planning permission for this proposal 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 would ensure that at the end of the proposal’s operational life the turbines would be decommissioned and principle 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, any cables marker signs removed, and the electrical sub-station 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 terms of SPP (2014); the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; and the relevant Local Development Plan Policies.

X. 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 sources 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 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 interests, and it is considered

that insufficient information has been submitted to enable a proper assessment of ornithological impact, all of which are cited in SPP as valid material considerations in the assessment of the acceptability of wind farms.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP (2014); the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; and the relevant Local Development Plan Policies.

Y. 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 is currently 5.52 GW and is expected to continue to grow in response to the Scottish Government target of meeting 100% of demand from renewable sources by 2020. Operational and consented sites now mean that this target is now well within reach, albeit that it does not represent a ceiling.

The effect of the less favourable Contracts for Difference subsidy regime means that the prospecting for sites is now concentrated on the most windy parts of the country along with the desire for larger output turbines, in the drive to secure sites which pose less financial uncertainty by virtue of being capable of operating without subsidy or with little subsidy. That is now the driver behind those prospective schemes in Argyll involving larger scale turbines on less suitable sites influencing the coast.

The design capacity of the proposed wind farm is 26MW based on the installation of 13 x 2MW candidate machines. Annual electricity production will vary according to a number of factors including wind speed and maintenance requirements but is estimated to produce 85,926 MWh of electricity. This is equivalent to the demand of 16,968 households in Argyll & Bute, and saving 52,162 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum against the UK grid mix of fossil fuel types.

Whilst the 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 Local Development Plan policy considerations which have prompted the recommendation for refusal.

Z. Conclusion

The Council is keen to ensure that Argyll and Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The council further recognises the important role which the renewable energy industry can play in developing our local economy, as encouraged by the Council’s Renewable Energy Action Plan (REAP).

Argyll and Bute has a distinguished track record of pioneering and delivering renewable energy projects and we are well placed to continue to respond to the needs of the renewable energy industry and take advantage of the economic opportunities that are available to us.

Argyll and Bute is Scotland’s second largest local authority area and has a comprehensive and diverse mix of renewable energy consents including on-shore wind, hydro, mini hydro, solar, biomass and tidal.

Whilst the Council seeks to support the further development of renewables throughout Argyll and Bute, there is also a need to take a sustainable approach by protecting and conserving our outstanding environment, including our landscape and protected species, our local communities and other sectors of our economy from unacceptable significant adverse effects as a result of proposed renewable energy developments. Consequently, the main aims of Policy LDP 6 – Supporting Growth of Renewables and its associated SG together with technical documents such as the Argyll and Bute Onshore Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study seeks to deliver the growth of this important industry in a sustainable manner. The achievement of sustainable economic growth is one of the main themes of Scottish Planning Policy and this is reflected in the Council’s Local Development Plan. It is concluded in this case that the proposal will give rise to significant adverse effects upon the receiving environment, which will not be offset by a combination of the renewable energy generation and direct and indirect economic benefits of the development, and that there are insufficient opportunities to mitigate identified adverse effects to a point which would render the proposal acceptable in terms of the combined effect of SPP and LDP policy. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons stated in this report.

APPENDIX B – APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT - RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 15/00205/PP

Note: Appropriate Assessment relates to ‘Designations’ rather than ‘Species’. As there are no Golden Eagle SPA’s close to/on the site, although they are an Annex 1 protected Species, they are not required to be included in the Appropriate Assessment. (Waiting clarification from Stan (SNH)).

The proposal is close to the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA) designated under European legislation for its internationally important wintering population of Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris).

The site’s status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 as amended (the “Habitats Regulations”) or, for reserved matters the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 as amended, apply. Consequently, the Council is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA before it can be approved (commonly known as Habitats Regulations Appraisal).

SNH have advised the Council in this matter and have taken the view that this proposal has potential to have a significant effect on the Greenland white-fronted goose qualifying interest(s) of the site. In these circumstances, in accordance with the aforementioned regulations, an ‘appropriate assessment’ is required to be carried out by the Council in its capacity as ‘competent authority’, in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest(s).

The appraisal SNH carried out considered the impact of the proposal on the following factors:

Is the plan or project directly connected with or necessary to site management for nature conservation? - This is a wind farm proposal which is in no way connected with or necessary to site management of any of the SPA lochs for nature conservation.

Is the plan or project (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) likely to have a significant effect on the site? - Greenland white-fronted geese may fly over the wind farm site on migration, or on flight paths from their roosting lochs between the migratory periods of autumn and spring.

SNH has concluded that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA site.

Can it be ascertained that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?

Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris) could be affected by the proposal due to collision risk with the turbines.

Freasdaill wind farm which lies to the north-west of the proposal was considered to have a likely significant effect on the Kintyre goose roosts SPA.

The nature of the proposal is the erection of 13 wind turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 100m and a combined generating capacity of notionally 26MW, a new site entrance, new access tracks, crane hardstandings, substation and control building, underground cables, 2 borrow pits and a temporary construction compound. The life of the development is 25 years. Once the development has been decommissioned the effect will be removed.

The wind farm contributes to a number of wind farm proposals in Kintyre which could have a likely significant effect on the Greenland white fronted goose feature of the SPA.

Given the results of the Vantage point work and the distance from the SPA lochs for Greenland white-fronted geese SNH agree with the ES conclusion that there will be negligible disturbance to geese and negligible collision risk and displacement from habitats that support GWF geese.

SNH concludes that, in their view, based on the information provided, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.

This advice has informed the Council’s conclusion in the matter, which is that it has been demonstrated that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA and that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site for the qualifying interests.