Ardeer Peninsula, Stevenston - 2300559PP
North Ayrshire Council · 27 November 2024
Back to Planning Committee — 27 November 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL
27th November 2024
Planning Committee
Locality
Reference 23/00559/PP
Application Registered 6th September 2023
Decision Due 6th November 2023
Ward Saltcoats And Stevenston
Recommendation Approved subject to Conditions
__________________________________________________________________
Location Ardeer Peninsula Ardeer Stevenston North Ayrshire
Applicant The Farm Energy Company Fao Ms Sarah Lapsley
Proposal Erection of 2 wind turbines of up to 150m to tip, and
associated infrastructure
___________________________________________________________________
1. Description
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 2 wind turbines, with a maximum blade
tip height of 150m, and associated infrastructure, at a site on the Ardeer Peninsula. The
site is approx. 575m east of the residential area of Stevenston at its closest point.
The site would be accessed from Central Avenue to the south of the proposed turbine
locations. The site is part of an industrial area, formerly used for production of energetics.
Existing access tracks would be utilised. There are various industrial and business
properties on the southern side of Central Avenue. There are business properties at
Stevenston Industrial Estate some 480m to the west. An existing energetics factory,
Chemring, sits to the south and east of the application site.
The application site is identified in the Local Development Plan (LDP), adopted November
2019, as an area suitable for business and industrial development. The northernmost
turbine would be sited within an area identified as the southern end of a woodland known
as Blackpowder Wood. The southernmost turbine would be some 420m to the south. It
would be approx. 110m north of Central Avenue and approx. 160m north-west of the
Chemring gatehouse. The turbines, at their closest point, would be approx. 770m to the
west of the Bogside Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest ("the SSSI").Page 2
The application site is within an area covered by The Town and Country Planning (County
of Ayr No. 1 Special Development) Order 1953 ("the SDO"). The SDO effectively grants
permission for all development except; the erection, alteration or extension of a
chimneystack; the erection, alteration or extension of any other building where the height
would exceed 120ft (36.6m); or specific changes of use. The SDO is not considered to
apply in relation to this proposal.
A planning application for 3 wind turbines was submitted in September 2022 (ref:
22/00749/PP). That application was withdrawn prior to determination.
The proposal has been scoped in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 on 10th June 2022 (ref:
22/00208/EIA).
An EIA has been submitted. The EIA includes consideration of the following:
Consideration of Alternatives
The EIA states the site was selected with respect to criteria including proximity to the
energy off-taker, appropriate size of development, mean wind speeds, designated
environmental features, distance from residential properties, good access to the existing
road network, and turbine choice. The site was primarily selected due to the proximity of
Berry bpi Ardeer and to power the operation of that site. Several layouts within the area
were investigated with the submitted scheme being the final iteration.
Landscape and Visual Impact
The report assesses the landscape and visual effects of the proposal. It concludes that
there would be significant effect on the surroundings of the site to a distance of 2-3km. It is
considered that effects would be mitigated in longer distances as the landscape is heavily
influenced by industrial development. There would be significant impact on the settlement
of Stevenston which is within 3km. There would also be impacts on the core paths and
recreational routes within that distance. Greenacres Caravan Park and Sandylands
Holiday Park would also be impacted. It is not considered there would be any significant
effect on transport routes.
When viewed cumulatively, the proposal is considered to only slightly increase the
presence of such development in the area. Given this and the limitation to impacts on a 2-
3km area, the report considers that the significant effect on landscape character and
visual amenity are limited.
Ecology and Ornithology
This report identified important ecological features including Bogside Flats SSSI, mixed
plantation woodland, young broad-leaved woodland, open mosaic habitats on previously
developed land, barn owl, birds of conservation concern and species of bats. It is not
considered that there would any likely significant effect on these features. The impact on
the Bogside Flats SSSI was considered after the completion of vantage point bird surveys
in 2023. The report concludes that there is potential, during the operation of the turbines,
to impact on the regionally important populations of whooper swan, golden plover, dunlinPage 3
and lapwing which make use of the SSSI. The collision risk is calculated at between 0.002 and 0.009 potential collisions per migratory/winter season depending on bird species. The report considers that this level of impact would not adversely affect the SSSI. Cultural Heritage Buildings and other structures of the former Nobel Factory and ICI Works survive in the area. The proposal has been designed to avoid direct effects on these upstanding buildings and structures. Accidents and Disasters Assesses the risk from potential accidents and disasters including failure of a mast; blade throw; blade fragmentation; fire and ice throw. This is assessed in terms of those on the site, the energetics site and members of the public. It is considered that the likely impact from potential disasters is rare except in connection to fire, which is considered to be unlikely, and ice throw, which is considered to be likely. Ice throw is where ice forms on the blades or hub and then sheds, causing injury to people and/or damage to surroundings. It is further considered that risk from fire and ice throw can be mitigated. Any turbine would be operated automatically with no on-site personnel required. The distance to the energetics site buildings should mitigate any potential damage. Turbines should also be fitted with sensors to enable remote shutdown and de-icing and anti-icing systems. In addition to the EIA, the following documents have been submitted in support of the application: Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement These reports describe the proposed development, summarises the planning background, and policy context. The planning statement includes details of planning permissions granted on appeal. Coal Mining Risk Assessment and Phase 1 Ground Survey The site is an area of low risk according to the Coal Authority. However, the assessment identifies that intrusive investigations are carried out at the site to confirm ground conditions for the turbines. A mine gas monitoring exercise should be undertaken. Noise Impact Assessment The assessment concludes that the predicted noise of the operational turbines would meet the ETSU-R-97 (Government guidance on wind turbine noise) noise limits. Flood Risk Assessment No significant flood risk is identified. Telecommunications Impact Assessment
Page 4
This identifies that whilst mobile phone communications in the area should not be
affected, the Joint Radio Company (JRC) has objected. JRC consider that Ultra High
Frequency (UHF) links could be impacted and this would require to be mitigated.
Mitigation proposed includes micro siting of turbines, re-networking existing UHF links,
construction of new telecoms link sites and/or use of an alternative technology. The
applicant requires to remain in consultation with the JRC on this matter.
Transport Statement
This assesses that traffic from the development can be accommodated in the existing
network without significant impacts. Abnormal loads would be delivered to the Port of Ayr
and brought to the site via the A78, A738 and Dubbs Road. Implementation of a
Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would allow management of any HGV
traffic and abnormal loads.
Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment
Given the history of the site, the threat of potential unexploded ordnance is considered.
The report concludes that the threat is negligible to non-existent. No explosive ordnance is
considered to present.
Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
This was updated September 2024 following NatureScot's initial comments. The stated
objective of the HMP is to provide mitigation and compensation for the impacts caused by
the installation and operation of the turbines. The HMP identifies that the northernmost
turbine would be in an area of mixed plantation woodland. Any mature woodland within
102m of the turbine would be removed. The southernmost turbine would be within an area
of young broad-leaved woodland. Any young woodland within 85m of the turbine would be
removed. This would be undertaken to reduce risk of bat collision.
Open mosaic habitat on previously developed land is listed on the Scottish Biodiversity
List as a priority habitat. Such habitat would be created on the felled areas. Stumps of
gorse and brush would be retained. Seeding for grassland mixtures would be sown. The
areas would be maintained during the growing season with failed area to be re-seeded.
Perennials such as thistles, nettles and ragworts will be permitted to establish to provide
opportunities of invertebrates.
Around the woodland edges felled tree stumps would be retained and scalloped edges
created to produce a transition from woodland to open mosaic habitat. Bird boxes would
be installed on the woodland edge to increase suitability for nesting birds. The dead wood
from felled trees would be retained within the woodland to create habitat for reptiles,
amphibians and invertebrates.
It is proposed to plant an additional 8ha of native woodland. This will be undertaken off-
site and in conjunction with Ayrshire Rivers Trust to provide biodiversity enhancement
along Ayrshire's watercourses to extend local nature networks and provide shading for
riparian zones.
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ("the Act") states that when
determining planning applications regard shall be had to the provisions of thePage 5
development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. The relevant policies of the Local Development Plan adopted November 2019 (LDP) are Strategic Policy 1: Towns and Villages Objective; Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking; Policy 7: Business and Industry Employment Locations; Policy 15: Landscape and Seascape; Policy 16: Protection of our Designated Sites; Policy 18: Forestry, Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows; and Policy 29: Energy Infrastructure Development; The Council has approved a Landscape Wind Capacity Study October 2018. National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was adopted by the Scottish Government in February 2023 and forms part of the development plan with the LDP. The relevant polices of NPF4 are considered to be Policy 1: Tackling the climate and nature crises; Policy 3: Biodiversity; Policy 4: Natural Places; Policy 6: Forestry, woodland and trees; Policy 9: Brownfield, vacant and derelict land; Policy 11: Energy; Policy 14: Design, quality and place; Policy 23: Health and Safety and Policy 26: Business and industry. The Stevenston Local Place Plan (LPP), prepared by Stevenston Community Council, was considered by the Planning Committee in August 2024 and is a material consideration for this application. 2. Consultations and Representations Neighbour notification was carried out, the application was advertised, and the documentation was made available at the local library. There have been 7 objections received, and 62 support comments. The objections can be summarised as follows. 1. The area should be left to nature and wildlife. There is a SSSI nearby and the application site itself is being considered as a potential SSSI by NatureScot. The site supports a nationally important assemblage of invertebrates and many species will be affected by direct loss of habitat or disturbance during construction. Woodland would also be lost to create the proposed Open Mosaic Habitat in mitigation. The area of proposed mitigation is less than the impacted area. Habitat has previously been lost by works carried out under the SDO. The appropriate surveys for the impact on birds have not been carried out. This is contrary to Policy 6 of NPF4. Not enough information has been provided to assess the impact which is contrary to Policy 3 of NPF4. Response: The impact on biodiversity is assessed further below. The applicant is seeking a lifespan of 25 years for the turbines. However, it is noted that NPF4 explicitly considers areas for wind turbine development to be suitable for use in perpetuity. Any works carried out under the SDO do not require planning permission and do not form part of this application. It is considered that sufficient information has been provided to determine the application. The location near the SSSI is noted as are the surveys carried. The proposed area around the turbines which could be cleared of trees is up to 5.5ha although not all of that area is woodland. This area would be turned into open mosaic habitat. There is a further proposed mitigation planting of 8ha. The location of this application has not been designated a SSSI. NatureScot's comments are set out below. 2. The local landscape will be impacted. Response: The visual impact of the proposal is considered below.
Page 6
3. The turbines will not contribute to the local economy. It is not considered that promises of community benefits will be fulfilled. Response: The turbines are intended to provide energy for an existing local business. The net economic impact is considered further below. Potential community benefits arising from the operation of the turbines are not material considerations in relation to this planning application. 4. The turbines are too close to housing and there will be impacts from noise. Response: The residential area of Stevenston is approx. 575m from the nearest turbine with the closest existing houses on Golf Road being some 760m distant. NAC Environmental Health has been consulted and their comments are set out below. 5. The adjacent energetics site will be adversely impacted by the proposal. The turbines are too close to that site. The location of the wind turbines will create risks to the operation of the site by way of potential failure/toppling of the turbines, blade throw, blade fragmentation, ice and fire throw, electrical interference of essential communication/electrical infrastructure, noise impacting on emergency procedures and possible shadow flicker. Such risks will impact on the explosive licence granted under the Explosive Regulations 2014. The energetics site is seeking to expand its operation within its existing site. It intends to rely on the Special Development Order (SDO) covering the site to carry out expansion. The EIA is considered to underplay to the adverse risks to the energetics site. The turbines may cause shadow flicker to the adjacent properties. Response: The net economic impact of the proposal is considered further below. It is noted that one of the objections is from Chemring, the adjacent energetics company. Their concerns regarding the proximity of the development, as set out in the report of SLR Consulting Ltd, dated November 2023, and submitted on behalf of Chemring is also noted. Chemring, as could potentially any developer within the SDO area, rely on that Order to carry out works - subject to the works meeting the specific requirements of the Order. It is noted that Chemring sought, and was granted in April 2023, a Certificate of Lawful Proposed Development for a replacement production facility. This would be within the existing Chemring site (ref: 23/00207/LUP). The Certificate was granted with the nearest proposed building some 340m east of the nearest proposed turbine. The applicant has produced a response to the points raised by Chemring. In terms of failure of a turbine, they consider that there is a small risk of tower collapse. Enhanced maintenance plans would be put in place and a separation distance of at least 275m from Chemring's nearest operational building. If a tower were to fail, and it is considered this is very rare, any tower would be more likely to collapse rather than topple over. This further meaning there is very little chance of Chemring being impacted. In terms of blade throw/fragmentation, the applicant considers that the blades would be carbon fibre which can withstand higher wind speeds and other environmental impacts. Any blades would be constructed to the relevant international standard with rigorous testing and maintenance.
Page 7
In terms of fire, the applicant states that the preferred model of turbine is direct drive which does not have a gearbox and minimises chance of fire. Mitigation measures and supplementary fire suppression systems could also be implemented. In terms of ice throw, the turbines would have an ice detection system which shuts them down when temperatures which could cause icing are likely. The applicant would be willing to work with Chemring to incorporate their development's remote warning systems into Chemring's systems. The applicant states that the possibility of a change to regulations at an unspecified point in the future should be given no weight. The applicant's response is noted. If permission were granted, certain elements could be governed by condition including turbine type (i.e. direct drive), blade material and details of maintenance schedules and fire suppression to be provided. Given the position of the turbines in relation to the existing and potential buildings, under the Certificate, it is not considered the potential for shadow flicker raises any significant impacts. The support comments can be summarised as follows. 1. The turbines will support the operation of an existing business. The business employs approx. 200 people, and this will help deliver the energy needs of the business for the next 20 years. It will provide the business with increased energy security and allow them to use low carbon electricity reducing the businesses carbon footprint. There will be jobs during construction and the turbines will help job retention. There will be opportunities for local contractors. Response: The potential economic impact is considered below. It is noted that one of the representations in support is from Berry bpi Ardeer, the company which will benefit directly from the turbines. The benefits to that company are noted. 2. The turbines will contribute to national targets to decarbonise energy production. They will benefit the wider environment. Response: It is noted that the turbines will produce renewable energy. The environmental impacts are considered further below. 3. There are many other turbines in the local area and are now a feature of the landscape. Ardeer is well placed to benefit from renewable energy. The turbines would not be an eyesore. Response: The visual impact of the proposal is assessed below. 4. The landscape between the turbines and the houses will help dampen any sound. Response: Details of the potential noise impacts have been provided by the applicant and NAC Environmental Health has given consideration to the details. 5. The turbines will provide community benefit to the local community.
Page 8
Response: Community benefit arising from the operation of the turbines are not material considerations in relation to this planning application. The neutral representations can be summarised as follows: 1. Will Ardeer community benefit financially from these turbines? Other areas receive money based on the mega wattage of the development. If Ardeer is to benefit in such a way, then they would support it. Response: Community benefits are not material considerations in relation to this planning application. The Supreme Court confirmed 20th November 2019 (Wright v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Forest of Dean District Council) that, in relation to a wind turbine application, the promise of community funding was an immaterial consideration as it was unconnected to the use of the land in question. The Supreme Court held that it was in effect an attempt to buy planning permission. The promise of a financial contribution which does not relate to the character of the use of the land would never be material in planning terms. Consultations NAC Environmental Health (EH) - Environmental Health note that the site is within the larger Ardeer peninsula which is designated as suitable for industrial development. It is recommended that if planning permission be granted it be subject to conditions including: prior to commencement the carrying out of a background noise survey in line with ETSU- R-97, the turbines should not operate at more than 5dB above background at any noise sensitive premises, and the turbines to be subject to compliance monitoring in the event of a complaint being received in respect of noise disturbance from the occupiers of a noise sensitive premises. Response: Noted. Such conditions could be imposed if permission were granted. NAC Active Travel and Transportation (Roads) - Construction traffic route should be as per transport statement i.e. no construction traffic to pass through Stevenston town centre. Response: Noted. The construction route could be governed by condition if permission were granted. RSPB - Concerned by the potential loss of habitats. If permission is granted would ask for conditions requiring the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to be implemented. Would also look for a Habitat and Biodiversity Management Plan and further compensatory woodland planting to be agreed, implemented and monitored. Scottish Wildlife Trust - Initially objected as the Ardeer peninsula is currently being considered for designation as a SSSI. The site for an industrial development on land which they consider having biodiversity interest. They did not consider that the initially proposed HMP addressed the likely impact. Response: Noted. An updated HMP which includes proposals for biodiversity enhancement has been submitted by the applicant in consultation with NatureScot, who has confirmed that this meets their requirements. The implementation of that HMP could be governed by condition.
Page 9
It is also noted that NatureScot are considering the whole of Ardeer as a potential site for a SSSI. The last update on this was that NatureScot would be carrying out their own surveys of the parts of Ardeer which may be of interest. However, to date no decision has been made. NatureScot's comments on this specific application are set out below. NatureScot - Note that there is the Bogside Flats SSSI close to the site but advise this will not be affected but the proposal. Welcome the proposal for a Species Protection and Bat Monitoring Plan. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) should be developed to encapsulate the proposed construction mitigation measures. No landscape advise was provided as it does not raise issues of national interest. Further information was originally sought on biodiversity enhancement. Following the submission of the updated September 2024 Habitat Management Plan, NatureScot confirmed that this meets their requirements. Response: Noted. The Species Protection and Bat Monitoring Plan and the CEMP could be required and governed by condition should permission be granted. The updated HMP from September 2024 could also be required to be carried out by condition. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) - Consider the proposal will likely impact on the Preswick radar and object on that basis. Note that the proposal will likely have an acceptable impact on military radar. Prestwick Airport - Consider that the proposal raises aviation concerns which have the potential to impact on the operation of the airport. Consider that the turbines will be in line of site of their radar and it may impact on their VHF communications. The airport is in discussions with the developer regarding these issues but issues a holding objection until these matters are resolved to their satisfaction Glasgow Airport - No objection Response: The various comments of the airports and NATS are noted. The applicant has provided a response to the aviation comments. They claim to have been trying to discuss these matters with Prestwick Airport since May 2022 but have not received any meaningful response. The applicant has provided a legal opinion that the aviation matters could be governed by condition. They point to planning appeal decisions by the Scottish Government that set out the circumstances in which aviation conditions could be imposed, including stating that ongoing contributions to radar do not meet the tests for planning conditions. The applicant's response to the aviation comments is noted. It is agreed that a condition relating to radar modelling could be attached to any permission. Given the aviation objection, the Council would be required to refer the application to the Scottish Ministers if it is minded to approve the application. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) - No objections. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) - No objections.
Page 10
Scottish Water - No objections. South Ayrshire Council - No objections Response: Noted. Stevenston Community Council (SCC) - Object on grounds of impact on visual amenity, loss of woodland, impact on biodiversity, impact on recreational amenity and impact on the economy. SCC consider that erection of such structures next to a populated area is inappropriate. They consider the proposal to be contrary to the Council's Landscape Wind Capacity Study. They do not agree with the applicant's assertion that visual impacts would be 'localised.' The applicant's arguments are considered to be contradictory. They state that in their own survey or residents 82% of respondents were against the development. SCC consider the development would only benefit one company. There is no guarantee that the energy development would bring job security to the workers of that company. They note that another local company considers it would negatively impact on their business. The marketability of the rest of the industrial estate would be undermined by the presence of the turbines. The SCC objects to the loss of several hectares of woodland and consider that 5.54ha of native woodland would be removed with no significant additional benefits and that biodiversity would be compromised. The proposal does not protect or enhance the nationally important natural features and habitat at the site. Consider that the information in the EIA is out of date and that the applicant has been disingenuous with how they have described the proposal. The site is a popular recreational asset for both local and visitors. They consider that this will be lost. The landowner claims the site has no recreational value as a means to being able to develop the site. The visual impact will also be felt on other recreational spaces in the town and on routes to and from it. The application is considered to be contrary to both NPF4 and LDP2. Response: The turbines would be some 760m from the nearest houses and within an area identified as suitable for industry, within industrial buildings adjacent. The visual impact of the proposal is considered further below. The SCC's comments about their own findings of public objection are noted. It is also noted the Council has received 7 objections and 62 representations of support to this application. The economic impact of the proposal is considered further below. The applicant has provided clarification of onsite clearance - they state that the circles shown for clearance are based on a specific diameter and equate to 5.5ha. However, these circles include existing clearings, tracks and other hardstandings. Within the circles are 2.6ha of mature mixed plantation woodland and 1.4ha of young broad-leaved plantation which equates to 4ha of woodland. There would be replanting at a ration of 2:1 and as such 8ha of native woodland is proposed to be replanted. The application site is not a SSSI nor does it have any statutory designation. Whilst NatureScot are considering the area, no designation has been made and NatureScot do not object to this proposal as set out above. It is considered the information submitted is sufficient to determine the application.
Page 11
The use of the area for recreation is noted. The application site, including access, is some 7ha in area. The entire Ardeer peninsula (the industrial area and open space to its south, as identified in the LDP) is some 530ha in area. Any developer would have to provide appropriate access as required by the Land Reform Act. Whilst access to the immediate area of the development would likely be restricted during construction it is not considered that the development would have an adverse impact on recreational access. Much of the area benefits from the SDO and works can be carried out under the SDO without planning permission. This application is considered against NPF4 and the LDP below. Coal Authority - The site is within an area they classify as low risk. Response: Noted Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - HSE were consulted but have not responded. HSE did respond to the previous application for 3 turbines. They did respond to the previous application for 3 turbines stating that, given the proximity of the proposed turbines to the energetics site, they would need to determine whether any foreseeable failure of a turbine could result in the initiation of those explosives. HSE would have to consider if the turbines do present a serious threat by way of issues including, but not limited to, failure of the mast; blade throw; blade fragmentation; fire and ice throw. Response: HSE's previous comments are noted. The applicant has submitted an assessment of those potential safety impacts with this application and has responded to comments made in respect of the potential impact on the adjacent site. It is also noted that the previous application had proposed a turbine to be approx. 120m from the energetics site, as opposed to the currently proposed approx. 275m. 3. Analysis All planning applications are required by the Planning Acts to be determined with regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. It is considered that the main considerations for this application are therefore the North Ayrshire Council Local Development Plan (LDP) adopted November 2019 and the Scottish Government's National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) adopted February 2023. It is considered that the LDP and NPF4 are broadly similar. NPF4 has 33 policies on a wide range of considerations. In respect of this application, it is considered that the relevant polices of NPF4 are Policy 1 which requires significant weight to be given to the global climate and nature crises; Policy 3, which relates to biodiversity conservation and enhancement; Policy 4 which relates to impact on the natural environment including SSSIs; Policy 6, which relates to trees; Policy 9 which relates to the sustainable re-use of vacant brownfield land; Policy 11, which relates to renewable energy; Policy 14, which sets out the six qualities of a successful place and Policy 26 which relates to industry. Strategic Policy 1: Towns and Villages Objective states that in principle support will be given to proposals within towns which generate new employment opportunities, recognise the value of the built and natural environment and prioritise the re-use of brownfield land over greenfield that will deliver sustainable and productive re-use.
Page 12
The site is within the town of Stevenston, as identified in the LDP. The application provides a consideration of alternative sites. The site has been chosen primarily due to the proximity of an existing business. It is noted that the proposal would not necessarily provide employment opportunities beyond the construction phase, although it is also noted that the energy produced would support an existing business. The concerns about the impact on another existing business are noted and this balance is considered further below. The proposal would use a brownfield site. The sustainability of this use, both in the context of the wider industrial land and the natural environment is considered further below. Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP sets out the six qualities of a successful place: distinctive, safe and pleasant, resource efficient, welcoming, adaptable, easy to move around and beyond. Policy 14 of NPF4 also embodies the six qualities of a successful place in planning policies and is considered similar to Strategic Policy 2. Policy 29: Energy Infrastructure Development states that support will be given to energy infrastructure developments where they contribute positively to North Ayrshire's transition to a low carbon economy and have no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. The relevant factors to be considered, including cumulatively, are as follows: visual impact, amenity, noise and shadow flicker impacts on communities and individual dwellings; water quality; landscape; natural heritage; carbon rich soils including peat; impact on the historic environment; establishing the use of the site for energy infrastructure; providing a net economic impact; scale of contribution to renewable energy targets; public access; impact on tourism and recreation; aviation and defence interests; telecommunications and broadcasting; road traffic and trunk roads; effects on the water environment; and decommissioning. Proposals should include redundancy plans which will demonstrate how apparatus will be removed as reasonably soon as the scheme cease operation. Proposals for wind turbine development should accord with the Spatial Framework and consider the current Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Farm Development in North Ayrshire. The Landscape Capacity Study will be used as a point of reference. Policy 11 of NPF4 states that development for all forms of renewable, low carbon and zero carbon emissions including wind farms will be supported. This is only where they maximise net economic impact. Where they impact on international or national designations, they will be assessed against Policy 4 of NPF4. In addition, the following must be addressed; amenity, including visual, impacts on communities and residences; significant landscape and visual impacts, recognising that such impacts are to be expected from some forms of renewable energy and localised impacts will generally be considered acceptable; public access; impact on aviation interests; impact on telecommunications; road traffic; the historic environment; water environment; biodiversity including impact on birds; impacts on trees; decommissioning although areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity; and cumulative impacts. Given the comments of Scottish Water, HES and WoSAS it is not considered that there are any impacts on the water or historic environment. Given the former use and landform of the area it is also not considered there would be any impact on carbon rich soils. If permission was granted a condition requiring further details of surface water drainage could be imposed. The considerations for the application are as follows: Visual/Siting/Landscape
Page 13
Policy 15: Landscape and Seascape of the LDP states that support will be given to development that protects and/or enhances the landscape/seascape character of the area. Where appropriate, development should take into consideration its individual and cumulative impacts on landscape features including woodlands, the coast and wider seascape, settlements, and natural features of interest. With regards the Spatial Framework, this gives significant protection from wind farm development to specific areas within North Ayrshire. This includes areas within 2km of settlements. The entire application site is within approx. 1km of the settlement of Stevenston with the nearest part approx. 575m distant. The turbine nearest to the closest houses is approx. 750m distant from those houses. There is therefore a presumption of significant protection from wind farm development in the application location. The current Landscape Capacity Study (LCS) for Wind Farm Development for North Ayrshire is dated October 2018. This Study revised and updated 2009 and 2013 studies. The application site is identified in the LCS as part of the Type 2a Coastal Lowlands with Industry landscape character. The Ardeer Peninsula has been used as an industrial site since the 19th century and the landform has been substantially modified. There are a number of derelict structures but also operational buildings and an industrial estate on the fringes. Scrub has been an extensive coloniser of the former industrial area and woodland is also a feature. The site is in close proximity to the Type 2b Coastal Edge landscape character, approx. 800m to the south-west, and the River Garnock estuary. This increases sensitivity to large turbines. The LCS sets out the typologies of wind development which have been assessed. These are: Very Large (over 130m high); Large (70-130m high); Medium (50-70m high) and Small- medium (30-50m high). The LCS finds that there is very limited scope for Very Large turbines. The area is considered to have a high sensitivity to such turbines. Turbines over 130m high would have significant effects on the sense of naturalness experienced from the Type 2b Coastal Edge landscape character area to the south-west. Such turbines close to the Garnock estuary would also impact on the naturalistic waterfront setting. Such turbines would appear very large in relation to the scale of existing industrial buildings and the smaller landforms, including woodland, which are characteristic of Ardeer. The complex, small-scale hummocky landform would inhibit an integrated wind farm layout. Such turbines would detract from the diverse wetland/dunes/woodland landscape pattern of the area. Poorly sited turbines would accentuate the fragmented nature of industrial development. Turbines of this size would be highly visible from settlements and recreational areas, including well- used beaches, impacting on the visual amenity of the area. Cumulative impacts could occur given the 110m high turbines are the Glaxo Smith-Kline site to the west of Drybridge. It is noted the LCS considers the area highly sensitive to development of this scale. The findings of the LCS are generally confirmed in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted by the applicants. This states there would be significant effects within 2-3km. The whole of Stevenston is within 3km of the site. Indeed, the nearest part of the settlement is some 575m from the nearest turbine. The applicant has produced an LVIA with viewpoints from within Stevenston, namely the eastern end of Stevenston Beach Park at Trelawney Terrace; Dubbs Road at the junction with the B752; the A738 (Kilwinning Road) opposite Hawkhill Retail Park; Shore Road Play
Page 14
Park; and the A738 (Glencairn Street) at the junctions with Graham Avenue and High Road. The closest viewpoints would be mitigated by proximity and landscape features, although the turbines would remain visible. The significant impact on all these locations can be seen. Given the topography of the settlement the development will likely be highly prominent throughout Stevenston with the greatest prominence being in views from the north. Such views are likely to extend into adjacent settlements, although it is accepted, they would be less prominent the further away. Despite the concerns of the LCS, it is not considered that these turbines would lead to any cumulative impact with existing or consented turbines. It is noted that turbines are a feature of the wider landscape, particularly to the north-west of Stevenston and turbines are also visible to the south-east around the industry in the Irvine valley. It is noted that both turbines would be visible from the Ardrossan to Brodick Ferry. This would be from a distance of at least 7km and would be viewed in the context of the urban development and raised landform to the east. The turbines would also be prominent from moving viewpoints along transport routes including the A78 Trunk Road and the Ayr/Glasgow railway line. Such views would be transient although it is noted that the turbines would also be visible from parts of the north bound Irvine railway station platform. Given all the above, it is not considered the visual impact on transport routes would be significant. The LVIA also considers the impact on historic assets including Irvine Town Centre Conservation Area, at Low Green and Eglinton Castle, which is a designed landscape. It is noted that views in such locations will be limited. The turbines are more likely to be prominent looking north from Irvine Harbour Conservation Area. However, this would again be in the context of the industrial character of the Ardeer peninsula with the development, including other turbines beyond. South Ayrshire Council considers the visual impact on their area would not be significant. Given the distance to South Ayrshire, some 7.5km, and that any views would be with the background of the urban area and hills to the north. It is agreed the visual impacts from that area would not be significant. It is considered that the proposal would have an adverse visual impact on most of the area within 3km of the application site, particularly to the north and north-west. The visual impact would adversely affect the settlement of Stevenston by introducing very large turbines which would be highly prominent in many public and private locations. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms visual and landscape impact. The proposal would not protect or enhance the local landscape, and it is therefore contrary to Policy 15 of the LDP. The proposal would be contrary to Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF in terms of adverse visual impact. Shadow Flicker Impacts on Communities and Individual Dwellings Shadow flicker is the effect of moving parts passing in front of the sun and casting a flickering shadow through the openings of properties. Shadow flicker can be significant at a distance of around 10 rotor diameters from a turbine. The applicant has provided an indicative turbine elevation which suggests that the rotor diameter would be approx. 136m. This means that
Page 15
shadow flicker could occur up to approx. 1.36km distant. Both turbines would be within approx. 1km of the settlement of Stevenston and office and industrial buildings on First Avenue. Given that a shadow position is determined by the position of the sun, shadow flicker can occur in an area approx. 130 degrees either side of north from a turbine. The proposed turbines would sit to the east and slightly south of the settlement of Stevenston and approx. south-east of the office and industrial buildings on First Avenue. It is clear therefore that the turbines could potentially produce shadow flicker which might impact on properties in the settlement of Stevenston and on First Avenue. If permission were granted a condition of any permission could require a protocol to require selective shut down at appropriate times. Subject to a condition, the development could accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of shadow flicker. Noise Impacts on Communities Policy 23 of NPF4 states that proposals which are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. The applicant has submitted a noise assessment. The assessment concludes that the predicted noise of the operational turbines would meet the ETSU-R-97 (Government guidance on wind turbine noise) noise limits. NAC Environmental Health states that if permission is granted that conditions should be imposed. The conditions should require, prior to commencement the carrying out of a background noise survey in line with ETSU-R-97, the turbines should not operate at more than 5dB above background at any noise sensitive premises, and the turbines to be subject to compliance monitoring in the event of a complaint being received in respect of noise disturbance from the occupiers of a noise sensitive premises. Environmental Health comments are noted. It is considered from the information submitted that the proposal could operate without disturbing the nearby community, subject to such appropriate conditions as requested. The turbines are to be sited in an area where industrial development is considered acceptable and the impact on this area in terms of future development is considered further below. On balance, it is considered that, subject to a suitable condition, the development would accord with Policy 29 and Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 23 and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of noise. Providing a Net Economic Impact Policy 7 of the LDP states that in principle the development of areas identified as suitable for business and industry will be supported. Other employment generating uses may be supported, including power generation, so long as they do not undermine the marketability of the area for business and industry uses. Policy 9 of NPF4 states that developments which result in a sustainable reuse of brownfield land will be supported. Policy 26 of NPF4 states that development proposals for business and industry uses on sites allocated for such uses will be supported.
Page 16
Ardeer peninsula is an area of some 530ha including existing businesses to all sides of the application site. It has the potential for new business and industry as well as the expansion of those existing. The applicant has stated that the turbines would provide energy to the Berry bpi Ardeer factory which is to the western side of the site and peninsula. Berry bpi Ardeer has provided comments in support of the application. The proposal would therefore assist the ongoing operation of an existing business. The construction of the turbines would provide jobs although the turbines are unlikely to provide significant local jobs during the operational phase. Another existing business, Chemring, whose site bounds the application site has objected to the proposal. Chemring considers that the turbines will create risks to the operation of the site in numerous ways including potential failure, ice and fire throw, electrical interference of communication and noise impacting on emergency procedures. Such risks to the site could impact on its explosive license. Loss or amendment to that license could jeopardize the operation of the site and/or its expansion. Chemring's comments are noted. The HSE did not respond to consultation requests in respect of the proposal. However, HSE has previously confirmed that they would need to review the license if the development went ahead. The applicant has responded to the points raised by Chemring and suggests that the proposed separation distance along with appropriate material, mitigation and maintenance practices would mean the chances of impact are not significant. Details of the blade construction material, fire mitigation measures, including confirmation of drive mechanism and a safety plan could be attached by condition to any permission. An unexploded ordnance survey has been carried out and it is also noted The Coal Authority considers the area to be at low risk to former coal workings. The SCC's objection on the grounds of the marketability of the wider industrial site is also noted. It is clear that the noise from the turbines would likely add to the background noise level which may make other noisy industry unsuitable for the area. However, it is not clear if energy development would deter industries from locating in the area. It could be argued that the possibility for renewable sources of energy may make an industrial area more appealing. The presence of the turbines may restrict new industry in the immediate vicinity. However, given the scale of the industrial area, it is not considered that this would be a significant detrimental impact. On balance, it is considered that the proposal would have a net economic benefit in that it would provide a renewable energy source to an existing major employer. The impact on another existing employer can be mitigated through appropriate conditions and the possibility of HSE or another regulator changing their requirements at a future date is not considered to be a material planning consideration. Whilst the immediate area around the turbines may no longer be suitable for other development, such development has not been proposed and there is no indication of any such development. The wider industrial area of Ardeer would remain suitable for appropriate development. Given this and that the proposal would be a sustainable reuse of brownfield land it is considered to accord with Strategic Policy 1, Policy 7, Policy 29, in terms of economic benefit, of the LDP and Policy 9 and Policy 26 of NPF4.
Page 17
Natural Heritage Policy 16: Protection of our Designated Sites of the LDP states that support will be given to development which would not have an unacceptable adverse effect on our valuable natural environment. Development affecting SSSIs will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the overall objectives and integrity of the designation would not be compromised, or any adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental, or economic benefits. Development likely to have an unacceptable adverse effect on protected species will only be permitted where the applicant can demonstrate that a species license is likely to be granted. Policy 18: Forestry, Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows of the LDP states that development will only be supported when it would not result in the loss or deterioration of an ancient or long-established woodland unless there are overriding public benefits from the development that outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat. Where the loss of trees, hedgerows or woodlands of merit is unavoidable and compensatory planting is required, replacement trees should be of a similar scale and massing to the loss. Policy 3 of NPF4 states that proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Proposals should also integrate nature-based solutions, where possible. Policy 4 of NPF4 states that development proposals that will affect a National Park, National Scenic Area, Site of Special Scientific Interest or a National Nature Reserve will only be supported where the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the areas will not be compromised; or any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. Policy 6 of NPF4 states that proposals will not be supported where they will result in fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, unless appropriate mitigation measures are identified and implemented in line with the mitigation hierarchy. NatureScot has advised the SSSI designation at Bogside Flats will not be affected. NatureScot are considering the significance of the wider area. However, as a matter of fact, the application site does not form part of a SSSI or have any other national designation. The site is approx. 850m from the Bogside Flats SSSI. Given the distance between the sites, it is not considered that the proposal has any impact on the SSSI. As the proposal has no impact on a national designation, Policy 4 of NPF4 does not apply and Policy 11 should be the primary policy of consideration under NPF4. The submitted Habitat Management Plan identifies that any trees within circular areas, a total area of 5.5ha, around the turbines would need to be cleared. This equates to 2.6ha of mixed plantation woodland and 1.4ha of young broad-leaved planation woodland, a total of 4ha of felling. The felled areas are dominated by non-native Corsican pine and silver birch trees. Where felling takes place, open mosaic habitat would be created. Stumps of gorse and brush would be retained. Seeding for grassland mixtures would be sown. The areas would
Page 18
be maintained during the growing season with failed areas to be re-seeded. Perennials such as thistles, nettles and ragworts would be permitted to establish to provide opportunities of invertebrates. Around the woodland edges felled tree stumps would be retained and scalloped edges created to produce a transition from woodland to open mosaic habitat. Bird boxes would be installed on the woodland edge to increase suitability for nesting birds. The dead wood from felled trees would be retained within the woodland to create habitat for reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. It is also proposed to replant trees off site at a ratio of 2:1 i.e. replanting 8ha of woodland. The replanting would be of native species and is intended to be carried out in conjunction with the Ayrshire Rivers Trust. This would provide biodiversity enhancement along Ayrshire's watercourses. This would be done to extend local nature networks and provide shading for riparian zones. It is noted that woodland plantation would be felled in order to facilitate the turbines. This would be required to facilitate the operation and also lessen the chance of bird or bat strike. It is also noted that whilst woodland would be lost, there is scope within the application site to create an open mosaic habitat that would be compatible with the operation of the turbines. The content of the Habitat Management Plan is noted as is NatureScot's confirmation that it meets their requirements for providing a comprehensive and transparent framework for compensation. SSC's objections on the grounds of impact on habitats is noted, as are NatureScot's comments and lack of objection. The HMP, in so far as it relates to works inside the application site, could be required by condition to be carried out. In terms of the off-site planting, a condition could also be imposed to provide the details of those measures. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) could also be required by condition which would include details of tree protection measures for the existing woodland which would not be felled. Subject to such conditions it is considered the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on protected species or habitats, compensatory planting, biodiversity enhancement and mitigation measure are proposed. There would be no adverse impact on the nearby SSSI or any other national designation. As such the proposal accords with Policy 16, Policy 18 and Strategic Policy 29 and Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 3, Policy 4, Policy 6, Policy 11, in terms of natural heritage, and Policy 14 of NPF4. The Stevenston Local Place Plan wishes to see the Ardeer Peninsula allocated as a National Nature Reserve or similar. This aspiration of the LPP is noted. However, as outlined above this specific site has no statutory designation and is identified in the development plan as suitable for development. Given this and the small site area, in comparison to the wider peninsula, it is not considered that the aspiration of the LPP outweighs the compliance with the development plan. Roads In the information submitted by the applicants, it is intended to route abnormal loads from Ayr to the site via the A78, A738 and Dubbs Road. This could be controlled through a condition on any permission as part of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). This could also control the route of construction traffic. NAC Active Travel and
Page 19
Transportation has no objection subject to an avoidance of Stevenston town centre which could be controlled through a CTMP. Subject to an appropriate condition, it is considered the proposal accords with Policy 29 and Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 11, in terms of road traffic, and Policy 14 of NPF4. Impact on Tourism, Recreation and Public Access As set out in the visual impact section of this report, the turbines would be visible from Greenacres Caravan Park and Sandylands Holiday Park as well as recreation areas particularly, Stevenston Beach Park, Irvine Beach Park, Irvine harbourside and Irvine moor. It is noted that views towards the Ardeer peninsula from those locations is already in the context of industrial development and wide developed area of Irvine Bay. Turbines are a feature of the area in longer views. As such it is not considered the proposal would have a significant impact on tourism or recreation in the wider area. Stevenston Community Council's concerns over the recreational value of the site itself are noted, as are the comments in the Local Place Plan that access to the wider peninsula has been reduced. However, it is not considered that this specific application site in itself has a high recreational value, nor would the development of the turbines restrict access to the wider peninsula. It is not considered there would be any significant effect on transport routes. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4, in terms of impact on tourism. Aviation and Defence Interests and Telecommunications and Broadcasting NATS and Prestwick Airport both object to the proposal. They consider the proposal could have an unacceptable impact on Prestwick Air Traffic Control. Those bodies consider further assessments in respect of radar modelling are required. The objections are noted. The applicant's response to the objections is also noted as are the other planning decisions where such matters have acceptably been addressed by planning condition. It is agreed that a condition relating to radar modelling could be attached to any permission. As previously advised, given the aviation objection, the Council would be required to report the application to the Scottish Ministers if it is minded to approve the application. The applicant's assessment identifies that mobile phone communications in the area should not be affected. The Joint Radio Company (JRC) has objected to their assessment in terms of Ultra High Frequency (UHF) links. The JRC consider that UHF links could be impacted, and mitigation is required. If permission were granted confirmation of mitigation could be governed by condition. Subject to suitable conditions, any potential impact on air traffic control and telecommunications could be mitigated. The proposal accords with Policy 29 of the LDP or Policy 11 of the NPF4 in terms of aviation interests and telecommunications and broadcasting Scale of Contribution to Renewable Energy Targets
Page 20
The exact type of turbine has not been specified. However, indicative examples have been provided and from the information submitted it is considered that turbines of the permitted height could generate up to 12.6MW. A condition could be added to any permission for the turbine type to be confirmed. However, there appears potential for generation of up to that megawattage, although the intermittent nature of any generation is noted given the requirements of wind and the likely need to turn turbines off when certain circumstances are met. Notwithstanding, the potential energy generation is noted, and the proposal is considered to accord with Policy 29 in terms of contribution to renewable energy. The contribution to renewable energy production in respect of the global climate and nature crisis is noted. Significant weight is given to the contribution to tackling climate change that the proposal can make. Significant weight is also given to the potential impact on nature which the proposal could have. That potential impact could be mitigated through the implementation of the Habitat Management Plan, as set out above. Subject to conditions requiring the HMP to be implemented it is considered that contribution to tackling climate change has more weight and as such the proposal is considered to accord with Policy 1 of NPF4. Establishing the Use of the Site for Energy Infrastructure/Decommissioning. NPF4 makes clear that areas identified for wind farms should be suitable for use in perpetuity. Therefore, if permission is granted it should be expected that turbines could be located on site longer than any specific lifetime of this proposal. The information submitted with the application envisions an operational lifespan of 25 years. It is considered that removal of any turbine if it becomes redundant could be governed by condition, including a decommissioning plan and financial securities if required, if permission is granted. Such conditions would also help mitigate any long-term impact on the viability of the wider area for industrial uses by ensuring the removal of the turbines in the event of redundancy. The proposal, subject to conditions, accords with Policy 29, in terms of decommissioning. Establishing the site for energy infrastructure would follow from any permission and the balance of issues is considered further below. Conclusion Subject to suitable conditions, the proposal accords with the following factors of Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4: shadow flicker; noise; telecommunications; aviation interests; natural heritage; water environment; historic environment; carbon rich soils; decommissioning; access; recreation; net economic impact; contribution to renewable energy and cumulative impact. It also accords with Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF4 in terms of the qualities or 'safe and pleasant,' 'sustainable,' and 'adaptable' It also accords with Strategic Policy 1, Policy 7 of the LDP and Policy 9 and Policy 26 of NPF4 as a sustainable reuse of brownfield land allocated for business and industry. It also accords with Policy 16 and Policy 18 of the LDP and Policy 3, Policy 4 and Policy 6 of NPF4 in terms of biodiversity enhancement and compensatory planting of woodland.
Page 21
Notwithstanding the above conclusion, in consideration of the various relevant factors of Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4, the proposal is considered to be contrary in terms of: visual and landscape impact. The proposal is also contrary to the Spatial Framework and, given the size of the turbines, the requirement to have consideration of the Landscape Capacity Study. The proposal is also contrary to Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NP4, in terms of the quality of 'distinctive,' and Policy 15 of the LDP in terms of visual impact. Given all the above, on balance the proposal is considered to accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4, including establishing the site for energy generation, and Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP. The proposal is also considered to accord with Policy 1 of NPF4 which require all applications to be considered with significant weight given to the global climate and nature crises. The proposal accords with the relevant nature related polices and the renewable energy generated by the turbines will contribute to addressing the climate emergency. With the weight given to Policy 1 of NPF4 and the above noted policies which the proposal accords with, it is considered the adverse visual impact is outweighed and that, in overall terms, the proposal accords with the development plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out and the decision referred to the Scottish Ministers in light of the objection from the aviation consultees. 4. Full Recommendation Approved subject to Conditions Reasons for Decision Condition 1. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the turbine types, including blade type, material and turbine drive, maintenance schedules, and the micro- siting within the approved locations shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority for written approval. Thereafter the development will be completed in accordance with such details as may be approved. For the avoidance of doubt the turbines will have direct drives. Reason To ensure appropriate specifications and in the interests of safety. Condition 2. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of fire mitigation measures and a safety plan, including details of how the turbines will be incorporated into neighbouring businesses safety plans, shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority. The development will thereafter only be operated in accordance with any mitigation measures and safety plan as maybe approved.
Page 22
Reason To ensure appropriate mitigation in the event of accident. Condition 3. Prior to the commencement of the development, a background noise survey in line with ETSU-R-97 and associated good practice, shall be carried out. The survey shall be carried out in accordance with a methodology to be agreed with the Council, as Planning Authority, in consultation with NAC Environmental Health. The results of the background noise survey shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the development. Reason To ensure the development operates at appropriate noise levels in the interests of amenity. Condition 4. That the turbines shall be operated to ensure that, when assessed at nearby noise sensitive premises between the hours of 7am and 11pm, the noise from the turbines shall not exceed 35dB LA90, 10min or no more than 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background LA90, 10min, as set out in the survey conducted under Condition 3, whichever is greater. The turbine noise emission levels will be correlated to standardised wind speed at 10 metre height and will be assessed from turbine cut-in up to and including 10m/s. If the operation of the wind turbine when assessed at any noise sensitive premises results in an audible tone, the appropriate penalty in accordance with ETSU-R-97 shall be added to the measured level when determining compliance with this condition. Reason To ensure the development operates at appropriate noise levels in the interests of amenity. Condition 5. That the turbines shall be operated to ensure that, when assessed at nearby noise sensitive premises between the hours of 11pm and 7am, the noise from the turbines shall not exceed 43dB LA90, 10min or no more than 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background LA90, 10min, as set out in the survey conducted under Condition 3, whichever is greater. The turbine noise emission levels will be correlated to standardised wind speed at 10 metre height and will be assessed from turbine cut-in up to and including 10m/s. If the operation of the wind turbine when assessed at any noise sensitive premises results in an audible tone, the appropriate penalty in accordance with ETSU-R-97 shall be added to the measured level when determining compliance with this condition. Reason To ensure the development operates at appropriate noise levels in the interests of amenity. Condition 6. In the event of a valid complaint being received by the Council, as Planning Authority, in conjunction with NAC Environmental Health, the operator of the turbines shall, on notification by the Council, arrange for compliance monitoring to be undertaken by a competent person to demonstrate compliance with Conditions 4 and 5, to the satisfaction of the Council, as Planning Authority. The programme of monitoring muse be
Page 23
carried out in accordance with a methodology to be agreed with NAC Environmental Health and commence within 28 days of notification of a complaint. The results shall be presented to the Council, as Planning Authority, within 28 days of the cessation of monitoring. Reason To ensure the development operates at appropriate noise levels in the interests of amenity. Condition 7. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), including details of species protection and bat monitoring and tree protection measures for trees to be retained, shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for approval. Such a plan should include measures to mitigate the impact on the environment during construction. Thereafter all works are to be carried out in accordance with any CEMP as may be approved, to the satisfaction of the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To provide an appropriate construction management plan and to meet the requirements NatureScot. Condition 8. Prior to the commencement of the development an independent ecological clerk of works (ECoW) shall be appointed. The contact details, credentials and terms of reference shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for approval. For the avoidance of doubt, the ECoW will audit the CEMP, and the construction practices contained therein. The ECoW will have the authority to halt any works not in accordance with the CEMP and report such incidences to the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure proper oversight during the construction process in the interests of local habitats and protected species. Condition 9. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for approval in consultation with Transport Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt all delivery and construction traffic shall approach the site via Dubbs Road. Thereafter all works are to be carried out in accordance with any CTMP as may be approved, to the satisfaction of the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure construction traffic is suitably managed in the interests of road safety. Condition 10. That the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), produced by Echoes Ecology Ltd and dated 26th September 2024, submitted with this application shall be carried out in accordance with the details set out in HMP, including the post development monitoring and reporting. Such Habitat Monitoring Reports prepared under the HMP shall be
Page 24
submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, annually following one year from the completion of the development. Reason To ensure that the proposed biodiversity enhancement measures are undertaken. Condition 11. That prior to the first operation of the turbines, details of the off-site compensatory planting, proposed within the HMP, including locations, tree-species, timescale and after care shall be provided, to the Council, as Planning Authority, for approval. Any planting as may be approved will thereafter be carried out in accordance with any details as may be approved. Reason To ensure that the proposed biodiversity enhancement measures are undertaken. Condition 12. That prior to the commencement of the development details of a mitigation assessment undertaken by a Joint Radio Company (JRC) engineer, including details of any proposed mitigation shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. The development will thereafter be carried out in accordance with any details as may be approved. Reason To ensure that potential impacts on radio signals are appropriately considered. Condition 13. The prior to the commencement of the development, details of the following shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority: a binding undertaking from the developer to Glasgow Prestwick Airport, as Airport Operator, to pay such sums demonstrably and reasonably incurred by the Airport Operator in: (i) Procuring Terma A/S (or its duly appointed representative in the UK) to undertake a Terma Radar Modelling Assessment to determine the Terma Probability of Detection Reduction Factor in connection with the Development and providing the results of such modelling to the Airport Operator, the developer and the Council; (ii) Optimising the Airport Operator's operational Terma Scanter 4002 primary surveillance radar to accommodate the Development; (iii) Validating any optimisation of the operational Terma Scanter 4002 primary surveillance radar undertaken in respect of the development by way of flight trial over the development, if such validation is reasonably required; and (iv) In the event of a wind turbine(s) forming part of the development being permanently removed, undertaking any of steps (ii) and/or (iii) above necessitated by the removal of such a turbine.
Page 25
Such details as may be submitted to be agreed in writing with the Council, as Planning Authority, in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority. Reason To ensure the Airport Operator is reimbursed for the actual costs it may incur in optimising its primary surveillance radar as a result of the development. Condition 14. Prior to the commencement of the development details of a scheme of mine gas monitoring including any mitigation measures, if required, shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. The development will thereafter be carried out in accordance with any details as may be approved. Reason To ensure that potential underground gases from historical coal mining are appropriately considered in the interests of ground safety. Condition 15. That prior to the commencement of the development, details of surface water management shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. The development will thereafter be carried out in accordance with any details as may be approved. Reason To ensure surface water is managed appropriately in the interest of the drainage of the area. Condition 16. The prior to the commencement of the development, details of a protocol for the shut down of a turbine(s) in the event of a valid complaint being received by the Council, as Planning Authority, in conjunction with NAC Environmental Health, shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. The protocol shall include details of monitoring of weather conditions to allow an assessment of the circumstances in which shadow flicker might occur and appropriate mitigation measures. The turbines will thereafter only be operated in accordance with any protocol as may be agreed. Reason To ensure an appropriate mechanism to mitigate shadow flicker impacts in the interests of amenity. Condition 17. That prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme of restoration for the specific turbine locations shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for approval. The scheme shall include details of any financial security held by the landowner to ensure removal of the turbines in the event of redundancy. Reason To ensure and appropriate scheme of restoration in the interest of visual amenity. Condition
Page 26
18. That within six months of the cessation of electricity generation by the development, or within six months following cessation of construction works prior to the development becoming operational, the turbines and all associated equipment, structures and hardstanding shall be removed, and the site restored in accordance with any scheme of restoration as may have been approved. Reason To ensure that any redundant equipment is removed in the interests of visual amenity. Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr Iain Davies on 01294 324320.
Page 27
Appendix 1 – Location Plan DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of His Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. North Ayrshire Council Licence Number AC0000825715.