2500042CON - Kaim Hill, Fairlie
North Ayrshire Council · 21 May 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 21 May 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 21st May 2025 Planning Committee Locality Reference 25/00042/CON Application Registered 30th January 2025 Decision Due 28th May 2025 Ward North Coast Recommendation Objection __________________________________________________________________ Location Kaim Hill Fairlie North Ayrshire Energy Consent Unit consultation Proposal Erection of 14 no. wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 200 metres and generation capacity exceeding 80MW and the siting of a battery energy storage system with a capacity exceeding 50MW to include associated infrastructure (a consultation from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit ref. ECU00004981) ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description The Scottish Government's Energy Consent Unit has consulted the Council, as Planning Authority, on an application they have received under S.36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as amended. The application is for the 'Erection of 14 no. wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 200 metres and generation capacity exceeding 80MW and the siting of a battery energy storage system with a capacity exceeding 50MW to include associated infrastructure.' S. 36 of the Electricity Act states that consent is required from the Scottish Ministers for the construction of energy generating developments and storage with a capacity exceeding 50 megawatts. The Energy Consents Units, in accordance with The Electricity (Applications for Consent) Regulations 1990, has sought the views of the Council, as Planning Authority. The Council has until 28th May 2025 to respond.
Page 2
The site is some 1120ha in area. It runs from the southern side of Fairlie Gen to the B781 west of Munnoch, with an access spur crossing the B781 to the B780. The site incorporates Kaim Hill, on the north-side of the Fairlie Moor Road and the Crosbie Hills on the south-side. There would be 7 turbines on the northern side of the Fairlie Moor Road, sited on the southern and western side of Kaim Hill and Green Hill to its south-east. There would be 7 turbines on the southern side of Fairlie Moor Road sited approximately in a line running from north-west to south-east along the Crosbie Hills and either side of the Glenton Hill and Gill Hill. The turbines would be linked by tracks from the access at the B781/B780. The turbines would be sited at a range of approximately at the following heights above sea level: No. 1 - 290mAOD No. 2 - 280mAOD No. 3 - 265mAOD No. 4 - 270mAOD No. 5 - 275mAOD No. 6 - 270mAOD No. 7 - 265mAOD No. 8 - 225mAOD No. 9 - 240mAOD No. 10 - 305mAOD No. 11 - 255mAOD No. 12 - 220mAOD No. 13 - 220mAOD No. 14 - 220mAOD The battery energy storage system (BESS) would be sited at the south-eastern end of the site approx. 650m north of the B781. The BESS would be some 1ha in area and comprise the sub-station and transformers associated with the wind turbines as well as batteries for storage of energy generated. The site is largely to the east and south-east of Fairlie and the north-east of West Kilbride. The closest turbines to Fairlie are proposed turbine Nos. 1 and 4, some 2.1km east and south-east of the settlement respectively. The closest turbine to West Kilbride would be proposed turbine No. 12 some 2.9km north-east of the settlement. The site is some 2.5km west of Dalry with the nearest turbine to that settlement being some 3.55km distant. Fairlie sits at between approx. 0mAOD and 50mAOD, West Kilbride also sits between approx. 0m AOD and 85mAOD and Dalry approx. 25mAOD and 70mAOD. There are no residential properties within the site although there are such properties immediately adjacent at Knockendon Farm and Birkhead Farm on the eastern side and at Munnoch on the south-eastern corner. There are also further residential properties to the east between the site and Dalry, along the B781 towards West Kilbride and on the A78 between that settlement and Fairlie. Within 5km of the site there is the Ardrossan Wind Farm to the south, comprising some 15 turbines, 100m in height to blade tip. The distance between closest turbines would be some 2.35km. Further to the south is the Sorbie Wind Farm comprising 3 turbines some 125m in height to blade tip. The distance between closest turbines would be some 4km.
Page 3
To the north-east is the Kelburn Wind Farm comprising some 14 turbines, 100m in height to blade tip. The distance between closest turbines would be some 1km. Also, to the north-east is the Wardlaw Wood/Dalry Wind Farm and the adjacent Millour Hill Wind Farm comprising a total of 14 turbines some 125m in height to blade tip. The distance between the closest turbines would be some 1.2m. To the east at a distance of approx. 4km is the Swinlees Wind Farm, comprising 6 turbines at a height of 150m to blade tip, which was approved by the Planning Committee and has been notified to the Scottish Government. The site is within the Countryside and the Clyde Muirshiel Country Park and Special Landscape Area as identified in the Local Development Plan (LDP). The western part of the site is part of the Glen Burn (Crosbie to North Southannan) Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS). This LNCS has been reviewed, and it is proposed to split the LNCS into two, with an area similar to most of the application site being the Kaim Hill and Crosbie Hills LNCS. The application site also includes part of the Caaf and Knockendon Reservoirs LNCS, although no development is proposed within that LNCS. The southern access would be adjacent to the Munnoch Reservoir LNCS. Part of the site is identified as being carbon rich soil. There are category B Listed Buildings at Munnoch, Crosbie Towers, some 1km to the south-west, Lawwood Head some 2km to the south-west, and Fairlie Castle, some 780m to the west of the northern part of the site. The Fairlie Moor Road is part of the Core Path network. An application for planning permission for 5 turbines on Kaim Hill (ref: 08/00662/PP) was refused 15th December 2009. That proposal was for turbines with a blade tip height of 125m on the top and northern and western slopes of Kaim Hill. The reasons for refusal included the proposal having a significant adverse landscape and visual impact, including cumulative impact; be detrimental to the interests of tourism and recreation; be within 2km of Fairlie; and have an adverse impact on the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park. The proposal requires to be assessed against Policy 1: Tackling the climate and nature crises; Policy 3: Biodiversity; Policy 4: Natural Places; Policy 5: Soils; Policy 6: Forestry, woodland and trees; Policy 11: Energy; Policy 14: Design, quality and place; and Policy 29: Rural development of NPF4. The proposal requires to be assessed against Strategic Policy 1: The Countryside Objective; Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking; Policy 15: Landscape and Seascape; Policy 16: Protection of our Designated Sites; Policy 17: Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park; Policy 18: Forestry, Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows; Policy 29: Energy Infrastructure Development and Policy 34 Protecting Peatland and Carbon Rich Soil of the LDP. The Council has approved a Landscape Wind Capacity Study October 2018. 2. Consultations and Representations The Council, as Planning Authority, is not required to carry out any consultations or notification. The Energy Consents Unit will carry out such consultations as they consider appropriate.
Page 4
NAC Environmental Health suggests conditions in relation to the operation of any turbines. They state that noise emission should not exceed the levels set out in the EIA submitted to the ECU. The rated noise level from the BESS must not exceed background at the curtilage of any noise sensitive receptor by 5dB or more. In the event of a complaint about noise being received by the Council, the operator should undertake monitoring to the satisfaction of the Council. The development must not result in the obstruction or contamination of any private water supply. Response: Noted. Conditions relating to noise and private water supplies could be recommended in the consultation response. NAC Flooding has no objections. Note that the development is largely outwith flood risk areas except for some parts of the access tracks. Suggest a condition requiring details of drainage should consent be granted. Response: Noted. Conditions related to drainage could be recommended in the consultation response. NAC Active Travel and Transportation (Roads) has no objection. Advice is given on abnormal load routes and the requirements for any temporary road alterations. Response: Noted. It is noted that development is largely contained outwith the road network, but it is proposed to have tracks which would give access onto the B780, B781 and the Fairlie Moor Road. A condition requiring details of the access onto the Fairlie Moor Road to ensure the Core Path is appropriately managed could be recommended in any consultation response. 3. Analysis Policy 1 of NPF4 states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 29 of NPF4 states that support will be given to energy infrastructure development, including wind, where they will contribute positively to our transition to a low carbon economy and have no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. Strategic Policy 1: The Countryside Objective states that in principle support will be given to development in the countryside with a site-specific locational need, including renewable energy. The proposal is for a wind farm comprising 14 turbines, and associated BESS, with a maximum tip height of 200m. The energy generation capacity is stated to exceed 80MW. This equates to at least 5.75MW per turbine. The turbines would generate electricity from a renewable source i.e. the wind. Turbines have a specific locational need to be sited in locations where wind will be sufficient to generate electricity. This is often elevated countryside locations The proposal would contribute to tackling the global climate crisis. It is considered to have a site-specific locational need. The electricity generated would help the transition to a low
Page 5
carbon economy. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy 1 of NPF4 in terms of the climate crisis. It is considered to accord with Strategic Policy 1: The Countryside Objective of the LDP and it is considered to accord with the principle of Policy 29 of the LDP. However, in order to fully accord with Policy 29, the proposal must be considered to have no unacceptable adverse impacts. The relevant factors to be considered under Policy 29, 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 ceases operation. Policy 11 of NPF4 states that development proposal for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emission technologies will be supported including wind farms. Development proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities. In addition, project design and mitigation will demonstrate how the following impacts are addressed: impacts on communities and individual dwellings including visual impact, noise and shadow flicker; significant landscape and visual impacts, recognising that such impacts are to expected and localised impacts likely acceptable; public access; aviation and defence interests; telecommunications and broadcasting; road traffic; historic environment; hydrology and flood risk; biodiversity; trees and woods; provision of decommissioning and restoration although wind farms are expected to be suitable in perpetuity; and cumulative impacts. Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP sets out the qualities of a successful place including the visual, amenity and access considerations for a development. Policy 14 of NPF4 is essentially a reiteration of Strategic Policy 2. Visual impact Policy 15 of the LDP states that support will only be given to development which affects a Special Landscape Area where it would not have an unacceptable impact on their special character, qualities and setting. Policy 4 of NPF4 states that development that affects a local landscape designation will only be supported where it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits. Policy 29 of NPF4 states that development in rural areas should be suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. The Council's Landscape Wind Capacity Study (LWCS) October 2018 finds the site to be part of the Blaeloch and Crosbie Hills landscape, a sub-type of the Rugged Moorland Hills
Page 6
and Valleys landscape. It is a gently undulating plateau edged by more defined hills on the southern fringes of the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park uplands. The Kelburn, Dalry and Milllour Hill wind farms are within this landscape to the east and north-east of the application site. The LWCS states that the western edge of the landscape forms an important part of the setting of the Raised Beach Coast landscape which lies to the west. The Raised Beach Coast is essentially the entire mainland western coast of North Ayrshire, extending from Ardrossan to Skelmorlie. It is considered to be highly sensitive to impacts from all types of turbine development and particularly to potential cumulative impacts from turbine development outwith the area. The LWCS identifies that the site, and the Crosbie Hills in particular, is highly visible from the coast. The LWCS states that the landscape is highly sensitive to very large turbines (more than 130m in height). Turbines on the western edges, including on Kaim Hill and the Crosbie Hills would significantly affect the character of the Raised Beach Coast, including the setting of Fairlie, views from the Firth of Clyde and Cumbrae. Turbines on the Crosbie Hills would diminish the separation and containment those hills provide of the existing wind farms. The proposed turbines would be some 200m to blade tip. This means that the tips would be between approx. 440mAOD and 505mAOD. The turbines would be visible at distances of over 45km. Within North Ayrshire the turbines would be visible from the whole of Cumbrae, particularly from the Glaid Stone viewpoint on the highest point of the island and the town centre of Millport. The turbines would be between approx. 6km and 10km from Cumbrae. The turbines would be visible from West Kilbride, particularly along the northern edge of the village and the routes from the village to the east such as the B781 and the coastal path to the west. The turbines would also be visible from Dalry, particularly to the south of the town Parts of the turbines would be visible from Largs, particularly along the promenade at distances of over 6km. In Fairlie parts of the turbines would be visible from the beach and seafront. The turbines would also be visible from Arran, including Corrie, Brodick and Goat Fell at a distance of approx. 25km. Whilst the turbines would be visible over a very large area, the actual visual impact would vary. In long distances, such as from Arran, the views would be in the context of views towards the developed mainland, and it is not considered any impacts would be significant. In medium views from outwith the site, and in particular from Cumbrae, the Firth of Clyde and in some views from coastal settlements, it is considered that the visual impact would be significant. At present the turbines within the Rugged Moorland Hills and Valleys landscape are largely screened by the Kaim and Crosbie Hills. This proposal would site turbines on those hills. Whilst it is noted that the turbines have been sited away from the top and western slopes of Kaim Hill, they would remain highly visible and the screening that those hills provide to the existing turbines would not have any effect for this development. The turbines on the slopes of Kaim Hill would have a blade tip height of at least 465mAOD. The summit of Kaim Hill is 387mAOD. The turbines on the Crosbie Hills would be between 440mAOD and 505mAOD to blade tip. The summits of those hills are between 266mAOD and 332mAOD.
Page 7
Views to the site from the west are largely in the context of the Hunterston Strategic Development area with the hills beyond. It is acknowledged that Hunterston is an industrial area with existing energy development and planning permission for redevelopment. This includes the permitted but not yet built cable factory with 185m tower (ref: 22/00133/PPPM). Should that tower be built it would have a visual impact. However, that is considered to be in the contained context of the industrial landscape. The tower would be a static structure and sited at a height where it was significantly below the summits of the hills which frame the industry below. Those same hills are the proposed locations of these turbines. Given this, it is not considered the visual impact of the turbines would be any way mitigated by potential development of the Hunterston industrial area. The most direct view of the turbines would be from Cumbrae. They would be highly visible from the Glaid Stone viewpoint and Millport, its town centre and Conservation Area. As set out above the views to the east from those areas is of the Hunterston industrial area framed by the hills. Whilst some parts of existing turbines can be seen in long distances this proposal would introduce turbines onto the framing hills. The prominence and movement of those turbines would add significant visual impact to views from the west. A similar impact would be had in views from the Largs to Cumbrae ferry when looking south. As set out above, these turbines would also be visible from Largs, Fairlie and West Kilbride. Whilst the views would be limited by the alignment of the settlements and proximity, it is considered these visual impacts would be significant. The industrial view of Hunterston experienced from Cumbrae is largely screened from the settlements to the north and south by the landform. Whilst proximity would also screen parts of the settlements from views, where they are visible, they would appear very prominent particularly from Fairlie. The part of any mainland settlement most likely to experience significant impact is the northern edge of West Kilbride. The open countryside between there and the Crosbie Hills means that any turbines would be highly prominent on the skyline. Individual residences outwith the settlements would also experience adverse visual impact. These would include those immediately adjacent such a Knockendon Farm, and within the area between West Kilbride and Fairlie given the landscape type. Given that all these views are from within or across the Raised Beach Coast landscape it is considered that the visual impact can not be considered localised. As well as the wider visual impact, it is considered that the visual impact within the site would also be adverse. Whilst the Rugged Moorland and Valley landscape can potentially accommodate turbine development, and has, it is not considered that turbines of this size are appropriate. The existing turbines within the landscape are at least 75m smaller in height than those proposed. Parts of the southern edges of the Dalry Wind Farm can be seen from parts of the Fairlie Moor Road. However, existing turbines are largely screened from that road and Core Path. The proposed turbines would fundamentally change the character of the area around the Fairlie Moor Road and have an adverse impact on the views for users of the Core Path. The turbines, in terms of design, are as to be expected and it is acknowledged that turbines will have particular design characteristics. It is also noted that the siting is dependent on specific factors including potential wind speed. However, the scale of these turbines is considered to be out of keeping for the rural area. These would be some 75m or approx. 38% larger than the next largest built turbines in the area. There are larger turbines consented at further distances but those are smaller in number and are still 50m smaller
Page 8
than proposed. There is no development of this scale within this rural area. It is acknowledged that these impacts would be localised. However, given the scale of the proposed turbines it is considered they would be significant. The Clyde Muirshiel Special Landscape Area is some 16000ha in area and contains a variety of landscapes. Turbines are present within the Area and a feature of its southern portion, south of the A760. Notwithstanding, the existing turbines are largely contained within the interior of the Area and are not largely visible from the views across the Clyde from the west. This proposal would, as outlined above, introduce highly visible turbines on the western edge. This would impact on the Special Landscape Area. From the east, the turbines would be visible in views from the Garnock Valley, particularly from south of Dalry at a distance of 5-6km. The view of the southern portion of the Special Landscape Area, when viewed from the east is already one where turbines are present. The existing turbines are closer to the eastern edge of the landscape area so that the height difference of those proposed will not be as pronounced. Given the existing turbines, it is not considered that views from the east would be significantly adversely affected. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Policy 15 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11, Policy 14 and Policy 29 of NPF4 in terms of visual impact. The adverse impacts would both be localised, with severe impact on the Fairlie Moor Road and Core Path, and also in the wider area. There would be adverse visual impacts on the settlements to the west, north-west and south-west and in views across the Firth of Clyde and towards the Clyde Muirshiel Special Landscape Area. This is contrary to Policy 4 of NPF4 in terms of the integrity of the Special Landscape Area. Whether any social, environmental or economic benefits clearly outweigh this is considered below. Amenity impacts, noise and shadow flicker Construction impacts such as dust and noise could be controlled through a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). This could be a suggested condition and subject to such a condition it is not considered that the construction phase would have any unacceptable adverse impact on amenity. NAC Environmental Health has reviewed the submitted operational noise information. They state that noise emission from operation should not exceed the levels set out in the EIA. The rated noise level from the BESS must not exceed background at the curtilage of any noise sensitive receptor by 5dB or more. It is considered that subject to suitable conditions restricting the noise levels and requiring noise monitoring in the event of a complaint, the development could accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 and Policy 14 of NPF4 in terms of noise. In terms of shadow flicker, the effect of moving parts passing in front of the sun and casting a flickering shadow through the openings of properties, the applicants have provided an assessment that such an effect would be within 1.62km, or 10 rotor diameters from each turbine. The turbines have been sited at least 2.1km from the closest settlement, Fairlie, and as such there should no such effects on the settlements. In terms of individual dwellings, the applicant's methodology considers 30mins of shadow flicker per day and/or 30hours per year to be a threshold for disturbance.
Page 9
Nine properties have been identified as potentially experiencing the effects of shadow flicker. Five of those properties could experience shadow flicker for a total of 16.2hours or less every year. Another property could experience 28.4hours of flicker. These could be in periods of up to 29mins with a mean incidence per day of approx. 15mins One residential property, Crosbie Dykes on the south-western boundary of the site, could experience 18.8hours of shadow flicker but with potential for this to be in periods up to 31mins. Another property, Knockendon Farm on the eastern boundary, could experience 60.3hours of shadow flicker, lasting up to approx. 40mins with a mean incidence of approx. 24mins. The final property to potentially experience flicker is Wardlaw Farm to the east of Knockendon Farm. This property could experience 128hours a year, in incidences of lasting up to approx. 1hour and 12mins with mean incidence of approx. 36mins. It is noted that weather conditions will likely determine if and to what extent there is shadow flicker impact. However, it is considered that there would be potential for significant impacts on 3 residential properties (Crosbie Dykes, Knockendon Farm and Wardlaw Farm). The applicant suggests that shadow flicker could be overcome by a protocol which could require selective shut down at appropriate times. Such a protocol, required as a condition on any permission could overcome any adverse impact. As such, subject to a condition, the development could accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 and Policy 14 of NPF4 in terms of shadow flicker. Water quality, hydrology and flood risk The proposal does not seek development which would necessarily directly affect any water course. Access tracks may cross some water courses and consent from SEPA would be required. It is understood that the ECU has consulted them directly. NAC Flooding has no objection and suggest a condition be attached to any consent requiring details of drainage. NAC Environmental Health state the development must not result in the obstruction or contamination of any private water supply. Conditions requiring drainage details and an assessment of potential impact on private water supplies, with mitigation, if necessary, could be suggested for any consent. Subject to such conditions, the proposal could accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 and Policy 14 of NPF4 in terms of water quality. Natural heritage, biodiversity, trees and woods Policy 3 of NPF4 states that development that requires an EIA will only be supported where it can be demonstrate that the proposal will conserve or enhance biodiversity. Policy 4 of NPF4 states that development that affects a local nature conservation site will only be supported where it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits. Policy 6 of NPF4 states that proposal will not be supported if they result in adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows or trees. Policy 16 of the LDP states that development adversely affecting a LNCS will generally not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the overall integrity of the designation would not be compromised. Policy 18 of the LDP states that development will only be
Page 10
supported where it would not result in the loss or deterioration of ancient or long-established woodland. The development site is not designated as one of national significance. The ECU has consulted NatureScot who can give their opinion in respect of any impacts on such sites in the wider area. The ECU can also consult such bodies as it considers necessary to gain opinion on specific potential ecological impacts. The development site contains part of the Glen Burn (Crosbie to North Southannan) Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS), and part of the Caaf and Knockendon Reservoirs LNCS. The southern access would be adjacent to the Munnoch Reservoir LNCS. It is not considered that the Caaf and Knockendon Reservoirs or the Munnoch Reservoir LNCSs would be adversely impacted by the proposal. The Glen Burn (Crosbie to Southannan) LNCS was reviewed in 2023, and it is proposed to split it into two LNCSs. The eastern part would be extended to cover Kaim Hill and the Crosbie Hills meaning twelve of the turbines would be within the LNCS. Kaim Hill and Crosbie Hills LNCS is described as a mix of semi-natural woodland and conifer plantations, scrub and bracken/acid and neutral grasslands, wet and dry heaths/blanket bog, mire and marsh. The upland moorland habitat where the turbines would be sited is similar to the existing turbine sites to the north-east. Although the application site is relatively large, the developed areas for the turbines and tracks would comprise a relatively small proportion of the land. The LNCS itself is some 1083ha in area. The BESS and road accesses are outwith the LNCS. Given this it is not considered the proposal would have any significant adverse impact on the LNCS. The proposed development locations would largely be outwith woodland locations. Some tracks may be required through such areas and some hedgerow may be lost in forming road accesses. Details of specific routing with replacement planting as required could be suggested as a condition. The development could also be subject to a condition requiring submission of a Habitat Management Plan and the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works to oversee the construction. Planting to screen the BESS and provide opportunities for biodiversity enhancement could also be a suggested condition. Subject to such conditions it is not considered that trees or woods would be significantly adversely affected. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policies 16 and 18 of LDP and Policies 3, 4 and 6 of NPF4 in terms of natural heritage. Carbon rich soils Policy 5 of NPF4 states that development proposals will only be supported where they are designed and constructed to minimise the disturbance of soils. Development on carbon rich soils will only be supported for certain development including the generation of energy from renewable sources. Where development on carbon rich soils is proposed a detailed site-specific assessment will be required to identify the likely impacts and net effects on climate emissions.
Page 11
Policy 34 of the LDP states that development on carbon rich soils will only be supported where there is no viable alternative, and it has been demonstrated through surveys and a management plan that mitigation measures can be implemented to minimise carbon emissions. The applicant has submitted an assessment of impact on soil as part of the EIA. This concludes that there would be negligible impact on soil and peat. Mitigation measures are proposed including the micro-siting of turbines to avoid steep slopes with deep peat deposits to minimise impact on stability. Soil and peat removed in construction would be used elsewhere within the site. The northern part of the site is identified as being carbon rich soil. This is much of the area around Kaim Hill and Green Hill. Turbines No. 1 to 7, and associated access tracks would be sited within this area. The rest of the site is considered unlikely to be carbon rich soil. It is considered that subject to suitable mitigation as set out in the EIA, impact on carbon rich soil would be minimal and there would be no negative net impact on carbon emissions. Conditions could be suggested which require any CEMP to include a peat and soil management plan including seeking agreement for the specific siting of the turbines. Subject to the above, the proposal could accord with Policy 29 and Policy 34 of the LDP and Policy 5 and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of carbon rich soils. Historic environment There are no designated historic assets within the site. It is understood the ECU has sought the opinion of Historic Environment Scotland and West of Scotland Archaeology Service. If appropriate, a scheme of archaeological investigation could be required by condition. There are category B Listed Buildings at Munnoch, Crosbie Towers, some 1km to the south-west, Lawwood Head some 2km to the south-west, and Fairlie Castle, some 780m to the west of the northern part of the site. Fairlie Castle is also a scheduled monument. Views of parts of the turbines will be possible from these assets, but it is not considered they would necessarily have any specific impact on their setting. As set out above the development would be highly visible from Millport including many views from within its Conservation Area. The impact on views from Millport is considered above but it is again not considered there would be any specific impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. The proposal is considered to accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of the historic environment. Public access, tourism and recreation Policy 17 of the LDP states that proposals which affect the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park must have regard to the Park's purpose of providing recreational access to the countryside. Proposals should take account wider management objectives namely to provide visitors of all ages and abilities opportunity for quality recreation, ensure the Park is a popular and productive venue for formal and informal education and ensure the Park is an attractive and ecologically important visitor destination. As stated, the application site sits within the Park. The Park is some 16000ha in area. The Fairlie Moor Road is a Core Path and runs through the middle of the site. This means that
Page 12
the site is already reasonably well served in terms of recreational access. The tracks for the turbines would allow access into the interior to the north and also create a through route with the B780 and B781 to the south. It is considered that the proposal would provide access for recreation. There is no intrinsic education benefit from turbine development, and it is noted that such development already exists within the Park. It is also noted that turbines have not necessarily put people off visiting the Park and improved access may encourage visitors. The potential ecological impacts are considered above. It is not considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the management objectives of the Park. The visual impact of the proposal is considered above. However, it is noted that the main adverse impact outwith the immediate environs would be on views from the west. These include popular tourist destination including the seafront at Largs and Failrie, the island of Cumbrae and the front at Millport in particular and recreational boating on the Clyde. A condition could be suggested for any consent requiring the CEMP to include details of how the Core Path will be managed to continue to allow access during the construction phase. Subject to such a condition the proposal is considered to accord with Policy 17 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of access, tourism and recreation. Aviation and defence interests The ECU is understood to have consulted the statutory consultees in respect of these interests. Notwithstanding any required radar mitigation or similar requirements from those consultees, it is not considered that the proposal would necessarily be contrary to Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in aviation and defence terms. Telecommunications and broadcasting Again, the ECU will have consulted the relevant bodies in respect of these interest. It is not considered that the proposal would necessarily be contrary to Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in telecommunication and broadcasting terms. Road traffic NAC Active Travel and Transportation (Roads) has no objection to the proposal. There would be minimal traffic generated by the development outwith the construction period. A condition could be suggested requiring the CEMP provide details of routing for construction traffic in order to minimise impact on the road network. This could also include details of the new accesses onto the Fairlie Moor Road and B780 and B781. Subject to such a condition, it is considered that the proposal could accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of road traffic. Establishing use of site, decommissioning and restoration A scheme for decommissioning of the site and restoration, in the event of the turbines becoming redundant, could be a condition on any consent. There could also be a condition requiring a bond or other financial guarantee to be held between the operator of the turbines and the landowner. The landowner would, in planning terms, be ultimately responsible for complying with any conditions in breach.
Page 13
However, it is noted that Policy 11 of NPF4 states that areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. As set out above, the site is not considered suitable given the visual impact. Therefore, it is not considered appropriate to establish the use of this site for turbines. Whilst the proposal could accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of decommissioning and restoration, it is considered to be contrary in term of establishing the use of the site. Net economic impact The construction of the development would likely lead to opportunities for local contractors and the supply chain. However, once operational it is unlikely there would be a significant economic impact in terms of jobs. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the construction would likely provide a net economic benefit. Financial 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. Scale of contribution to renewable energy targets. The proposed turbines are stated to have a combined potential energy generation 80MW. The proposed BESS is stated to have potential for storage of 50MW. This is considered to be a significant contribution to renewable energy targets. The proposal's contribution to renewable energy and the likely net economic benefit through the construction phase are noted. In these respects, the proposal accords with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4. However, it is not considered that these likely benefits outweigh the harm to the Special Landscape Area and as such the proposal remains contrary to Policy 4 of NPF4. Conclusion Significant weight is given to the climate crises, and that the proposal would contribute to a zero carbon economy, in line with Policy 1 of NPF4. The proposal, subject to appropriate conditions, could also accord with other relevant parts of the development plan including Strategic Policy 1 and Polices 16, 17, 18 and 34 of the LDP and Polices 3, 5 and 6 of NPF4. However, the visual impact and scale of the proposal is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Policy 15 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 14 and Policy 29 of NPF4. The visual impact would be significant and would be both localised and in the wider area. This would be particularly the case from the west and views across the Firth of Clyde. The visual impact would have significant adverse effects on the Special Landscape Area. The site is not considered appropriate for the establishment of a wind farm. The visual impact is not outweighed by compliance with other parts of the development plan or by any other material considerations. Given all of the above it is therefore recommended that the Council, as Planning Authority, objects to the proposal.
Page 14
4. Full Recommendation Objection Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr Iain Davies on 01294 324320.