22 00385 S36 Rowan Supp Rpt 1
Argyll and Bute Council · 28 September 2022
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 28 September 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth This Supplementary report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation on Additional Information received regarding the proposed Rowan wind farm on Land Approximately 4.5km North West of Tarbert, Argyll & Bute _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 22/00385/S36 Planning Hierarchy: Electricity Act Section 36 consultation Applicant: The Scottish Government on behalf of EnergieKontor UK Ltd Proposal: Electricity Act Section 36 consultation relevant to Rowan Wind Farm Site Address: Land Approximately 4.5km North West of Tarbert, Argyll & Bute ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 1. INTRODUCTION Since completion of the Report of Handling, correspondence has been received from the Applicant, highlighting concerns that they have about the way the report deals with several issues. An error has also been identified by Officers on the title page. These matters are addressed below. 2. ERROR ON TITLE PAGE There is an editing error on the title page, which refers to Narachan wind farm, instead of Rowan wind farm: “This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation regarding the proposed Narachan wind farm on land east of Tayinloan, Argyll & Bute” This should read: “This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation regarding the proposed Rowan wind farm on Land Approximately 4.5km North West of Tarbert, Argyll & Bute” Officers apologise for this error. 3. APPLICANTS COMMENTS ON ERROR ON PAGE 19 OF PPSL REPORT An error has been identified by the Applicant on page 19 where it is stated that the turbines are 277.5m tall: “Figure 3.2: Typical Turbine Elevations shows a hub height of 200m and a rotor diameter of 155m, this would give an overall height of 277.5m”.
Page 2
This is incorrect, the turbines would be 200m to blade tip. Officers apologise for this editing error and would confirm that this sentence should have been deleted from the report prior to circulation. The correct height is referenced throughout the remainder of the report. 4. APPLICANT’S COMMENTS ON PROBLEM WITH HYPERLINK ON PAGE 29 OF PPSL REPORT The Applicant has advised thaton page 29 of 45, a fundamental part of our case and really the only point of contention – limited element of the southern shore of WLT, the response to the Council’s Landscape Consultant and the updated ZTV and sequential assessment does not work as a hyperlink. In the interests of balance the Applicant has asked that their written response is replicated in full (as the Council’s landscape consultant’s has been) within the Committee Report to provide the Committee with full context and for them to decide which assessment they prefer. The Applicant has advised that if the Committee do not have clear and urgent sight of their written response either (preferably) replicated in full to mirror the treatment of the Council’s landscape consultant, or with a direct working link, they would have significant concerns. The link to this document worked in the final draft of the report, however, having checked it is correct that it does not appear to be working on the Agenda Reports pack. Rather than provide another link, which may or may not work, the full response may be found at Appendix 2 to this Supplementary Report as requested by the Applicant. To assist Members further – for ease of reference, the Council’s landscape consultant’s responses are also included at Appendices 1 and 3. It should be noted that all documents/figures referred to in these responses are available to view on the ECU website. The Applicant notes that this could be dealt with by Supplementary Report but they have concerns about the amount of time Councillors will have to fully digest this information. 5. AVIATION Whilst the Applicant notes that the Council has stated this objection would be lifted should the aviation objections be removed, they think it’s important to note within the reasons for objection themselves that this is a technical matter which will be resolved via the ECU (all parties are confident of resolution) and is essentially a procedural objection from the Council at this stage. This is not clear enough to the Applicant and they are concerned it would give Councillors the wrong impression. The Applicant notes this could be dealt with by Supplementary Report but they have concerns over the timing of this. The Applicant has today (22nd September) copied Officers into further correspondence sent by them to Glasgow Prestwick Airport, with the aim of resolving their outstanding objection. This should be available to view on the ECU website and does not alter Officers recommendation on this proposal. Officers also note the Applicant’s opinion on the structure of Officers reasons for objection. There is a paragraph underneath the reason for objection which makes the Council’s position quite clear, Officers do not consider that this requires to be changed. The relevant paragraph is as follows: “Argyll & Bute Council therefore object to the proposal due to the adverse impact it would have on Aviation. The Energy Consents Unit should please note that in the event that National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport withdraw their objections, then Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Should these objections not be removed and the proposal progresses to an Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to National Air Traffic Services and Glasgow Prestwick Airport as the Technical Experts on this matter”
Page 3
6. PLANNING BALANCE The Applicant has significant concerns that a planning balance against material considerations has not been fully considered and particularly in respect of SPP para 33. This does not give them confidence that Councillors are being presented with the full picture i.e. limited visual effects versus multiple benefits – there is no evidence from the Council to suggest harm demonstrably outweighs benefits. The Applicant says this in the context that they would see this as being in their favour at PLI – however, their aim is to maintain positive relationships with the Council and avoid PLI unless absolutely required. A response from Officers is provided below in respect to these concerns, Paragraph 33 of SPP The Applicant considers that the ‘tilted balance’ in favour of sustainable development applies in relation to this proposal, given that the Local Development Plan is greater than 5 years old. Paragraph 33 states: “Where relevant policies in a development plan are out-of-date or the plan does not contain policies relevant to the proposal, then the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. Decision- makers should also take into account any adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in this SPP. The same principle should be applied where a development plan is more than five years old”. Officers note that para 33 starts “where relevant policies in a development plan are out of date”, however, this is normally applied to policies on housing or industrial land supply, where LDP’s make specific allocations to cover specified periods of time. The policy on renewables in LDP1 and its Supplementary Guidance do not relate to a specific period of time, and are consistent with SPP 2014 this being the Scottish Government’s most up to date expression of planning policy, and therefore it is considered that the relevant policies are not out of date. Additionally, the proposed replacement Local Development Plan 2 is currently at examination, and it is anticipated that the Reporters’ recommendations will be received in the next few months, the Council could therefore be in a position to Adopt LDP2 in the first quarter of 2023. Policy 30 in pLDP2 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, is essentially the same a Policy LDP 6 in the Adopted LDP, and while this policy is subject to examination, it is consistent with SPP 2014, and reflective of the emerging policy on renewables in the draft NPF4. There is close alignment between the policy established by the Council’s Local Development Plan and the expression of government policy in SPP. These policies are underpinned by the over-riding imperative to secure sustainable economic development. The Report of Handling provides an assessment of the proposal against each of the key considerations identified in Policy LDP6 and Para 169 of SPP. Onshore wind is recognised as being a key component in the aim to increase renewable energy generation. However, where the Applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects, whether individual or cumulative, including those on landscape character and visual amenity, the proposal will not benefit from support in terms of the presumption in favour of sustainable development afforded by Policy LDP 6, or SPP. Paragraph 28 of SPP The SPP introduced a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. Paragraph 28 states:
Page 4
“The planning system should support economically, environmentally and socially sustainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits of a proposal over the longer term. The aim is to achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost”. It is considered by Officers that this proposal is not capable of contributing towards ‘sustainable development’. The significant adverse impacts it poses in terms of landscape and visual impact cannot be considered ‘sustainable’. It is considered that these adverse effects outweigh any benefits the proposal could bring. Officers therefore submit that there can be no presumption in favour of this development in terms of this paragraph of SPP either. Officers do not consider that the proposed development is located in the right place – a view which is supported by the Council’s landscape consultant and also the statutory consultation advice of NatureScot. In reaching the recommendation to object to this proposal, Officers have had regard to: relevant National and Local Policy and guidance; the EIAR and other supporting documents; the advice of key consultees; and the material consideration raised in the representations. It has been concluded that notwithstanding those factors which weigh positively in the balance of considerations, the significant adverse Landscape and Visual Impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development and would therefore be unacceptable. As referred to above “the aim is to achieve the right development in the right place”, there is not a policy expectation that an adverse impact on the local environment should be accepted as the price to pay for the ability to satisfy Scotland’s energy needs and UK climate change commitments. The natural environment also requires to be seen as a finite resource worthy of protection. 6. LIGHTING EFFECTS Another point raised by the Applicant is that the bullets above the link on p29 of the Report of Handling should be updated to reflect conversations between the Applicant around Clachaig Glen night time visuals where Councillors should not be comparing two schemes without a detailed technical note or clear view from the Council as which to prefer and why – the Applicant considers that Officers were in verbal agreement not to include this point last week. In this case, and as the Applicant highlighted in their rebuttal to the advice of the Council’s landscape consultant, there is no evidence or justification provided by the Council or the Council’s landscape consultant to suggest that they are underplaying effects and unless there is, the Applicant does not think it is reasonable or fair to ask Councillors to make that judgement. The Applicant does not accept a comparison against Clachaig Glen without evidence, and have issue with this being presented in the report. Verbal agreement between the Applicant and Officers related to the exclusion of the Clachaig Glen night time visualisation from the Councillor Packs. The reason being that the Applicant did not wish to include them for the reasons detailed above. It did not relate to the Report of Handling. It is the expert opinion of the Council’s landscape consultant, and it is not considered that this should be disregarded. 7. APPLICANT’S CONCLUSION In light of the above the Applicant feels that there are a number of items which require some time for both the Council and the Councillors to consider, accordingly they do not have comfort that this will be possible with sufficient time before next week’s Planning Committee. Therefore they have respectfully requested that the determination at Committee is delayed until October 2022 to allow these matters to be sufficiently addressed.
Page 5
8. OVERALL CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION In light of all of the above, Officers recommendation remains the same that the Council should object to this proposal for the reasons detailed in the Report of Handling. Should Members share the Applicant’s concerns that they have not had sufficient time to consider the supporting documents, then they may wish to consider deferring consideration of the proposal until a later date. Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 22nd September 2022 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 23rd September 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth
Page 6
APPENDIX 1: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL REVIEW, CAROL ANDERSON LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATES, REVISED JUNE 2022
Page 7
No embedded text on this page.
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
No embedded text on this page.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
No embedded text on this page.
Page 13
No embedded text on this page.
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
APPENDIX 2: RESPONSE TO COUNCIL’S LANDSCAPE OPINION
Page 17
No embedded text on this page.
Page 18
No embedded text on this page.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
No embedded text on this page.
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
No embedded text on this page.
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
No embedded text on this page.
Page 27
No embedded text on this page.
Page 28
No embedded text on this page.
Page 29
No embedded text on this page.
Page 30
No embedded text on this page.
Page 31
APPENDIX 3: COMMENTS ON APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL REVIEW UNDERTAKEN BY THE COUNCIL’A LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT, JUNE 2022
Page 32
No embedded text on this page.