Item 7 - Consultation on section 36 energy consent DC23.223.S36
West Dunbartonshire Council · 7 August 2024
Back to Planning Committee — 7 August 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 7th August 2024 _____________________________________________________________ DC23/223/S36: Proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW at the Site of the Proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, Kilpatrick Hills, East of Alexandria by Vale of Leven Wind Farm Limited. 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To agree the Council’s response to a consultation received from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit on behalf of the Scottish Ministers regarding a proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW. Given the nature of the proposal, this requires to be agreed by Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee agrees the position set out in Section 10 of this report and submit this report to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s full, formal response to the consultation advising of the Council’s objection. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The Scottish Ministers received an application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of windfarm of up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m as well as a battery storage system (BESS) with a capacity of up to 20 megawatts. The application site is located within the West Dunbartonshire local authority area however the assessment of the submitted application is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the Scottish Ministers. In Scotland, any proposal to construct and operate an onshore electricity generating station with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (as is the case with this proposal) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Sections 36 of the Electricity Act. Such applications are processed on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. Due to the Scottish Ministers being the decision makers, representations from members of the public and other agencies are made directly to the Energy Consents Unit. The application is referred to under the project name of the Vale of Leven Windfarm. The location of the site is shown in Appendix 1. 3.2 A date of 12th August 2024 has been agreed with the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the submission of the Council’s consultation response. The application documents are available to view via the Energy Consents Unit website via the following link: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details. 3.3 The Council is a formal consultee in this process. In procedural terms, the Council as Planning Authority, requires to provide a response to the Scottish Ministers. In this regard, the Council in response to the consultation can: ITEM 7
Page 2
(i) Offer no objection to the Section 36 application as submitted; or (ii) Offer no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and/or legal obligations it considers necessary to make the development acceptable; or (iii) Object to the application, stating the grounds on which objection is made. 3.4 Should the Scottish Ministers be disposed to grant a Section 36 consent for the proposed development, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act allows the Scottish Ministers to direct that planning permission for that development and any ancillary development shall be deemed to be granted. 4. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 4.1 The application site is located in the western part of the Kilpatrick Hills between Bonhill and Gartocharn. The nearest settlement to the site is Bonhill, which is located just over 2 km to the west, of the nearest proposed turbine, and approximately 600m to the northwest of the site boundary and proposed access track. Alexandria and Dumbarton are approximately 4 km to the west and south-west of the site respectively. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area (NSA) lie a minimum of 1.7 km and 3.5 km respectively to the north of the northern site boundary. 4.2 The site comprises part of Auchenreoch Muir to the east of Pappert Hill, and primarily consists of upland open moor which is currently used for sheep grazing. The topography within the site undulates, and it contains several hills including Knockshannoch and Hill of Standing Stones. These form part of a gently sloping ridge of land which drops down from the higher Doughnot Hill and Meikle White Hill (to the south of the site). This ridge forms the watershed between the Endrick Water (a tributary of the River Leven) and the River Leven itself. A number of small burns originate within the site, flowing northeast and west respectively. The surrounding land comprises open moorland with some patches of coniferous plantation, while Auchencarroch landfill site borders the site to the northwest. Dumbarton Muir Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), designated for bog habitats, is located to the east of the Site. Auchenreoch Glen SSSI, designated for its lowland calcareous grassland and springs (including flushes), lies to the south-west. 4.3 The proposal would involve the following works: • 10 wind turbines up to 250m to blade tip and each with an output of approximately 7 megawatts (MW), giving a total output of up to 70 MW; • Hardstanding areas at the base of each turbine, with a total permanent area of approximately 7,800 sqm; • Site entrance and access track up to 9.2km in length from the south-west, via a new road through Murroch Farm, accessed from a new junction on the A813 Stirling Road, adjacent to the Aggreko Lomondgate facility in Dumbarton; • Sub- station / control building with parking and welfare facilities; • A network of on-site access tracks and up to 4 associated watercourse crossings: • Transformers and underground cables to connect the turbines to the onsite substation; • Telecommunications equipment; • Temporary construction compounds and laydown area; • Three borrow pits which take the form of small quarries used to obtain rock for construction of the wind farm;
Page 3
• Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW. 4.4 The ten proposed turbines would be three bladed, horizontal axis turbines, each with a nominal rated capacity of 7MW and a rotor diameter of 172m. All of the turbines would be located on ground at elevations of between 220m and 304m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The solid, tubular towers would be constructed from steel and the blades would be made from reinforced composite materials such as fibreglass, all finished in a mid-grey tone consistent with more recently constructed turbines. 4.5 Each turbine would sit on a concrete base roughly 28m in diameter with a circular or octagonal plan shape. Should geotechnical investigations demonstrate that the required bearing capacities are not achievable, then a piled foundation design is proposed to be adopted using the same overall design footprint. For the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, a maximum (worst-case) scenario for turbine foundations of a 3 – 4m depth has been assumed. Adjacent to the foundation, an area of hardstanding of approximately 80m by 40m with a 6m wide track running along the length of the hardstanding would be required adjacent to each turbine as a platform for cranes to lift the turbine components into position. In addition to the hardstanding for the main assembly crane, up to two additional temporary crane pads may be required for crane assembly. Each turbine would be expected to have an associated transformer, located either internally or externally to the turbine. External transformers are proposed to be located within weather-proof housing, which would have indicative dimensions of 5.5m by 5.5m by 3m. Transformer housing would be colour finished to blend in with the surrounding landscape. 4.6 The entrance to the proposed development site for vehicles delivering both construction materials and turbine components, such as tower sections and blades, would be from a new road, via Murroch Farm, to the south-west of the Site. The road would be accessed from a new junction on the A813 Stirling Road, roughly opposite the Aggreko Building. From A813, the access track would be approximately 2 km in length until reaching the first wind turbine. Internally to the site, access tracks are proposed to be generally unpaved (stone surface) and of a minimum of 5.5m running width, with a 1m shoulder verge to either side and 2:1 side slopes. The tracks could be up to 7m wide on bends. Approximately 9.2km of new access track would be required for construction. Five turning heads of sufficient size to accommodate articulated vehicles would are also proposed. Some further widening would be necessary along the access track route to allow for passing places/temporary lay down areas, with the locations subject to detailed design post-consent. In general terms, the construction method would see topsoil, including peat, being removed and stored adjacent to the construction area until required for reinstatement. The requirements for access track drainage would be determined at detailed design stage and onsite during construction. The access tracks would have a suitable cross-fall to drain run-off and, where gradients are present, lateral drains would intercept any flow along the road. Where ground conditions are of a permeable nature, swales would be utilised alongside the access tracks to allow natural filtering of surface water into the ground. Where areas are less free draining, land drains or drainage ditches would be installed as topography and ground conditions dictate. Drainage filters would be installed at suitable locations to remove silts from the run-off. Post construction, the vegetated turf layer would be used for reinstatement. This would allow re-establishment of natural vegetation to the area. 4.7 The proposed development would require a total of 92,622 cubic metres of aggregate to construct new tracks, hardstanding areas for cranes and to lay the turbine foundations. This is expected to be won from up to three onsite borrow pits. However, the Environmental Impact Assessment assesses a worst-case scenario and considers the scenario where 50% of the track and hardstanding aggregate would be brought in
Page 4
from off-site sources, such as local quarries. Locations for up to three borrow pits have been sited in areas with low peat measurements and rock exposure. It is not proposed to retain any of the new proposed borrow pits post-construction. Materials are available locally so any requirement for rock aggregate during the operational phase would be met from those sources. Rock extraction from borrow pits by means of blasting operations is not anticipated. 4.8 The sub-station compounds will be split into two separate compounds with a separate control building in each compound. The substation compounds would measure approximately 100m x 75m and be enclosed by palisade type fencing. 4.9 It is further proposed to co-locate a battery energy storage facility in the position of one of the construction compounds and this would remain for the lifetime of the development. Whilst only indicative details are provided at this stage, it is anticipated this element of the proposal will comprise a lithium-ion battery technology solution, with modular elements comprising circa 14 battery housings such as standard ISO containers measuring 2.6 metres by 16.1 metres with associated heating, ventilation and air-condition systems together with associated inverters, transformers, switchgear and metering. Given only indicative designs have been provided, the final design would require to be agreed. 4.10 The construction phase of the development is estimated to take approximately 21 months. The proposed development will have an operational life of 40 years, after which it would be decommissioned, and the turbines would be dismantled and removed. During decommissioning the turbines would be dismantled and removed, along with any associated above ground electrical equipment. Underground cables and access tracks would be left in place and foundations would be removed to a depth of 0.5m below ground level to avoid environmental impacts from deeper removal. 4.11 In terms of the planning history of the site, in 2012 planning permission (reference DC12/028) was applied for the erection of ten wind turbines (max hub height 79m and max blade tip height 120m) with a total installed capacity of around 20MW and associated works including the erection of a meteorological mast, control building, ancillary infrastructure, temporary ground works and construction compound. In 2013 the West Dunbartonshire Council’s Planning Committee refused permission for the application which is sited within the same area as the current proposal but with a different access route. Reasons for refusal were due to the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the Kilpatrick Hills Regional Scenic Area/Local Landscape Area, the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the setting of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area and a conflict with aviation safeguarding criteria which could endanger aviation safety. 4.12 In order to more accurately gauge the wind speed and direction at the application site, an anemometer mast of up to 100m in height was approved for a period of 5 years by the Council’s Local Review Body in February 2024. 4.13 The proposal is informed by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) together with a range of associated supporting documentation. This addresses a range of matters including Landscape and Visual Impact, Ecology, Ornithology, Geology, Hydrology and Peat, Archeology and Cultural Heritage, Traffic and Transport, Noise, Socio Economics, Aviation, Shadow Flicker and Population and Human Health.
Page 5
5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The Council is a consultee in the Section 36 application process and therefore consultation by the Council is limited to Council Services. However, a summary of the wider consultation responses received by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit is also included below, as these are also relevant to the assessment of the proposal to inform the response by the Council. West Dunbartonshire Council consultation replies: West Dunbartonshire Council (Roads Service) (roads, traffic and flooding matters) 5.2 The location appears acceptable subject to conditions relating to the proposed junction design, gates, surface water, mechanical brush, wheel washing facilities, signage, the design, location and construction of the relocated bus bay and pre and post development inspections of the A813 from its junction with the A82 to Lionsgate Roundabout. 5.3 The location of the proposed development is at the source of several watercourses and tributaries. Two of these have been identified on the SEPA flood maps as medium to high risk for fluvial flooding within West Dunbartonshire. These are the Carrochan Burn and Gruggies Burn which have both flooded downstream of the site in recent years. It is also within the catchment for the Loch Lomond via the Gallangad Burn. If permission is given the applicant would need to prove that the proposed development would not increase the flood risk downsteam along the watercourses mentioned. West Dunbartonshire Council is currently promoting a Flood Alleviation Scheme for the Gruggies Burn. West Dunbartonshire Council (Environmental Health Service) 5.4 It is highlighted that predictions of the operational noise levels have been based on the candidate turbine being the Vestas 172.2MW but the test results for this specific turbine are not yet available and representative noise data has been adopted from similar Vestas V136 turbine. Environmental Health would request that any noise impact assessment is updated based on the actual wind turbines proposed. Full details would be required on the Battery Energy Storage Facilities (BESS) to allow full comments to be provided. If blasting was proposed, further detailed information will be required prior to any blasting on site. 5.5 Conditions are recommended relating to updating the report that determines the impact of noise from the turbines on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises, the investigation of noise complaints, construction hours, delivery vehicles times, submission of a noise control method statement, noise attenuation for plant and machinery and shadow flicker. Biodiversity Officer 5.6 A variety of matters are highlight with reference to the proposed development. It is noted that protected and sensitive habitats which have been recorded on the site of the windfarm including blanket bog, wet modified bog, acid neutral flush and wet heath. There is no mention or consideration made to the five local designation on the proposed site. No specific species protection plans are included for the 15 species recorded within the vicinity of the proposed development as part of the mitigation proposals. There are Breeding snipe close to proposed locations of turbines 1,2,5 and 6. Black Grouse lek site is only 300m from proposed battery storage area and this is against the recommended distance of at least 500m. A number of raptor species have been identified using the site through the ornithology studies.
Page 6
5.7 It is considered that a peatland restoration programme on the vast swathes of class 2 peatlands would be more impactful in terms of the net zero commitments and would provide an abundance of biodiversity benefit whilst keeping the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills intact. There is no data for the 0.5m – 1m depth which is the national standard set by Naturescot to determine deep peat. The developer has instead only given peat depths of over 1m. T2 is on class 2 peat, T4 on class 1 peat. Extensive hard standing turbine footprints removing habitat. Naturescot estimate of 18% habitat loss –regardless of mitigation / enhancements. 5.8 There are large swathes of natural priority habitat types that are untouched. It is the value of the habitat and the vast open space of the Kilpatrick Hills that allows it to host such valuable species, many of which are of conservation concern. Opening up of access over this land will change the recreational value of this site. This additional disturbance could include additional walkers, cyclists, trail bikes and dogs onto the site which would reduce its value as an open habitat and breeding site for ground nesting birds. 5.9 In terms of enhancement, 90ha of peatland restoration is offered by developer but it is noted that the Naturescot response requires nearer to 200ha to fit current guidance. The peatland action grant system could offer biodiversity benefit without loss of the 18% habitat and therefore the proposed development is not the only route to provide improved peatland habitat enhancements. Native woodland planting areas are proposed outside of development site boundary and could also lead to self-seeding on the adjacent SSSI which should remain as calcareous grassland. The proposed new blocks of woodland planting could be detrimental to proposed calcareous grassland management - seem to be on wetland flush areas. The Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan should include detailed management plan for all protected species on site. 5.10 West Dunbartonshire Council (Economic Development) The sensitivities around visual impact and the adjacency to the National Park are understood but it is believed they are countered by the positive environmental and economic impacts both locally and wider. West Dunbartonshire Council has a statutory duty to deliver on the Scottish Government’s target of Net Zero by 2045. Significant investment both in resource and funding is required to achieve this. There is limited budget within the public sector to deliver actions at the pace and scale required and other investment, such as that from the private sector, will be essential for success. 5.11 The Vale of Leven windfarm proposal has the potential to provide significant funding through two channels, Community benefit packages; and/or Shared ownership. 5.12 Although community benefit is not a mandatory requirement, during initial discussions the developer had indicated that they would provide this at or above the minimum recommended by the Scottish Government. This would equate to £350,000 per year. Where and how the funds are invested is the decision of the local affected community and has the potential to have a significant impact. 5.13 In addition to community benefit, although more complex to set up, shared ownership is a further potential revenue stream that could benefit the local community and provide much needed funding for Climate Change Action Plan and Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy initiatives. Following initial discussions, the developer has indicated that up to 15% could be available for shared ownership.
Page 7
Scottish Government Energy Consent Unit consultation replies: West of Scotland Archaeology Service 5.14 Construction of the turbines and their associated infrastructure is likely to have both a direct impact on heritage features present within the development area itself, and an indirect effect on the settings of sites present in the surrounding landscape. 5.15 Direct impacts are generally concluded within the EIA to not be significant, a position that appears to have been reached on the basis that all of these features can be considered to be of negligible or minor importance. There are a number of features that are present within the 50m micrositing tolerance of the proposed development, including a burial cairn, an enclosure, an area of lime kilns and a turf structure. The EIA considers all of these assets to be of low or local importance and therefore concludes that any adverse effects on them resulting from physical impacts during the construction phase would not be significant. The exception to this is the burial cairn, which is considered to be of medium or regional importance; and states that without mitigation, any adverse effect resulting from a physical impact during construction- phase may be of up to moderate significance. 5.16 It is difficult to see how the effect of the proposed wind farm on the settings of sites in the surrounding landscape could be reduced or mitigated without substantial redesign to the location of the development or the height of the turbines. Recommend that any granting of permission should include a condition relating to a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation within the red line boundary. BT 5.17 The project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. Joint Radio Company (JRC) 5.18 No potential problems foreseen based on known interference scenarios and the data provided. Met Office 5.19 The proposal falls within the 20 km consultation zone of our meteorological radar at Holyhead. The turbines in the design freeze layout are below the beam of the radar and will not have any adverse impact. Ministry of Defence (MOD) 5.20 Subject to a variety of conditions, the MOD has no objection to the proposed development. Glasgow Prestwick Airport 5.21 The airport no longer has any safeguarding concerns over Vale of Leven Wind Farm and would have no objection to the development. Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) 5.22 No comment on this proposed development as it does not lie within a consultation zone around a GB nuclear site. Scottish Water 5.23 No objection to the proposed development; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced.
Page 8
Crown Estates Scotland. 5.24 The assets of Crown Estate Scotland are not affected by this proposal and we therefore have no comments to make. East Dunbartonshire Council 5.25 No objection to the proposed development. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 5.26 It is agreed that there will be no significant impact on of the Loch Lomond Special Protection Area, and the Endrick Mouth and Islands SSSI in terms of protected bird species. 5.27 If the application is to be consented, the RSPB recommend the finalised Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan and corresponding biodiversity net gain should be secured by suitably worded conditions. SEPA 5.28 Based on the information available, SEPA have no objection. However, it is advised that if consent is to be given, this should be subject to conditions relating to a finalised Peat Management Plan, a finalised Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan, a final Construction Environmental Management Plan, and micro siting. If these will not be applied, then this response would require to be considered as an objection. Peat management (Consultant Response) 5.29 The results of the likelihood assessment show the significant majority of site to be of negligible likelihood of peat slide (72% of probe locations) with only 1% recording medium likelihood and no areas of high likelihood. 5.30 Communities have been discounted as being at risk of peat landslide due to distance from infrastructure and there are no roads/dwellings/other infrastructure within influencing distance. Four areas at a medium risk of peat instability were considered to have a potential impact on the proposed development’s infrastructure but were downgraded to Insignificant following more detailed review. 5.31 Mitigation is provided in section 7.0 of the PLHRA document. There is no extensive evidence for past peat instability on-site therefore a more generic and infrastructure specific mitigation and best practice is provided. This is supported by discussion of mitigation for each area of medium “risk” considered to influence the development. Overall, the mitigation presented is considered appropriate. Scottish Forestry 5.32 It is clear that the proposed development will have a direct, though limited, impact on woodland interest. The access track for the proposed development will impact a small area (approximately 0.06ha) of woodland, resulting in the felling of up to 28 mature/semi-mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) hedgerow trees and 3 mature Downy Birch (Betula pubescens) to facilitate construction of the track. Conditions are recommended relating to compensatory planting. Transport Scotland 5.33 It is noted that the use of a blade lifter is identified at the start of the Transport Assessment, but it appears that the swept paths have been run with a standard trailer. The use of a scissor lift adaptor is identified as being required at certain locations to elevate the blade tip to allow loads to over sail various obstructions without the need for intrusive ground works. In addition, it should be noted that if Blade Lifter technology/scissor lift technology is to be utilised on the trunk road, significant work
Page 9
will be required in order to satisfy Transport Scotland that the proposals can work technically, and do not represent any risk to the safe and efficient operation of the trunk road network. Transport Scotland will require a detailed methodology to be provided, with a technical approval process followed thereafter (with no guarantee of approval). This is to include a risk assessment, method statements and additional information as requested by Transport Scotland. Conditions and informatives are recommended for any granting of permission. Inverclyde Council 5.34 Whilst the Scottish Government is keen for more renewable developments to be established to meet the target of net zero emissions by 2045, they do have to be in the right location and at the right scale to ensure that other assets are not lost in the process. The views outwards from Inverclyde are important to both tourists and residents alike. They are an environmental and scenic tourism resource. Inverclyde Council would wish to see these views retained and is concerned the proposed development would impact on them to their detriment. The turbines that are proposed are more than twice the size of those at Corlic Hill above Greenock and would, be out of scale with the surrounding topography to the extent it would impact negatively on the views from Inverclyde and from the Firth of Clyde. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) 5.35 Object until mitigation proposals become more mature. The developer states (13.6.21) that the development “would be likely to cause false plots to be generated” on the radars at Lowther, Cumbernauld, Glasgow NASR-10 and Terma. Whilst NATS could take issue with the classification of this impact as “moderate” they are pleased to note the intention (13.7.4) to “agree appropriate means of technical mitigation of the proposed development’s effects” and NATS will continue to work with the applicant with the goal, which is seen as realistic. Glasgow Airport 5.36 The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and could conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, a more detailed assessment requires to be undertaken regarding the potential impact on Glasgow Airport. Glasgow Airport therefore, submit a holding objection until they are able to advise of the results of their investigations. Scotways 5.37 This application should not be considered as suitable for what is an open moorland landscape in the vicinity of a National Park. They have grave concerns regarding the direct impact on recreational amenity both within, and in the vicinity of, the application site and the change in the character of the landscape that this proposal would bring. On this basis, and for positioning of a turbine in close proximity to a core path Scotways objects to this development. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) 5.38 HES object to the development because the proposals would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle scheduled monument. These impacts would be of a severity that raises issues of national interest. The proposals therefore do not align with national policy as set out in the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) and the National Planning Framework (NPF4). NatureScot 5.39 The location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in proximity and prominence of wind farms on the southern area of the Loch Lomond
Page 10
and Trossachs National Park. NatureScot consider that the proposal would have significant adverse effects on six of the Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) of the National Park and as such that the objectives of the designation and overall integrity of the area would be compromised. NatureScot advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 (c) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) due to the adverse impact upon the National Park and National Scenic Area. In NatureScot’s view these effects cannot be readily mitigated. NatureScot therefore object to this proposal. 5.40 NatureScot agree with the applicant’s assessment that various designated sites, including European sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), will not be adversely affected. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 5.41 The National Park Authority objects to the proposal for a variety of reasons as follows. Given the extremely large turbine size, the proposed development would often appear dominant or very prominent in the backdrop to the southern part of Loch Lomond and its associated rural setting. With a very intrusive and industrial appearance, the turbines would considerably detract from, contrast with and often compromise a very large number of Special Landscape Qualities and key characteristics that are integral to defining this iconic part of the National Park. The views and visual amenity of a very large number of visitors and residents of several settlements would be subject to widespread significant visual effects. Parts of at least (approximately) 75km of nationally important recreational routes would be subject to significant visual impacts. The proposed development would compromise the objectives of the National Park designation and its overall integrity. The proposed development would conflict with national and local landscape-related policy. Kilmaronock Community Council (KCC) 5.42 The Community Council object to the proposal for a variety of reasons. These include that the energy that could be generated is insignificant to the national strategy as detailed in UK’s Energy Security Plan. The scale of the development is too high for its location and will result in an adverse visual impact. The proposal will result in the destruction of nationally designated peat bogland and have a negative impact on biodiversity (especially during construction). Biodiversity enhancement would not result from the proposal. The proximity to housing and impact upon property values is raised as is light pollution from the aviation lights. Balloch and Haldane Community Council 5.43 The Community Council object to the proposal due to the proximity to the National Park. This is contrary to the policy position within NPF4. 6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 A review of the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit website case file for this application has shown that 49 representations have been received from third parties, 39 are in objection, 8 are in support and 2 which highlight points of concern but do not specifically express either being in objection or in support of the proposal. Representations have been received from local residents, visitors to the area, Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs, the Woodland Trust, Strathavan Airfield Ltd, Pam Gosal MSP and Jackie Baillie MSP.
Page 11
6.2 The letters of objection raise issues relating to the summarised points as follows: Visual impacts • Concerns over landscape and visual impacts, noting the scale of turbines would dominate the landscape and skyline and would also require visible aviation lighting. • The height of the turbines makes them amongst the tallest proposed for an onshore wind farm in the UK. • Concerns regarding the spatial density of the proposed windfarm • Particular concerns regarding the detrimental impact on the setting of the National Park. • Residential visual amenity impact. Impact upon Heritage • Heritage impacts including on Dumbarton Castle. Aviation matters • Proximity to Glasgow Airport flightpaths. • Concern on impact on Glasgow Airport’s SVFR corridor and that a typical light aircraft in bad weather, using SVFR, at 60 knows would be just 15 seconds flying • Serious concern raised about the turbulence plume. Trees and woodland • There will be a loss of two veteran beech trees noted as alongside loss of 0.06 hectares (ha) of Barr Wood an area of woodland designated on NatureScot’s Ancient Woodland Inventory • Concerns about potential indirect impacts on Lang Craigs and other areas of ancient and long-established woodland in the locality that may be subject to increased recreational pressures and resulting deterioration. Residential amenity • Concerns regarding noise impacts. • Concerns regarding shadow flicker. • Concerns for potential vibrations being emitted. • The development ignores the 2km separation guidelines between windfarms and residential properties. Health and safety • Safety concerns in relation to the BESS including fire risk. • Concerns regarding the impacts on physical and mental health. Ecology and biodiversity • Damage done to habitats of animals. • All except T5, T8 and T9 appear to be on areas of peat. Other matters • There is no benefit to community. • The developer is from Ireland and therefore the “profits” will not be in the local area. • Tourism is one of the main employers and will be compromised. • Precedent will be set for further development. • The output is small compared to the need for energy generation.
Page 12
• No need for the proposal given the constrained operation of wind farms currently and economic costs to consumers through constraint payments. 6.3 The letters of support raise issues relating to the summarised points as follows: Energy generation benefits • The proposal will maximise renewable energy sources. • Land-based wind power and energy storage systems are the cheapest and most readily available technologies for rapidly decarbonising the atmosphere and improving the country’s energy security. • The National Park area possesses a unique combination of advantages for renewable energy production, storage and distribution. • The project will produce enough electricity to power approximately 50,000 average UK homes. • The project will make a significant contribution to UK and Scottish Government emission reduction targets. • It a highly suitable wind turbine site. Access improvements • Improved access would lead to an increase in recreational use. Economic and community benefits • “Community Benefit” funds which may arise from such developments being applied to help provide for the preservation, promotion and appreciation of the special qualities of the Parks and their surrounding areas, thereby benefiting nature, visitors, communities and businesses. • The proposed wind farm will create jobs for the local area. Other matters • These turbines will in no way detract from their surroundings. • They will not in any sense impact on the majority of people’s enjoyment of the area. • There are various measures being proposed to improve the environment on the moorland area which will have further local benefits. • The proposed site for the windfarm on bleak moorland and is currently seldom visited as it has poor access. • People are also very adaptable and quickly get used to new features. 6.4 Whilst many of the points raised both in objection and in support are considered as part of the Council’s wider assessment of the proposal as set out in Section 8 below, it is for the Scottish Ministers as the determining authority to consider the representations submitted to them. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 7.1 NPF4 aims to create places in line with six overarching spatial principles, including the Just Transition and Rebalanced Development. The Just Transition directs development towards achieving the transition to net zero in a way that is inclusive and fair. Rebalanced Developments directs development to areas of past decline, which would include West Dunbartonshire, given the de-industrialisation that has taken place in the area. While these are high level principles, they are cross cutting and NPF4 contains a clear steer that outcomes of Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 11 and Policy 25 are interlinked.
Page 13
7.2 Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure is a Scotland wide national development (National Development 3), making it a clear priority across Scotland. Regional Spatial Priorities for the Central Region also direct development to “provide net zero energy solutions” and to “build community wealth to overcome disadvantage”. These high level aims and connections between policies should be considered by the decision maker. 7.3 Policy 1 gives significant weight to the climate and nature crisis, with an intended policy outcome of being zero carbon and nature positive. Renewables, including onshore wind and battery storage, are considered an important part of Scotland’s approach to meeting its carbon emission reduction targets. Policy 2 requires development to minimise the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of development as far as possible. An important element in the case of this development is the location of the turbines and infrastructure, and borrow pits, relative to the location of peat and other carbon rich soils. 7.4 Policy 3 requires development to contribute to biodiversity enhancement, including the restoration of degraded habitat and improving connections between them. As a national development part b) of the policy applies. Part d) of this policy also applies, requiring the planning and design of development to minimise adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the development on biodiversity and the natural environment. 7.5 Policy 4‘s intent is to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. Part a) of the policy does not support development where the type, location or scale will have a significant effect on an unacceptable effect on the natural environment. Part b) of the policy, sets out a requirement for an appropriate assessment. Part c) of the policy sets out the limited criteria in which development will be acceptable where it will affect a National Park, National Scenic Area, SSSI or National Nature Reserve. While the proposal is not within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park it will be visible from the National Park. Part d) of the policy identifies the limited circumstances where development within local landscape designations and nature conservation sites are acceptable. Which are: i. The objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the areas will not be compromised; or ii. Any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. 7.6 Policy 5 relates to soils. Part a) of this policy addresses the need to avoid and minimise, in line with the mitigation hierarchy, disturbance to soil and undeveloped land to protect it from erosion, compaction and sealing. Part c) ii. of this policy enables the development of renewable energy generation on carbon rich soils where it optimises the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Part d) of this policy requires developers to undertake assessments of the depth, condition and quality of carbon rich soils, effects of development on the peatland and the net effects on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 6 supports proposals that enhance, expand or improve woodland and tree cover. Part b) of the policy states that loss of ancient woodland, veteran trees, or woodland of high biodiversity value is not supported. 7.7 Policy 7 requires development with potential impacts on historic assets or place to be accompanied by an assessment of that asset or place, including cumulative impacts. There are a number of non-designated heritage assets within the site boundary, including archaeological remains meaning that part o) of the policy applies. At a
Page 14
distance of up to 20km from the site are listed buildings, historic battlefields, Gardens and Designed Landscapes. This means that parts i) and j) also apply. 7.8 Proposals within a greenbelt are covered in Policy 8. The access track for the development Is located within the green belt. Development proposals within a green belt designated within the LDP will only be supported in a limited set of circumstances including for essential infrastructure. The proposal falls into the definition of essential infrastructure. 7.9 Policy 11 relates to energy and the policy intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development onshore and offshore. This includes energy generation, storage, new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure and emerging low-carbon and zero emissions technologies including hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS). Part a) policy supports proposals for renewable technologies, including wind farms under part i. and battery storage under part iii. Wind farm proposals are not supported in National Parks as stated in part b). The proposal is not within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. 7.10 Part c) of the policy requires renewable development to maximise economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits. Part e) of the policy requires the project design and mitigation to address a number of issues. In considering the impacts significant weight is placed on the contribution of the proposal to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Impacts to be addressed are: i. impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including, residential amenity and visual. ii. significant landscape and visual impacts. iii. public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes. iv. impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording. v. impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. vi. impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads, including during construction. vii. impacts on historic environment. viii. effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk. ix. biodiversity including impacts on birds. x. impacts on trees, woods and forests. xi. proposals for the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration. xii. the quality of site restoration plans including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. xiii. cumulative impacts. 7.11 Policy 12 requires development to reduce, reuse or recycle materials in line with the waste hierarchy. It also supports developments that enable materials and components to be disassembled and reused at the end of their life. 7.12 Policy 13-part b) supports development where it is demonstrated that transport requirements are considered within the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and sets out a list of criteria development should comply with. In order to meet these policy requirements the design of the junction will be required to meet par iv of the policy, by being designed to incorporate safety measures, including safe crossings and the reducing the number and speed of vehicles. Part g) of this policy states that
Page 15
proposals that have the potential to impact the Strategic Transport Network (which includes trunk roads in the definition provided in NPF4s glossary) will be fully assessed with regards to capacity and safety. 7.13 Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale as per Policy 14. Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported in accordance with Policy 14. 7.14 Policy 18’s intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. Energy supplies and energy generation are included in the definition of infrastructure. Part a) of the policy states that development proposals which provide (or contribute to) infrastructure in line with that identified as necessary in LDPs and their delivery programmes will be supported. 7.15 Policy 22-part a) states that Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported in a limited set of circumstances, including for essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons. 7.16 Policy 23 protects people and places from environmental harm, mitigates risks arising from safety hazards. Part e) notes that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. 7.17 Alongside part c) of policy 11, Policy 25 makes community benefit a material consideration in planning decision. Part a) of the policy sets out that community benefit can include “improving community resilience and reducing inequalities; increasing spending within communities; ensuring the use of local supply chains and services; local job creation; supporting community led proposals, including creation of new local firms and enabling community led ownership of buildings and assets.” 7.18 Policy 32 is relevant due to the borrow pits included to construct the development. Part d) of this policy sets out the circumstances under which the sustainable extraction of minerals will be supported. Part e) of the policy sets out where borrow pits are supported. This includes that they are time limited, that they comply with the other criteria within the minerals policy in part d) of the policy, and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable. 7.19 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 8 below. Based on that assessment, it is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with NPF4. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan (2010) 7.20 The application site is located within the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Whilst at the time of writing Policy RSA1 related to the former Regional Scenic Area, the overarching position with remains relevant in conserving the high-quality landscape of the Kilpatrick Hills as an important Area. There is a general presumption against proposals that would have an adverse impact on the landscape quality, character, visual amenity, or nature conservation value of the area. 7.21 Policy DC6 relates to renewable energy proposals and states that development will be permitted where it can be established without unacceptable detriment to the landscape, natural and build heritage, sport and recreation interests and local amenity. Development should be considered against the following criteria: visual impact and
Page 16
effect on landscape character, including the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills RSA; nature conservation interests; the historic environment and its setting, including scheduled ancient monuments; local amenity such as noise, traffic or broadcast interference; and any cumulative impact. 7.22 Policy E1 states that the Council will further the conservation of biodiversity. Policy E2A lays out the requirement for development that are likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. Policy E2B sets out the circumstances in which development that affects a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) may be permitted. Policy E3A states that the Council will seek to maintain and enhance the environmental resources of the Plan area by protection of habitats, species and natural features which are vulnerable and/or specifically protected, including Local Nature Conservation Sites. It also states that proposals should not have an adverse effect on the integrity or character of Local Nature Conservation Sites and that satisfactory arrangements for habitat creation/site enhancement elsewhere should be made to compensate where development would cause the total or partial loss of a Local Nature Conservation Site. There are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which could be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly Policy E5 relates to development affecting trees and states that Development proposals should take account of trees at the beginning of the design process. Policy SUS1 states that all development should seek to conserve and enhance environmental resources and ensure environmental impact is minimised. Policy E9 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact upon landscape character. 7.23 Policy GB 1 - Green Belt The proposal takes access through a section of Green Belt as designated in both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 and as such Policy GB 1 applies. This policy states that within the areas of Green Belt there will be a general presumption against development other than certain exemptions. This includes where there is a specific locational requirement and established need for the development and it cannot be accommodated on an alternative site. 7.24 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the area. Policy DC3 states that within the Glasgow Airport Safeguarding Zone, development which adversely affects the operational integrity or safety of the airport will not normally be permitted. 7.25 Policy BE2 seeks to ensure the setting of listed buildings is not adversely impacted upon and Policy BE5 relates to Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other Archaeological sites. The Council will resist any development proposals that would have an adverse impact on or affect the setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument, or upon other nationally or locally important archaeological sites. Policy BE7 further seeks to ensure that Gardens and Designed Landscape designations are not adversely impacted upon. 7.26 Policy GN1 seeks to promote, protect and improve the Green Network. It states that development which is detrimental to the green network will be considered contrary to the Plan, and that new development should contribute positively to the protection and improvement of the green network. The Kilpatrick Hills are recognised as an important green network resource in West Dunbartonshire owing to their landscape value, the habitats and species found there and the outdoor recreation opportunities they offer. 7.27 The Council will encourage responsible pedestrian, cycle and horse-riding access, access to inland waterways, and will pursue opportunities to establish additional paths in accordance with Policy R5.
Page 17
7.28 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 8. Taking that assessment into account it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to adopted Local Plan. 8. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 8.1 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration, although it does not directly affect the development proposal under consideration. 8.2 Whilst Policy RE2 of the proposed Plan relates to the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy and would previously have been relevant, it conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy. 8.3 Any development proposed within the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area must; protect and enhance the landscape character; protect and enhance the integrated network of habitats and important geological features; and protect and enhance the Hills as an accessible recreation resource in accordance with policy KH1. Policy GB1 restricts development in the green belt to a limited number of circumstances. This includes with infrastructure with a specific locational need. 8.4 Policy ENV1 sets the approach towards development and designated sites. Policy ENV2 relates to landscape character. Development proposals should be sited and designed to relate to the local landscape character of the area and ensure that the integrity of this landscape character is maintained and, where appropriate, enhanced. Policy ENV3 restricts development resulting in the disturbance, drainage or excavation of peat, with the exception of renewable energy where a balance of advantage in terms of climate mitigation is achieved. Policy ENV4 relates to forestry, trees and woodland. The loss or fragmentation of long-established woodland, high conservation value or areas covered by tree preservation orders will only be supported where any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by significant social or economic benefits. 8.5 Policy ENV5 mainly focusses on water courses and water bodies. Hydrology is important to the upland and peat habitats and so could be considered part of the water environment. Part d) of the policy addresses minimising pollution of all waterbodies and ground water resources. Policy ENV8 requires minimisation or adequate mitigation of any air light and noise pollution resulting from development. 8.6 Policy H4 of the LDP2 relates to residential amenity. The policy states that the Council will protect, preserve and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas at all times. In this regard, there will be a general presumption against the establishment of non-residential uses within, or in close proximity to, residential areas which potentially have detrimental effects on local amenity or which cause unacceptable disturbance to local residents.
Page 18
8.7 Policy CON3 is not supportive of development which disrupts or adversely impacts on any existing or potential core path, right of way, bridle path, or footpath, including off- path access rights, used by the general public for recreational or other purposes. 8.8 Policy BE1 states that unscheduled archaeological sites should be preserved insitu where possible. Where not possible, provision should be made by the developer to undertake the excavation, recording analysis, publication and archiving of the archaeological remains. Policy BE2 and BE7 take the same position in relation to Listed Buildings and Garden and Designed Landscapes as the adopted Plan. Development that would adversely impact on the operations of Glasgow Airport or would be adversely affected by aircraft noise will not be permitted in accordance with Policy E7. 8.9 The borrow pits would constitute mineral workings and proposals for new mineral workings will only be supported under Policy MIN1 where it is demonstrated that there would be no significant negative impact, either individually or cumulatively, from mineral workings on: a) The natural environment, including habitat networks, peat and other carbon rich soils; b) The green network, including path networks; c) Landscape, including visual impact; d) Built heritage, particularly Scheduled Monuments and other archaeology; e) Residential amenity and the operation of other businesses; f) Trunk and Local Road Networks. 8.10 Policy CP1 requires new development to take a design led approach to creating sustainable places which puts the needs of people first and demonstrate the six qualities of successful places. Policy CP2 requires all development to demonstrate that green infrastructure has been integrated into the design approach from the outset. 8.11 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail below. It is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with proposed Local Development Plan 2. Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area – Statement of Importance 8.12 This Statement of Importance explains the reasons why the Kilpatrick Hills have been selected for the designation. The special qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills are identified as being: • Strong sense of remoteness, wildness and open horizons; • Distinctive geomorphology and topographical features; and • A unique diversity of views. 8.13 The impact of the proposed development on these special landscape qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills is assessed below, and it is concluded that the proposal would significantly detract from the special qualities of the Local Landscape Area. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 8.14 This guidance is written in the context of proposed Local Development Plan 1 together with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), both of which no longer form a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. This document provides guidance on planning for wind energy including a Spatial Framework and guidance on the factors that will be considered in assessing wind energy proposals. The spatial framework applies to “wind farms” which are defined by the Council as: • Any development containing a turbine of 50m and above to tip height; or
Page 19
• Any development of 3 or more turbines, containing a turbine of 30m above to tip height. 8.15 As this proposal is for ten turbines and 250m to blade tip it would have fallen within the threshold for assessment under the spatial framework. However, the Spatial Framework conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy over this guidance. 8.16 Notwithstanding the above, many of the matters for which guidance is provided remain relevant to the assessment of a proposal of this nature. This includes considering matters pertaining to landscape character, forestry and woodland, the water environment, the path network, built heritage, aviation, residential amenity in respect of noise, shadow flicker and visual intrusion, economic benefit, contribution towards renewable energy targets, effect on soils, impact on the road network and decommissioning. These matters are fully assessed in detail below. Scottish Government Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity 8.17 This guidance sets out the Scottish Ministers’ expectations for implementing NPF4 policies which support the cross-cutting NPF4 outcome ‘improving biodiversity’. Core principles which can be followed when designing development so that nature and nature recovery are an integral part of any proposal are laid out within the document. Biodiversity matters are fully assessed below. Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal 8.18 This policy provides a strategic framework for appropriate woodland removal. Whilst there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting Scotland’s woodland resources it is also noted that woodland removal, with compensatory planting, is most likely to be appropriate where it would contribute to a list of outcomes including helping Scotland mitigate and adapt to climate change. No specific concerns arise with reference to this policy, and this is a document for the Scottish Ministers to consider in detail with reference to the proposal. Principle of Development 8.19 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) sets out the long-term vision for the development of Scotland through the National Spatial Strategy. NPF4 aims to meet Scotland’s climate ambition which will require a rapid transformation across all sectors of the economy and society. This proposal constitutes a National Development as it supports renewable electricity generation, repowering, and expansion of the electricity grid under National Development 3: Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure. NPF4 recognises that additional electricity generation from renewables and electricity transmission capacity of scale is fundamental to achieving a net zero economy. Policy 1 of NPF4 states that there is a need to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis, whilst Policy 2 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The electricity generated will be from a renewable source with the additional battery storage element of the proposal additionally ensuring grid stability given the intermittent nature of renewable energy generation. 8.20 Whilst it can be considered that the proposal could therefore be held to support the overarching aims of the NPF4 to achieve net zero targets and provide a stable domestic energy supply, it must be ensured that such development happens in the right place. There is thus a requirement in assessing any such developments to take into account all relevant considerations and policies. Therefore, it must be assessed if there are any potential adverse impacts arising from the proposed development which
Page 20
would be outweighed by any benefits. This assessment can be guided by Policy 11(e) of NPF4 which sets out in detail the matters for the project design and mitigation to address. Landscape and Visual Impact: Considerations 8.21 The construction of ten wind turbines each to a height of 250m together with the associated infrastructure, works and battery storage facility at this location will have a significant visual impact, and this is not in doubt. The applicant sets out in their submission that most apparent effects of the development in terms of the visual impact arise from the presence of the wind turbines which are indicated to be temporary. The applicant’s position is therefore that the impact is reversible as the turbines would be removed on decommissioning. However, given that it is anticipated that the operational lifespan of the development is 40 years, the impacts that will occur are considered to be long term. 8.22 The geographical extent to which the wind farm would be visible has been established by a ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ (ZTV). This was created using mapping tools to calculate where the wind farm will potentially be visible from in the surrounding area, taking account of topography. The ZTV establishes the locations from which the turbines may potentially be visible and where there is no visibility, receptors are discounted from the assessment. ZTV mapping is presented in the applicant’s submission with both 45km and 20km study areas in order that both the local and wider context of the proposal can be considered. The ZTV demonstrates that the wind farm, or parts thereof, would be visible from an extensive area including Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, Dunoon, Balfron, Luss and Ben Lomond. 8.23 As part of the EIA, the assessment of landscape and visual effects is informed by a series of viewpoints that represent visibility from a variety of different vantage points. These include recognised viewpoints, designated landscapes, settlements and travel routes. Vantage points within the settlements of Dumbarton and Alexandria, together with other vantage points within the Authority area including Dumbarton Rock and Doughnot Hill are assessed as are vantage points which are within the West Dunbartonshire part of the National Park such as Balloch Castle and a location on the John Muir Way to the east of Balloch. A range of viewpoints are also provided from the wider area including south of the River Clyde at Langbank and Port Glasgow as well as Luss, Conic Hill, Ben Bowie, Beinn Dubh and Ben Lomond. The visibility of the windfarm from all these locations indicates potential widespread visual impact. It is acknowledged that photomontages can be influenced by weather conditions, the position of the camera and the particular details of the lens used, but they are nevertheless representative overall in terms of the scale and position of the proposed turbines relative to the landscape and the skyline. The photomontages focus on the impact arising from the turbines themselves and do not include associated details such as the access tracks and battery storage facility. Landscape and Visual Impact: Impact adjacent to the site 8.24 Doughnot Hill is a high point situated within the Kilpartick Hills, within the Kilpartick Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA). It is clear from the visuals submitted that the proposed turbines will be a very significant feature when viewed from this location, with the application documents noting that they will be approximately 1500m from the summit (from where the viewpoint is taken) and extend across 47 degrees of the view. Doughnot Hill and the surrounding landscape features popular recreational walking routes extending from Overtoun House. These initially follow the core path network before extending across open countryside and generally gaining in height. The landscape is characterised by sweeping moorland together with forestry plantations and Doughnot Hill provides a local destination for the experience of wilderness and
Page 21
because of the views from the summit. Panoramic views are provided from this location across the Kilpatrick Hills and towards the National Park. The applicant recognises that this viewpoint has a high susceptibility to change as those who experience this view would be engaging in outdoor recreation and are likely to have a specific focus on the scenery and surrounding landscape. The EIA identifies that the combination of the high susceptibility to change of the view and its medium-high value results in a high sensitivity for this viewpoint. 8.25 The proposed turbines would, on the basis of the applicant’s submitted visuals, comprise an extremely dominant feature within the landscape at this location. They will impact upon the views over the local landscape and most notably compromise the views to the northwest towards Loch Lomond and the wider National Park area. The overall experience of recreational receptors at Doughnot Hill and the surrounding area would be significantly changed by the development with the overall sense of isolation being lost. Whilst not included in the visuals, in addition to the turbines themselves, the network of tracks together with the battery storage site would introduce further visual man-made clutter which is not presently experienced in the natural landscape. It is likely that that similar impacts would be experienced from elsewhere within the Kilpatrick Hills 8.26 Within the wider landscape, a variety of core paths are found, and these facilitate recreational use. Many of these extend out from the built-up area where usage is likely to be high with those from the urban area utilising paths close to home and the magnitude of change experienced by users is likely to be substantial and the visual impact high. Scotways objects to application noting the adverse impact on the recreational amenity of the area. Landscape and Visual Impact: Impact upon residential properties and settlements 8.27 The applicant identifies 12 residential properties that lie within 2km of the development site, the closest of which is Braeburn Cottage at 1.77kms. A Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) has been provided by the applicant in respect of these properties. All but one of these properties are located along Auchencarroch Road to the northwest of the proposed site. The final property is Highdykes Farm which is accessed from Broomhill Crescent to the southwest of the site. Properties would experience varying degrees of visual impact as a result of the proposed wind turbines. Some properties would experience impacts limited to only a small number of turbines, or parts of turbines including hubs and some blades whilst other properties, most notably Highdykes Farm despite not being the closest residential property at 1.86kms away, would experience views of all turbines and sometimes viewing much of the structures themselves with limited screening. Properties would also experience nighttime visual impacts from the visible aviation lighting required on account of the height of the proposed turbines. 8.28 The RVAA indicates that seven of the 12 properties included are likely to experience a significant visual effect as a result of the proposed development. Of these seven properties, one would have a high magnitude of change (Highdykes Farm). The RVAA found that the effect on this property would not reach the Residential Visual Amenity Threshold due to the location of the turbines in a peripheral aspect of the view, so that the key open view from the property would not be directly affected. It has therefore been concluded that despite the effect of views of the turbines together with the impacts associated with the visible aviation lighting, this property, as well as others in West Dunbartonshire, will not experience such impacts as would be described as exceeding the threshold of residential visual amenity. The battery storage and other ancillary developments are not of a scale and nature likely to result in any notable impacts on residential visual amenity.
Page 22
8.29 Turning to the impact upon settlements, it is clear that the proposed turbines would have a visual impact from the built-up area within West Dunbartonshire. Viewpoint 3 considers the impact from a location beside the A82 near Lomondgate on the north- western edge of Dumbarton. In the submitted EIA, the applicant sets out that the proposed turbines are 3.8 kms away from this viewpoint and that the urban edge is characterised by woodland. The majority of nearby views, including views from properties, are likely to have some degree of screening by vegetation. The EIA identifies that the effect on this view would be major and significant. This is due to a combination of the factors that lead to the medium-high magnitude of change on the view and the high sensitivity of the viewpoint. The proposed turbines would be very readily apparent at reasonably close proximity with some turbines seen at nearly full height on the skyline, increasing their vertical impact. The turbines would not be seen in the context of the elevated and distinctively upland landscape of the Kilpatrick Hills, but appear at a lower elevation, with the hill landform screened by intervening woodland. This has the potential to result in a perceived lack of separation, whereby the turbines appear to be seen in the same context as the viewpoint. 8.30 Viewpoint 5 considers the impact within the Vale of Leven at a location on the A811 in Alexandria / Balloch and here, the proposed turbines are identified as being 4.3kms away. This urban area is characterised by trees and woodland, and the majority of nearby views, including views from properties, are likely to have some degree of screening or filtering by vegetation as shown in the photomontage. The EIA identifies that the effect of the turbines on this view would be major and significant due to a combination of the factors. The Kilpatrick Hills currently provide an undeveloped backdrop to the largely urban outlook and the proposed development would introduce large-scale development into this backdrop. The turbines would be seen in the context of foreground residential development, with which scale contrasts may arise. 8.31 For the previous planning application proposal considered in 2013 it was concluded that the whilst the location of the wind farm is such that it will be visible from residential areas of West Dunbartonshire, including Balloch, Alexandria and Dumbarton the impact on these settlements was not considered to be unacceptable, The current proposal sees turbines within largely the same location but to a height more than double that previously proposed (250m compared to 110m previously). It is likely that for receptors within these settlements, attention will be drawn to the turbines on the hill to the north and the impact will be notable. Given the height of the turbines now proposed, it is considered that the scale of the proposal will comprise a considerable feature which has the potential to impact upon a considerable number of receptors including both residents together with those visiting and passing through these towns. 8.32 In their consultation response which objects to the proposal, The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority highlight that the settlements of Balmaha (viewpoint 17), Croftamie, Drymen (viewpoint 14), Gartocharn and Balloch would be subject to significant effects. The impact upon the National Park is considered in detail in paragraphs 8.38 to 8.46 below. Whilst not objecting to the proposal, Inverclyde Council have expressed significant concern regarding the proposal noting that views outwards from Inverclyde are important to both tourists and residents alike. They are an environmental and scenic tourism resource. It is such outlooks that assist Inverclyde in attracting tourists, both day-trippers and passing through. The views have helped the area to stage major events such as The Tall Ships Race and provide a backdrop for the many tourists arriving on cruise ships at Ocean Terminal travelling on to Glasgow. Inverclyde Council therefore set out the desire for these to view to be retained and is concerned the proposed development would impact on them to their detriment. The potential impact upon the timber ponds at Parklea is raised as a
Page 23
concern as would the significant impact on the skyline when viewed from Port Glasgow (viewpoint 18) and Greenock (viewpoint 25). It is concluded by Inverclyde Council that the proposal would be out of scale with the surrounding topography to the extent it would impact negatively on the views from Inverclyde and from the Firth of Clyde. 8.33 Overall, it is considered that the proposal has the potential to result in wide ranging significant and adverse visual impact from a variety of locations. Landscape and Visual Impact - Landscape Character 8.34 Landscape character is the distinctive pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a landscape leading to the way that it is perceived. Landscape sensitivity is concerns with the inherent character of the landscape and the likelihood that this character would be changed by the introduction of development. Landscape capacity refers to the degree to which a particular landscape type or area is able to accommodate change without significant effects on its character, or overall change of landscape character type. As the ZTV for the proposed development would extend over a wide area, it would have an impact on numerous different landscapes. The NatureScot 2019 dataset divides the landscape into tracts that are referred to as landscape character types (LCTs). Ten LCTs are included in the detailed assessment within the EIA due to level of influence and visibility of the proposed development. The EIA identifies the vast majority of the proposed development lies within Rugged Moorland Hills LCT. This designation covers the southern part of the Kilpatrick Hills, as well as parts of the Campsies/Kilsyth Hills and Renfrewshire Heights. The proposal would be seen as a new man-made element within the open hills and may affect the sense of scale of the landscape. 8.35 The applicant’s EIA sets out that the effects on the Kilpatrick Hills element of Rugged Moorland Hills LCT would vary. The effect on southern and south-eastern parts are considered not to be significant due to lack of or very limited visibility and influence of the proposed development. The EIA does highlight that there would, however, be a major or major/moderate and significant effect on the Site area itself and the areas in closer proximity that gain visibility of the majority of the proposal. Whilst the EIA contends that the “sense of apparent naturalness, wild character and remoteness” of the northern part of the Kilpatrick Hills has been affected by the Auchencarroch Recycling and Resource Management Facility, which lies approximately 500m to the north of the nearest turbine in the proposed development, the Council considers that this facility does not form a prominent feature within the landscape which impacts upon the Kilpatrick Hills beyond its immediate setting and the topography of the site reduces its impact. 8.36 In further considering the range of LCT assessed within the EIA, significant effects within part of the area are identified within Lowland Hill Fringes – Central, Lowland Loch Basin – Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, Lowland Loch Basin – Islands, Open Ridgeland – Glasgow and Clyde Valley, River Valley Farmland and Estates, Rolling Farmland – Glasgow and Clyde Valley and Rolling Farmland - Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. In their consultation response, the National Park Authority also highlight Highland summits and Steep Ridges and Hills LCT noting that as illustrated in Viewpoint 29 from Ben Lomond the turbines would appear very noticeable in the lower- lying backdrop to Loch Lomond. The introduction of large-scale industrial infrastructure would detract from the appreciation of several key characteristics that exhibit a semi- natural, natural and/or wild and rugged character. Significant effects are predicted on open parts, including from Ben Lomond. 8.37 It is considered that there would be potential for a significant impact on the character of the landscape. The scale of the turbines proposed is such that there are no existing
Page 24
features in the landscape which are of a similar size or scale. The development comprises extremely large turbines which are more likely to be suited to areas where they may benefit from separation distance between communities and sensitive receptors without exerting an inappropriate influence on the sensitivities of the Kilpatrick Hills. Inappropriately scaled and sited turbines have the potential to diminish the apparent scale of landscapes to the detriment of landscape character, and also to impinge upon the appreciation of the landscape from viewpoints valued for their scenic qualities. Landscape and Visual Impact - Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 8.38 The application site is located around 1.7km from the edge of the National Park boundary, which is one of only two National Parks in Scotland. In their consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, both the National Park Authority and NatureScot object to the proposal. The Park note that it was consulted on the previous proposal for a wind farm in the Kilpatrick Hills, raising an objection due to the predicted significant adverse visual impact. The Park specifically note that the turbines now proposed would be up to 250m to blade tip height which is more than double the height of the previous proposal. Currently, the closest operational windfarm to the southern boundary of the National Park, is Corlic Hill/Inverclyde which is 14km southeast and has 8 turbines which are 110m high to blade tip. Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot consider that the location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in respect of the proximity and prominence of wind farms to the National Park, and the scale of the wind turbines (being more than twice the size of the closest operational wind farm). 8.39 Although the National Park is not itself a landscape designation, the landscape is one of the main reasons for which the Loch Lomond and Trossachs area is designated as a National Park. National Parks are defined as extensive areas of the very highest value to the nation for their scenery and wildlife, and their cultural value. The Park is valued for the scenic quality of its landscape due to its diverse landscape character. Some of the special qualities identified in the Park include diverse landscapes and diverse experiences, mountains and moorlands. Whilst the Kilpatrick Hills are outwith the National Park boundary, they contribute to the landscape setting of the National Park, appearing as a natural landscape boundary close to its southern edge. NatureScot notes that the size of the proposed turbines and their anticipated prominence in southward views on the skyline formed by the Kilpatrick Hills would conflict with the current expansive large scale of the landscape where human elements are currently small in scale. 8.40 In the consultation response from the National Park Authority it is highlighted that the Special Landscape Qualities of Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Report 2010 commissioned by NatureScot defines special landscape qualities as the characteristics that, individually or combined, give rise to an area’s outstanding scenery. The general special landscape qualities which apply to the entire National Park are: • A world renowned landscape famed for its natural beauty; • Tranquillity; • Wild and rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands; • Settlements nestled within a vast backdrop; • Famous through routes; and • The easily accessible landscape splendour. 8.41 The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) predicts significant effects on two Special Landscape Qualities (SLQ) within the National Park. The first of
Page 25
these is Wild and rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands where it is set out that the proposal would have some effect on the perceived wildness of upland landscapes. The second is Immensity of loch and landscape where the applicant judges the effect to significant as while the majority of this SLQ would not be affected, in areas where they are clearly apparent the turbines can lead to scale comparisons that alter the baseline perception of the “Immensity of loch and landscape”. 8.42 Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot consider the applicant’s assessment of the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park underplays the significance of effects. In the consultation response, it is set out that National Park Authority’s Landscape Adviser predicts significant effects on these and an additional eight of the Special Landscape Qualities as follows: • A world-renowned landscape famed for its rural beauty • Settlements nestled within a vast natural backdrop • Famous through routes/ The easily accessible landscape splendour • Tranquillity • Two lochs in one • A multitude of beautiful islands • Ben Lomond, widely known, popularly frequented • Banks of broadleaved woodland 8.43 The Park Authority’s consultation response goes on to set out that with a very intrusive and industrial appearance, the proposed turbines would significantly detract from, contrast with and often compromise a very number of Special Landscape Qualities and key characteristics that are integral to defining this iconic part of the National Park. “Settlements nestled within a vast natural backdrop” is highlighted as an example in the response including the southern setting of Loch Lomond and the surrounding rural landscape. This area has a long and rich history of habitation with houses and other structures confined to lower-lying land. These settlements are often small-scale, nestled within the backdrop of vast landforms of mountain, hill, glen and loch. This gives a strong sense of surrounding, all-enveloping nature which would be fundamentally compromised by the introduction of highly intrusive turbines. This includes the settlements of Balmaha, Croftamie, Drymen, Gartocharn and Balloch which would be subject to significant effects. 8.44 Similarly, “Immensity of loch and landscape”, with Loch Lomond being the largest expanse of freshwater in Britain with surrounding mountains and hill ranges, the landscape and sense of place is expansive and large-scale. By comparison, human made elements appear small and modest, they are barely discernible against the larger backdrop and substantial horizontal landmass. With the introduction of highly intrusive turbines, the naturally majestic surroundings where human made elements appear small and modest would be fundamentally compromised, as would the enjoyment of the highly scenic setting provided by the wide range of recreational infrastructure around the loch, affecting the experience of a very large number of people. NatureScot are also concerned at the impact upon this Special Landscape Quality noting that the size of the proposed turbines and their anticipated prominence in southward views on the skyline formed by the Kilpatrick Hills would conflict with the current expansive large scale of the landscape where human elements are currently small in scale. The effect would be significant within the southern area of the Park. NatureScot go on to consider that a further five SLQs would experience significant effects as follows: 8.45 The National Park Authority recognise the key strategic role that renewable energy development has to play in addressing the climate crisis but consider the proposal to present a significant visual intrusion, including on some of the most iconic views
Page 26
enjoyed by visitors and our communities. Both the National Park and NatureScot consider that there would be significant adverse effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park and the Landscape Character Types which define what is so unique about the National Park. The Park Authority also consider that the proposal will have a significant detrimental effect on a number of settlements in the National Park and the experience of views of walking routes, road routes and viewpoints popular with both visitors and residents in the Park. NatureScot go on to conclude that they consider that the adverse effects from the proposal are unlikely to be overcome through re-design or removal of turbines. 8.46 Whilst it is accepted that the proposed turbines will not be visible or prominent from large parts of the Park due to its location and the distances involved, it will be extremely visible from some of the most important, iconic and popular areas such as from the Loch itself, Luss, Conic Hill and parts of the West Highland Way. Although the EIA concludes that only two of the Special Landscape Qualities of the Park will be significantly affected, it is considered that the actual impact will be far greater and this view is strongly supported by both NatureScot and the National Park Authority in their objections to the Scottish Ministers. Being guided by the detailed assessment undertaken by both the National Park Authority and NatureScot, it is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental and unacceptable impact due to the significant adverse impacts on the landscape setting of the National Park and it is concluded that the potentially significant impacts on the Park resulting from the proposal are not in doubt. Landscape and Visual Impact - National Scenic Areas (NSA) 8.47 NSAs are defined as areas of outstanding scenic value in a national context. There are three NSAs within the 45km ZTV. These are: Kyles of Bute NSA, Loch Lomond NSA and The Trossachs NSA. The Kyles of Bute NSA lies at least 37km to the west of the proposal and is shown to gain no theoretical visibility. The Trossachs NSA is at least 23.5km north-north-east and is shown to gain minimal theoretical visibility, restricted to localised high points, including Ben Venue (Viewpoint 31). These two locations are not assessed any further in the EIA and there is no objection to this approach. Loch Lomond NSA is located within National Park. 8.48 Whilst it is accepted that the proposed wind farm would not be visible from large parts of the NSA, it would be highly visible from some of the most important, iconic and popular areas within the NSA. It is considered that due to the extent of the area that the wind farm will be visible from and the importance of these locations such as on the Loch itself, Balmaha Harbour and Luss within the NSA, With the concerns regarding the impact upon the National Park itself, it follows that there are also concerns regarding the potentially detrimental and unacceptable impact on the landscape setting of Loch Lomond NSA. Landscape and Visual Impact - Kilpatrick Hills LLA 8.49 The Kilpatrick Hills stretch from Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven in the west to Strathblane in the east. The rugged upland landscape provides a stunning backdrop to the settlements which fringe them, including Balloch, Bonhill and Dumbarton. To the north of the hills lies the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The Kilpatrick Hills form a distinctive rugged upland landscape, inextricably linked with their surroundings: ‘borrowed’ views, unique and relatively accessible panoramas, and a plethora of high-quality vistas, both to and from the Kilpatrick Hills, make the area key to defining the identity of nearby settlements and in providing a setting for nationally important landscapes. The local landscape identity of the Kilpatrick Hills is focused around prominent hills, escarpments, plateau moorland and the abrupt transition from surrounding urban areas and farmed lower slopes. There is a high perceived quality of
Page 27
wildness and sense of apparent naturalness and remoteness, particularly in the central areas of the Kilpatrick Hills, derived in part from the limited visual influence of modern development, in contrast to nearby urban areas. 8.50 Within West Dunbartonshire, the following special landscape qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills are identified as being of special interest: Strong sense of remoteness, wildness and open horizons; Distinctive landforms; and A unique diversity of views. The proposed wind farm will be located within the Kilpatrick Hills LLA and will result in direct changes to the landscape. The site is readily visible from a wide area and the EIA concludes that there would be significant effects on these SLQs. In relation to the first two SLQs, the influence of the proposal is identified as being more apparent in the north-western part of the LLA, where the proposal is located and from where it has the highest level of visibility. In the case of views towards the LLA, views from the area around the north-western part of the LLA would be most affected. In the case of the third SLQ, the accessibility of the routes themselves would not be physically affected, but views from the specific routes would be affected. 8.51 The scale of the turbines proposed is such that there are no existing features in the landscape which are of a similar size or scale. The proposed turbines will be a dominant feature within the LLA, particularly from areas close to the turbine locations. It is therefore likely that the LLA designation, based on the scenic attributes of the area, will be compromised. The Kilpatrick Hills form a distinctive rugged landscape, inextricably linked with their surroundings. They are relatively accessible, providing panoramas and a number of high-quality vistas, both from the LLA including Doughnot Hill (Viewpoint 1) and to other locations such as the National Park and the Loch Lomond NSA. They are a key backdrop which helps to define the identity of nearby settlements and provide a setting for the nearby nationally important landscapes. The wind farm would detract from the sense of remoteness and wildness provided by the Kilpatrick Hills. It is considered that locating a wind farm within the Kilpatrick Hills would have a significant impact on their setting and detract from their uniqueness. Landscape and Visual Impact - Regional/Country Parks 8.52 Balloch Castle Country Park is situated around 4km from the proposed site. Viewpoint 4 considered the visual impact from the Country Park. The EIA notes that the strong westwards orientation of landform and extensive woodland cover within the main part of the Park greatly limits visibility of the proposal with the chosen viewpoint being from the access road as it will be a view gained by a large number of visitors. The visual impact from the proposal development at this location is identified as having a significant effect due to a combination of the factors that lead to the medium-high magnitude of change on the view and the high sensitivity of the viewpoint. It is noted that visibility from the main part of the park is identified as being limited. The potential for impact upon the Balloch Castle Garden and Designed Landscape is discussed separately at paragraph 8.90. 8.53 The Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park is situated approximately 13km from the proposed site. Whilst the proposed wind farm may be visible from the Regional Park including from Misty Law (viewpoint 28), it is concluded in the EIA that the proposal would not have direct effects within the Park and would not significantly affect the priorities and objectives of the Park. It is agreed that it is not considered that there would be any significant or detrimental impact on the setting or character of the Regional Park. 8.54 The impact upon Mugdock Country Park around 10 km from the proposed site is considered in the EIA and it is concluded that a combination of limited theoretical visibility and screening by woodland and forestry within and around the Park would ensure that actual visibility is likely to be very limited. A viewpoint location was sought
Page 28
but could not be identified due to lack of visibility. Gleniffer Braes Country Park is some 18km from the application site and is not considered in the EIA. Due to the distance, it is not considered there would be any potential for any significant impact. Landscape and Visual Impact – Cumulative Impacts 8.55 The proposal would be the first wind farm development to be located in the Kilpatrick Hills, so there would be no localised cumulative impacts. The LVIA concludes that there would be no significant cumulative effects arising either from the combined effects of all wind farms, including the proposal, or from the addition of the proposal to other wind farms, and as a result, it would not lead to a perception that views or landscape character are defined by the presence or influence of more than one wind farm. It is considered that the site is physically and visually well separated from other large scale wind farm developments. Overall, no cumulative change of significance is identified in respect of the Kilpatrick Hills, although the proposal could set a precedent and could have future cumulative consequences for the Kilpatrick Hills and/or the National Park through wind turbine developments. Designated sites 8.56 Whilst there are no statutory nature conservation designations within the site, the proposed site lies within 100m of two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These are Dumbarton Muir SSSI to the east and the smaller Auchenreoch Glen SSSI to the southwest. The EIA sets out that Auchenreoch Glen SSSI is located 68m from the site boundary and 98m from the route of the proposed access track. Given the distance to the SSSI and the nature of construction works on the site access, it is not expected there would be any adverse effects on the qualifying features of this SSSI which comprise lowland calcareous grassland, and springs (including flushes) and it is scoped out of the assessment. Dumbarton Muir SSSI is designated for its blanket bog and raised bog habitats. This SSSI is 75m from the application site and the closest proposed infrastructure to the SSSI is the turning head to for turbine 4 located 94m away. The EIA concludes that it is not expected there would be any adverse effects on the qualifying features of this SSSI. Both SSSIs are scoped out of further assessment. NatureScot are satisfied that these sites will not be adversely affected by the proposal. 8.57 Five other SSSIs are identified in the EIA as being locations within 5km of the application site however it is considered that there is no connectivity between t these designated sites and as such they are scoped-out of the assessment. Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC), classified for its salmon, river lamprey and brook lamprey populations, is 6.8 km downstream of the Proposed Development with partial hydrological connectivity. Given the distances from the Site the EIA does not anticipate that any potential effects would materialise on these designated sites, and as such they are scoped-out of the assessment. NatureScot concludes that they consider it unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly. 8.58 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that the applicant fails to consider or assess local designations relative to the proposed site. It is identified that there are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which would be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly. These are Murroch Glen, Blairvault Burn and Pappert Muir, Auchenreoch Muir Bonhill Muir and Pappert Hill, and West Dumbarton Muir. It therefore cannot be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites. Habitat 8.59 The proposed site comprises primarily open upland habitats, with blanket bog and marshy grassland predominant and accounting for over 73% of the application site.
Page 29
The remaining area is made up of smaller proportions of many other habitat types such as wet dwarf shrub heath, wet modified bog, acid grassland, flushes and bracken. Direct impacts upon habitats are those which would arise from the land taken for the development (i.e. the habitats lost to create turbine bases, tracks, borrow pits etc.), whereas possible indirect impacts might include changes to hydrology due to site drainage, pollution of watercourses from spillages or run-off, and fragmentation of habitats as a result of track construction. The EIA identified that over 10.3 ha of various habitat types would be directly lost as a result of the proposed development. For the majority of habitat types, no concerns arise in respect of the potential impact and these are scoped out. 8.60 One area of ancient woodland falls within the application boundary, and this is identified as an important ecological feature. The woodland in question is where the site access is proposed to pass through a narrow strip of woodland known as Barr Wood. The EIA identifies 0.06hn direct habitat loss to access track infrastructure. The EIA sets out that the area of ancient woodland to be directly impacted by the development is primarily comprised of beech with some Scots pine, some immature birch and a single oak. Due to grazing, there is no underscrub vegetation or regenerating trees/saplings present. The loss of a narrow of woodland is not considered by the EIA to lead to any notable potential fragmentation effects. Overall, the EIA concludes the effect on Ancient Woodland to be minor adverse to not significant. 8.61 Blanket Bog and Wet Modified Bog are also identified as important ecological features. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that Blanket Bog is a priority habitat for conservation on the Scottish Biodiversity list and also a UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat for conservation. Blanket bog vegetation coverage is also essential for the peat development underneath. The proposed development would result in direct and indirect habitat loss for blanket bog and wet modified bog habitats. Direct loss would occur in areas where permanent infrastructure such as access tracks, turbine foundations, and hardstandings are sited on these habitat types. The excavation of these habitat types for temporary infrastructure would also lead to the losses of blanket bog and wet modified bog due to the long-term effect on the ecological and hydrological structure and function of these habitat types. In addition, there may be indirect losses as a result of drainage around infrastructure and disruption to hydrological flows and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that blanket bog is particularly susceptible to changes in hydrology and any impact for foundations and access should be approached cautiously. NatureScot consider the loss of blanket bog and wet modified bog and makes recommendations in respect of the proposed levels of restoration to achieve offsetting. 8.62 The EIA is informed by a detailed review of the distribution and depth of peat at the site and the site design has largely avoided areas of deep peat. Where peat would be encountered by the proposed development, the EIA details that this can be readily managed and accommodated within the layout without significant environmental impact. A Peat Management Plan has been submitted by the applicant and this details how peat and carbon rich resources on site can be safeguarded. No surplus peat would be generated, and the limited volumes of peat generated from the proposed excavations would be used to reinstate track verges, turbine bases, crane hardstandings and restoration of onsite borrow pits. 8.63 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer further considers peatland habitat and notes that a peatland restoration programme on the vast swathes of class 2 peatlands would be more impactful in terms of net zero commitments and would provide an abundance of biodiversity benefit whilst retaining the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills. The
Page 30
Biodiversity Officer goes on to highlight that there is no data provided by the applicant for 0.5m to 1m depth which is the national standard for determining deep peat. Only peat depths of over 1m have been provided. It is noted that Turbine 2 is to be situated on Class 2 peat and Turbine 4 on Class 1 peat. An estimate of 18% habitat loss is noted, regardless of mitigation or enhancements. Nature Scot also highlights the requirements for greater ambition in terms of the extent of proposed peatland restoration and make a variety of recommendations in this respect. It is noted that 90ha of peatland restoration is offered by the applicant but NatureScot highlight that a figure of 200ha should be sought. 8.64 Overall, it is considered that subject to suitable mitigation measures including a habitat management plan together with the following the recommendations from NatureScot being followed, specifically with reference to peatland restoration, and the Scottish Ministers ensuring that the impact upon peatland is fully understood taking account of the comments of the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and minimised as much as possible, the impact of the proposal upon habitats would likely be acceptable. Protected and other ecological species 8.65 Informed by an initial desk study, a protected species field survey has been undertaken. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that the survey work focusses on ornithology and the various surveys highlight the wealth of the species found within the Kilpatrick Hills and demonstrate the importance of the vast open habitat that the species recorded require to support them. No field signs of water vole, pine martin or red squirrel were found on site. Seven features with the potential for use as holts by otter were recorded. None of these features fell within 200m of the application boundary. Several of the burns within the survey area were found to have good suitability for otter, with trees and gullies providing shelter. Four badger setts were identified, two outlier setts and two larger ones for which the status could not be determined. None of the badger setts or signs recorded are within 100m of the application boundary. Potential feeding signs were recorded within woodland in Gllangad Glen and along Finland Burn. Pathways used by badgers were recorded in woodland around Finland Burn and on the edge of Nobleston Wood. A variety of features offer good suitability for badgers. Turning to reptiles, two common lizard sightings were recorded, all in the southern part of the survey area. Twelve potential hibernacula features were also recorded. These were mostly attributed to dry stone wall features and rock piles. Several of the potential hibernacula features recorded were within the application boundary. Two mammal holes, one within and one outwith the application boundary, were identified but no specific signs of protected species signs were identified, as well as two well-used mammal pathways. 8.66 Considering bats, a preliminary bat roost assessment was undertaken in July 2020 and March 2022. There were 42 features recorded with potential suitability for roosting bats, all being tree features. No key features that could support maternity roosts and significant hibernation and/or swarming sites were recorded within 200m plus rotor radius of a proposed wind turbine location. 8.67 In further considering bats, once operational there is a known risk of commuting and foraging bats colliding with turbine blades and for bats to be affected by barotrauma when flying in close proximity to moving turbine blades. Bat detectors at 13 locations within the site were deployed from May to September in 2020 over a total period of 42 days, with bats detected on all of the 42 nights. A total of four bat species and two genera were recorded for these locations. Clearly bat activity exists within the area and it is set out in the EIA that mitigation to avoid collisions will include the feathering of blades whilst idling. The EIA concludes that with proposed mitigation, the effect significance of bat collision risk is considered minor adverse and not significant.
Page 31
8.68 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that a variety of bat species have been recorded in the area in the last 15 years. NatureScot also consider bats in their consultation reply and welcome the proposed mitigation. They note there is no mention of the standard 50m buffer between blade tips and high-value bat habitats, however, and they recommend that it would be helpful to obtain clarification on whether this this form of mitigation is also included. NatureScot also recommend that a detailed post- construction bat monitoring plan should be submitted to and approved by the planning authority prior to development commencing. Subject to following the recommendations of NatureScot, the impact upon bats would be considered acceptable. 8.69 Watercourses within the application boundary form tributaries to Murroch Burn to the south, which feeds into the River Leven and the Clyde estuary, and Gallangad Burn to the north, feeding into the Endrick Water. The applicant’s protected species survey noted that consultation with the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust (LLFT) undertaken as part of the 2011 Merkins Wind Farm Environmental Statement suggested that although the watercourses in the north of the Site have connectivity to the River Endrick, waterfalls in the Finland Burn and the upper reaches of the Catter Burn are likely to act as a barrier to Atlantic salmon and lamprey. LLFT suggested that only resident brown trout populations are likely to be present. The River Endrick is over 6.8 km from the proposed development. 8.70 The Murroch Burn was surveyed and contains populations of both brown trout and salmon. It is considered that subject to good practice measures to prevent pollution and changes to hydrology it is considered that the impact on fish life within and downstream of the site would be minimal. Deer are likely to use the area but effects on deer are also scoped out of the assessment. With no deer fencing proposed as part of the development, deer may use and pass through uninhibited with the only potential disturbance being during the construction phase. 8.71 Considering ecological species in general, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer notes that the open moorland has been shown by the relevant species surveys to be valuable wildlife habitat that supports a number of protected ground nesting birds, raptors, mammals. It is the nature of the undisturbed open ground that contributes to making the habitat suitable for these species. The suite of upland habitat types found in the Kilpatrick Hills and the habitat connectivity to the wider landscape is the reason for the wealth of species found here. Although much of the area has previously been modified for agriculture and forestry, there are still large swathes of natural priority habitat types that are untouched, and these must be protected from inappropriate development. It is the value of the habitat and the vast open space of the Kilpatrick Hills that allows it to host such valuable species, many of which are of conservation concern. Opening up of access over this land will change the recreational value of this site. It is likely to be easier to access from both the main access route and from the northwest in from Pappert Wood. This additional disturbance, could include additional walkers, cyclists, trail bikes and dogs onto the site which would reduce its value as an open habitat and breeding site for ground nesting birds. 8.72 Overall, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers in determining the application will fully consider the points highlighted by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, ensure identified mitigation measures are taken forward, follow the recommendations set out in NatureScot’s consultation response and require the implementation of a suitable Habitat Management Plan to ensure any effects of the development are minimised. The Councils Biodiversity Officer also specifically highlights the requirement for species protection plans and these would be expected. With this approach, the impacts of the proposed development upon protected species and wider ecology could be
Page 32
considered acceptable. It remains, however, that as highlighted in paragraph 8.58 it cannot currently be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites Any potential impacts upon ecology within these would require to be suitably considered and addressed. Ornithology 8.73 In order to determine baseline conditions to inform the ornithology impact assessment, field surveys were undertaken following NatureScot guidance between March 2019 to August 2022. Data collected between September 2008 to August 2009 for the Merkins Windfarm proposal was also considered as part of the baseline. A wide range of species were scoped out from further assessment for a range of reasons where it was concluded that adverse effects were considered very unlikely. Osprey, Goshawk and Black Grouse were identified as having potential for significant effects from the proposal and these were further assessed. In terms of ornithological impact relating to designated sites, The EIA advises that it was agreed during consultation with NatureScot that all designated sites, with the exception of the Loch Lomond SPA/ Ramsar site and Endrick Mouth and Islands SSSI can be scoped out due to a lack of potential connectivity. It is further set out that NatureScot advised that the breeding capercaillie designated feature of the Loch Lomond SPA should also be scoped out, leaving the remaining designated feature, non-breeding Greenland white-fronted goose, to be assessed. 8.74 The habitat within and directly surrounding the proposed development comprises mainly blanket bog and heather moorland without waterbodies, which is considered to be of limited suitability to foraging geese. It is also assessed as being likely that the Loch Lomond SPA and Ramsar site population is relatively sedentary throughout the winter, and as such, connectivity with the application site, and therefore displacement, barrier effects or collision impacts are very unlikely. it can be reasonably concluded that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of Loch Lomond SPA / Ramsar site, and no further consideration is required. 8.75 Two pairs of ospreys are identified as breeding in forestland 2.5 km northeast from all proposed infrastructure. As no turbine locations or infrastructure is situated within 750m of either nest location, construction disturbance will not directly affect osprey nesting. A BBPP would be in place to ensure that any future osprey breeding activity is undisturbed during the construction phase. A pair of goshawks are also found to breed in forestland 2.9 km northeast from all proposed infrastructure. At this distance the EIA considers it is unlikely that this breeding location would be significantly affected by construction disturbance. As goshawks breed and forage in woodland, and the habitat within the Site is primarily composed of blanket bog and heather moorland without forested areas, it is not likely that goshawk would be directly affected by habitat loss during construction. 8.76 Baseline surveys in 2009 recorded one black grouse lekking area within the 1.5 km study area with one lek of up to six males and one female recorded at Auchenreoch ruins approximately 560m from the nearest proposed turbine (T8) and 300m from the proposed construction compound. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that the Black Grouse lek site is only 300m from proposed battery storage area and this is against recommended disturbance of a minimum of 500m. Surveys in 2019 recorded a pair of black grouse flying over Auchenreoch ruins in November and a single male flying over the site in May, but no lekking birds were recorded in either 2019 or 2022. The EIA considers that on balance it is likely that the local lek is now extinct, although it is possible that the site is still occasionally used by foraging or dispersing birds. Proposed mitigation includes pre-construction surveys and restriction measures within a BBPP which would avoid disturbance to any lekking or breeding birds, should pre-
Page 33
construction surveys record them within 750m of planned construction activities, including the construction compound. 8.77 Considering collision potential during the operational phase, the collision risks for the three species were assessed as follows: • Osprey – One bird every 47 years • Goshawk – One bird every 88 years • Black Grouse – No collision risk identified 8.78 These risks are statistically insignificant in terms of the bird populations concerned. No notable concerns are identified in respect of potential displacement although Black Grouse could be impacted by noise from the sub-station. The EIA advises that there is little evidence to indicate that any species would be significantly impacted by wind turbine aviation lighting requirements Overall, the effects are identified as not being significant. 8.79 NatureScot in their consultation response do not raise notable concerns regarding Ornithology but make recommendations in respect of Black Grouse and the sub- station. It is noted that the RSPB offer no objections to the proposal, noting the biodiversity net gain proposals and recommend that the finalised biodiversity enhancement management plan is secured by condition. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that a range of ornithological species are round within the area including black grouse, goshawk, golden plover, hen harrier, herring, gull, osprey, pink footed goose. Moorland breeding birds including curlew, snipe and lapwing were also recorded. Breeding snipe have been recorded close to the positions of turbines 1, 2, 5 and 6. Breeding ground habitat suitability for merlin and hen harrier were also identified. 8.80 Overall, subject to appropriate mitigation and protection plans being secured in conjunction with the position set out in paragraph 8.72 above, it is considered that the impact of the development upon ornithological interests would be acceptable. Biodiversity Enhancement 8.81 It is expected that wide ranging biodiversity enhancements are embedded into the final detail of the proposal, if approved. Points with regard to enhancements from peatland restoration are addressed in paragraphs 8.63 and 8.64 above. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that as part of proposed enhancements native woodland planting areas are proposed outside of development site boundary and this could lead to self-seeding on the adjacent SSSI which should remain as calcareous grassland. Woodland block proposals could also be detrimental to proposed calcareous grassland management and may also impact upon wetland flush areas. A Biodiversity Management Plan should further include a detailed management plan for all protected species on site. The Scottish Ministers should ensure that proposed biodiversity enhancement proposals are both secured and appropriate, if minded to grant the proposed development. Hydrological & Hydrogeological Impact 8.82 It is indicated by the applicant in the EIA that the proposed wind farm layout has been designed to minimise impacts upon geological, hydrological and hydrogeological constraints identified, with a variety of design iterations having been considered to avoid or minimise likely effects. The impacts upon watercourses are considered within the EIA with proposed mitigation to minimise impact including maintaining a 50m buffer zone between watercourses and other development. It is set out that in addition to good construction practices and methodologies, detailed design and construction
Page 34
practices would need to consider the particular ground conditions and the specific works at each location throughout the construction period. An experienced and qualified engineering geologist/geotechnical engineer would also be appointed as a supervisor. The EIA indicates that measures for dealing with pollution / sediment and flood risk during construction will be addressed via a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a site specific drainage plan would be produced. Water quality monitoring during the construction phase would be undertaken for the surface water catchments to ensure no adverse impacts. This monitoring scheme would also allow the quality of water draining toward Dumbarton Muir SSSI and Auchenreoch Glen SSSI to be assessed and quantified. 8.83 The proposal will incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to attenuate run off and intercept sediment prior to run off entering watercourses. Due to the underlying geology of the site, there is relatively low infiltration and relatively high run off rates at present and over the whole of the site the new areas of hardstanding would cover a minimal proportion of the ground, so it is not considered that there is any likelihood of causing flooding. Various mitigation measures are proposed to avoid pollution and sedimentation of the water environment. SEPA do not object to the proposal, provided that in the event of planning permission being granted, a condition is attached which requires the submission of a surface water management plan. The Council’s Roads Service also do not raise an objection on flooding grounds but advise that if permission is given the applicant would require to demonstrate that the proposed development would not increase the flood risk downstream. Four new watercourse crossings are required and it is indicated that the crossings would be designed to pass the 200 year flood event. During the operational phase routine maintenance of infrastructure is expected such as maintaining access roads and drainage and carrying out maintenance of turbines. Should any maintenance be required onsite during the operational life of the project which would involve construction activities; mitigation measures would be adhered to along with the measures in the final CEMP to avoid potential effects. The EIA concludes that no significant residual effects on soils and peat, geology, surface water or groundwater receptors are predicted during the construction and operational periods of the development. Overall it is considered that with appropriate mitigation and the Scottish Ministers addressing a variety of matters by condition, the impact on hydrology and hydrogeology would be acceptable. Management of Peat/Soil 8.84 Works within peat bog areas can cause instability within the surrounding peat and result in peat slides, which seriously degrade peatland habitat. A Peat Landslide and Hazard Risk Assessment has been prepared by the applicant to assess and show how peat landslide risk is mitigated. The Assessment sets out the complicated inter- relationship between all the aspects that have an effect on the stability of peat. The overall conclusion regarding peat stability is that there are minimal areas of medium risk of peat instability across the proposed development and most have been avoided during the design process. Four medium risk areas are identified and for these, a hazard impact assessment was completed and this concluded that with suitable mitigation measures, all of the areas can be considered as an insignificant risk. Additional mitigation measures are further proposed in the areas where hazards are identified, despite these hazards being insignificant. This will further reduce the risk. to further reduce the risk of potential hazards occurring. Mitigation includes an experienced geologist/geotechnical engineer being appointed to supervise and provide advice during the setting out, micrositing and construction phases of the proposed development. Drainage measures which seek to avoid saturation of peat would also be implemented. The Energy Consents Unit commissioned Ironside Farrar Ltd to technically assess the Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment and this assessment concludes the approach is sufficiently robust in all respects and although
Page 35
some recommendations may be made for clarity, no further revisions are required. Based on the information within the EIA Report and taking account of the view Specialist Consultants, it would appear risk of peat landslide is not likely to be high and the Council would accept the recommendations made as appropriate and do not raise any concerns regarding peat landslide hazard risks. It is therefore considered that subject to the implementation of suitable preventative measures, there should be no significant impacts on peat stability. Borrow Pits 8.85 The proposed development would require crushed stone to construct new tracks, create hardstanding areas for the cranes and lay the turbine foundations. To avoid the need to bring significant amounts of material to site from elsewhere, which would greatly increase construction traffic, and includes a proposal to form a number of borrow pits within the site. Borrow pits are small quarries used to obtain rock for construction of the wind farm, primarily in the formation of the access tracks. It is not proposed to retain any of the proposed borrow pits post-construction. Materials are available locally so any requirement for rock aggregate during the operational phase, which would likely be minimal, would be met from those sources. The EIA sets out that it is anticipated that there would be a planning condition imposed upon consent with a requirement to agree the approach to restoration. 8.86 The application submission does not identify precise locations for the borrow pits at this stage. It is set out in the application submission that locations for up to three borrow pits have been identified within identified search areas which have been chosen due to their low peat measurements and rock exposure. The precise siting and size of borrow pits could be dealt with by way of a planning condition, but as they are a significant part of the overall wind farm development proposal it is appropriate to consider their likely environmental impacts. 8.87 In terms of landscape and visual impacts, this is considered in detail in paragraphs 8.21 to 8.55 above for the development overall. Focusing on the borrow pits, each borrow pit would cover a relatively small area and it is likely that their visibility would be reduced by localised screening, topography, the muted colours of the rock, and horizon effects (i.e. when seen close to the horizon they would be hard to make out against the bright skyline). It is considered unlikely that there would be any impact on long-distance views of the site, and the visual impact of the borrow pits would be relatively minor compared to that of the wind turbines. Whilst the borrow pits could be visually intrusive depending on the final details on location and size, they would be most visible during construction, but over time any remaining exposed rock in the borrow pits would weather and vegetation would become re-established, making the borrow pits less prominent and more difficult to make out from the access track and surrounding land. The borrow pits would be seen in the context of other infrastructure works associated with the wind farm development such as access tracks. Whilst they would be visible, they would be seen as part of the overall site construction rather than as separate developments. The restoration of any borrow pits required on site could be dealt with by way of a planning condition. Overall, it is considered that the visual impact of the borrow pits would be acceptable. The ecological and habitat implications of the development as a whole is already assessed above. Built and Cultural Heritage 8.88 No historic buildings or monuments are located within the site, although it does contain areas of archaeological interest. In their consultation response to the Scottish Ministers, West of Scotland Archaeological Service advises that the construction of the
Page 36
turbines and their associated infrastructure is likely to have both a direct impact on heritage features present within the development area itself, and an indirect effect on the settings of sites present in the surrounding landscape. WOSAS consider that it is difficult to see how the effect of the proposed wind farm on the settings of sites in the surrounding landscape could be reduced or mitigated without substantial redesign to the location of the development or the height of the turbines. They go onto recommend that any granting of permission include a condition relating to a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation within the red line boundary. It is considered that the Scottish Ministers require to satisfy themselves that an appropriately robust approach is taken to securing the required archaeological works. 8.89 There are a number of scheduled monuments in the vicinity of the site, but there would be no direct impact on these from construction or operation of the wind farm. There would be a potential impact upon the setting of the Knockupple, long cairn and the Lang Cairn, chambered cairn and cairn at Gallangad Muir which are 1.2 km to the east of the nearest turbine, but whilst noting the potential adverse impact, Historic Environment Scotland have not objected to the proposal on this basis and it is not considered that the impact on these scheduled monuments would be unacceptable. 8.90 The wind farm would be visible from the category A listed Balloch Castle and associated garden and designed landscape which lies 4.28kms from the nearest turbine and locations which also have views of Balloch Castle such as Duck Bay. However, it is not considered that there would be a significant detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building or its associated designed landscape. The category A listed Overtoun House and associated garden and designed landscape is located 2.5 km south of the nearest proposed turbine. Whilst the wireframe diagrams indicate that the turbines would potentially be visible from this location, the photomontage indicate that at ground level these views are entirely screened by existing established landscape features. However, from the first floor of the building, in which there are principal rooms, the woodland screening would become less effective and there may be more visibility of the wind farm. The potential impacts on any important views from principal rooms has not been considered in the submitted EIA and the Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that the potential impacts are understood. 8.91 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have considered the proposal and in a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers they have considered the potential impact upon a variety of scheduled monuments, category A listed buildings and Garden and designed landscapes in the vicinity of the proposed development on which the proposals may have an impact. Having taken into account the information provided in the EIA Report, the supplied visualisations and HES’s own assessment, with the exception of Dumbarton Castle, the impacts of the proposed development are not considered to be of such significance as would warrant an objection from Historic Environment Scotland. HES’s position in this regard is accepted. 8.92 Considering the impact upon Dumbarton Castle, HES note that the EIA recognises that the presence of turbines in views of Dumbarton Castle from the south would challenge the dominance of the monument. The EIA goes on to suggest that views of the Castle from the south would only be impacted across a relatively small area and subsequently concludes that the proposed development would result in an adverse effect which is not significant. HES do not agree with this assessment and consider the impact to be underestimated. It is considered that proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the monument, adversely affecting key views from directly to its south. As demonstrated by the visualisations provided in support of the application, the turbines would appear above and be framed in wider views of
Page 37
monument. In some of these key views from the south the turbines would appear directly behind the monument. the turbines would create a very large visual distraction and become the most dominant features in these views. Consequently, HES consider the development would significantly and adversely impact on the ability to experience, understand and appreciate this key feature of the setting of the monument. The scale of impacts would significantly adversely affect the integrity of the setting of the monument when viewed from the south and would be of a magnitude to raise issues of national interest. HES consider the proposed Vale of Leven Wind Farm to be contrary to national policy as set out in the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland and NPF4 because of its adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle. Accordingly, they object to the proposed development. 8.93 It is clear that the proposed development would have the potential to impact upon a variety of built and cultural heritage designations and assets. Having fully reviewed this potential and being guided by the position of Historic Environment Scotland and West of Scotland Archaeological Service, it is considered that there would not be significant detrimental impact on the majority of the designations and assets. However, the serious concerns of Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle are noted and HES object on this basis. Being guided by the position of HES, the impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and key historic national asset within West Dunbartonshire is therefore clearly of significant concern and cannot be considered acceptable. Residential Amenity 8.94 Residential amenity can be affected in a variety of ways. This includes noise from construction and operation of the proposed windfarm and associated development, shadow flicker from individual turbines as they rotate and impacts on air quality affecting adjacent residential areas. 8.95 In first considering air quality, this was scoped out of the EIA as it was not considered that there was any potential for adverse impacts upon air quality. The Council’s Environmental Health Service offer no disagreement with this approach. In the event permission was granted, it would be expected that a Construction Environmental Management Plan would address any short-term impacts during construction. 8.96 Any development will produce noise during the construction phase and this has to be accepted. Environmental Health raise the requirement to ensure that the site is managed in such a way during construction so as not to cause undue disturbance and this could be addressed by appropriate conditions if required, including relating to hours of work and construction noise. Considering noise from the operation of the windfarm itself, there are two distinct types of noise sources within a wind turbine; the mechanical noise produced by the machine and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air. Noise impact has been assessed in the EIA and supporting documentation. Noise level monitoring to collect background noise levels was completed at two properties; Gallangad Lodge 2.4kms from the closest turbine and Highdykes Farm 1.8 kms from the closest turbine. A noise monitor at a third property was removed at the request of the occupants. Informed by this data, noise modelling of the proposal predicts a negligible impact at noise sensitive receptors; the effects of the proposals are therefore negligible and not significant. Therefore, the EIA concludes that the operation of the proposed development would cause no significant effect and no mitigation would be required. 8.97 The Council’s Environmental Health Service does not object to the proposal but identifies a number of matters to be further considered and addressed. It is noted that predictions of the operational noise levels have been based on the candidate turbine
Page 38
being the Vestas 172.2MW but the test results for this specific turbine are not yet available and representative noise data has been adopted from similar Vestas V136 turbine. Environmental Health advise on the requirement for the noise impact assessment to be updated based on the actual wind turbines proposed. 8.98 Environmental Health further consider that an updated report that determines the impact of noise from the turbines proposed at the development on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises taking cognisance of the Scottish Government document Planning Advice Note 1/2011 Planning and Noise and using the principles set out in the document “The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU- R-97) is provided. It is identified that the applicant shall ensure that noise associated with the proposed development shall not exceed 35dB, measured as LA90.10min or the prevailing background noise level +5dB, during the daytime period and shall not exceed 43dB measured as LA90.10min or the prevailing background noise level +5dB, during the nighttime period. It is further advised that the applicant will require to consider the cumulative effects of any nearby wind turbine developments. Environmental Health go on to advise that where the tonal noise emitted by the development exceeds the threshold of audibility by between 2dB and 6.5dB or greater, then the acceptable noise specified in above, shall be reduced by the penalty level identified within section 28 of 'The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms- ETSU-R-97’. The definition of audibility for the purposes of this condition shall be as described in ETSU-R-97. The penalty shall only apply at properties where the tonal noise is measured and shall only relate to the wind speeds at which the tonal noise occurs at. Environmental Health further consider that a noise assessment to specifically determine the impact of noise from the proposed Battery Energy Storage Facilities on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises is required. 8.99 Environmental Health also highlight the requirement for an agreed approach for assessing noise complaints noise complaint assessment, logging wind speed, wind direction and power generation data shall be continuously logged and a nominated person have been submitted in writing to the Planning Authority for the development who will act as a point of contact for local residents. 8.100 Turning to shadow flicker, it is accepted that if adequate separation is provided between turbines and nearby dwellings shadow flicker should not be a problem. The Council’s Environmental Health Service highlight the requirement for a shadow flicker assessment. The EIA sets out that in line with the Scottish Government guidelines on shadow flicker assessments, 10 rotor diameters (1.7km) from each proposed wind turbine has been established as the shadow flicker Study Area. The assessment identified that no residential dwellings fall within the shadow flicker Study Area and, therefore, no shadow flicker effects are anticipated on any residential receptors within the vicinity of the proposed development. 8.101 Overall, subject to the Scottish Ministers ensuring that all matters raised in respect of noise impact are addressed in the event that they were minded to grant consent, the impact upon residential amenity will be acceptable and there are no objections to the proposal on the impact upon residential amenity. Impact upon Tourism 8.102 The degree to which wind turbines influence the tourism industry is difficult to quantify. Some people are not concerned about the appearance of wind farms, with some people actively liking their appearance, and where wind farms open up public access to previously inaccessible parts of the countryside, they can themselves generate visits by walkers and cyclists. On the other hand, some people dislike the appearance of wind farms either in general or within specific locations, and the construction of a wind
Page 39
farm may reduce the enjoyment of their visit to the area and make them less likely to visit again. 8.103 Whilst the precise impact of wind farms on tourism is not known, it is clear that appropriately sited and scaled developments with limited consequences for landscape character, scenic quality or major tourism assets have much less potential to influence the decisions of potential visitors than an inappropriately scaled and sited development. 8.104 As highlighted above in paragraphs 8.24 and 8.25, Doughnot Hill for example provides a local destination for the experience of wilderness and because of the views from the summit. Panoramic views are provided from this location including across Kilpatrick Hills and towards the National Park. The development of an electricity generating station on the site will change the very nature of the experience of the landscape that presently attracts visitors. The applicant’s submission also demonstrates that the wind farm would be visible from important areas within the National Park, including Conic Hill, areas around Luss, the Loch itself and Balmaha Harbour. The National Park designation is an important visitor and tourist attraction and one of only two National Parks in Scotland. It is reasonable to conclude that the scenic value of the wider area around West Dunbartonshire, Loch Lomond and the National Park, is significant in terms of scenic value and tourism importance. It is to be expected that there will be significant implications for the tourism value of the surrounding area should the proposal be implemented, given that a significant number of visitors in Scotland are attracted by the scenic value of the natural landscape. Accordingly, inappropriately scaled man-made structures and development in a wider panoramic landscape is not considered to be in the interests of tourism. Whilst there is not a specific objection on the grounds of tourism impact, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that no adverse impact was to occur and it is expected that this would be fully considered with reference to the objection from the National Park Authority. Aviation Safety 8.105 Aviation related issues are considered in the EIA and it is stated that the applicant is in dialogue with the relevant stakeholders about appropriate mitigation measures. Prestwick Airport and the Ministry of Defence offer no objection to the proposal in their consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers. Glasgow Airport advise that the proposal could conflict with safeguarding criteria and that a more detailed assessment requires to be undertaken regarding the potential impact on Glasgow Airport. They have submitted a holding objection in this respect. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) object until mitigation proposals become more mature. The Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that there was no potential for impact upon aviation safety and the objection from NATS is addressed and that any potential for impact upon Glasgow Airport is fully assessed should they be minded to grant consent. Electro-Magnetic Interference to Communications Systems 8.106 BT, the Joint Radio Operators and the Met Office offer no objection to the proposal and there is nothing to suggest that there would be any impacts on any telecommunications assets. Traffic, Transport and the Impact on the Road Network 8.107 The proposed development will be accessed via a new access road from the A813 Stirling Road, located immediately to the south of the access junction to Murroch Farm. The access will take the form of a priority junction which is designed to accommodate all predicted loads and traffic for both the construction and operational phases of the development. Considering the impact upon the road network and infrastructure, the
Page 40
EIA sets out that with the exception of the turbine components, most traffic would be normal construction plant and include grading tractors, excavators, high-capacity cranes, forklifts and dumper trucks. Most of this would arrive at the site on low loaders. It is expected that equipment, cabling and also the battery storage components will also arrive by HGVs. Whilst it is anticipated that on-site borrow pits will be able to meet up to 100% of the aggregate requirements, it is indicated any deliveries associated with concrete materials, such as cement powder, water and sand/aggregates will be sourced from local concrete suppliers. 8.108 The turbine components will be delivered on a variety of road transport platforms. In addition to the turbine deliveries, up to two high-capacity erection cranes would be needed to offload a number of components and erect the turbines. The cranes are likely to be mobile cranes with a capacity up to 1,000 tonnes that are escorted by boom and ballast trucks to allow full mobilisation on site. It is anticipated that turbine components will be delivered by ship to Clydebank with all abnormal load traffic leaving from Cart Street, Clydebank before travelling to Kilbowie roundabout and then westwards on the A82 to Lomondgate roundabout before turning onto the A813 Stirling Road to the site entrance. Whilst an alternative routing, detail and delivery access is noted in the accompanying Transport Assessment, it is assumed that this does not reflect the most up-to-date proposal as set out in the EIA itself. It would be expected the Scottish Ministers to clarify and satisfy themselves of the correct routing, ensuring up-to-date supporting documents are submitted. 8.109 The peak of construction in terms of vehicular movements is indicated to be up to 116 daily round trip journeys (40 Car/Lights and 76 HGV journeys). This is estimated to occur in five of the months of the overall 21-month programme. Construction traffic is generally expected to travel from the south of the site via the A82 and onto the A813 at Lomondgate. The distribution of construction traffic on the road network is indicated to vary depending on the types of loads being transported. Traffic mitigation measures identified during the construction period include the preparation of a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan. An Abnormal Load Transport Management Plan, On-site Path Management Plan and Staff Travel Plan will also be prepared. The EIA concludes that any impacts relate solely to the peak of construction activities and that the construction period is short lived and the effects transitory in nature. Both Transport Scotland and the Council’s Roads Service have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions regarding a variety of issues. There is thus no objection to the proposal on roads and traffic grounds. Health and Safety 8.110 Nothing arises in the consultation responses undertaken by the Council or received by the Energy Consents Unit to suggest that any concerns regarding health and safety arise. It is for the Scottish Ministers to satisfy themselves that an unacceptable risk does not occur from the development. With reference to the battery storage element of the proposal, it would be expected that the Scottish Ministers consult Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Decommissioning 8.111 Should the Scottish Ministers determine to grant planning permission for this proposal, it would be expected that a requirement for decommissioning and site restoration would be expected to be included in the conditions and suitable mechanism for site restoration, which will be triggered by either the expiry of the permission or if the project ceases to operate for a specific period. It would be expected that at the end of the proposal’s operational life the turbines would be decommissioned and principal elements removed; the site restored to its former use leaving little if any visible trace of the turbines; the foundations, tracks and hardstandings; the electrical substation
Page 41
building removed and the battery storage area fully restored with all infrastructure removed. The approach would be expected to follow the Naturescot - Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for Wind Farms Guidance Community and Economic Benefit 8.112 The Applicant is proposing a Community Benefit Fund although full details have not been provided other than a commitment to offering £5,000 per MW per year in community benefits across seven Community Council areas. The community benefit offer from the proposal is indicated to be equivalent to £0.4 million annually, or £14.4 million during a 40-year operational lifetime. The suggested benefit would be in line with the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments which notes the Scottish Government’s continued promotion of community benefits to the value equivalent to £5,000 per MW per annum index linked for the operational lifetime of the development. Notwithstanding this, a community benefit package is not a material planning consideration as clarified within the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Development. 8.113 The Council’s Economic Development Manager has stated in a consultation response that if funding was reinvested into energy efficiency and clean heat initiatives in line with the Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES), alternative income streams such as this will help address fuel poverty at local level. It is accepted, however, that the use of community benefit funding will be determined by local communities. The Applicant is also committed to offering shared ownership of the proposed wind farm, allowing the community the opportunity to invest in and have a share of the wind farm. The Economic Development Manager has stated in their consultation response that the developer has indicated that up to 15% could be available for shared ownership. 8.114 The EIA indicates that the proposed will generate economic benefits, both during its construction, and during the operation and maintenance phase. During construction the economic benefits that are expected are £4.2 million Gross Value Added (GVA) and 54 years equivalent employment in West Dunbartonshire and £20.7 million GVA and 322 years equivalent employment in Scotland. The operation and maintenance of the development would bring lesser benefits with £0.4 million GVA and 2 jobs in West Dunbartonshire and £1.6 million GVA and 17 jobs in Scotland. 8.115 The Council’s Economic Development Manager further advises that that there is the potential for the Vale of Leven windfarm project to play an important role in decarbonising West Dunbartonshire and tackling fuel poverty. Ultimately the net economic benefits would be dependent upon the success or otherwise of the development and any initiatives and investments made by the Applicant. However, it is concluded that it likely that the proposed development will provide a net economic benefit to the local area although this would require to be balanced with any potential for loss of tourism income. 9. CONCLUSION 9.1 The approach to the assessment of this proposal reflects the fact that the Council is not the determining authority but rather a consultee under The Electricity Act 1989. 9.2 This application has been submitted to the Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as it is a development with a generating capacity of over 50MW. Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless
Page 42
material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the application is made under the Electricity Act 1989 and therefore the Development Plan does not have the primacy in the determination of the application. It does, however, provide a basis for the assessment of this proposal and it is established practice to take the Development Plan into account in such decisions. The Development Plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 and adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010. The proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2020 is the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore also afforded significant weight in the assessment. 9.3 The contribution of up to 70mw renewable energy generating capacity, with the potential for an additional 20mw if the applicant proceeds with the Battery Energy Storage System element of the proposed development, would draw strong support in term of renewable energy targets and supporting the overarching aims of NPF4 to achieve net zero targets. Notwithstanding this, by their very nature wind farms are major pieces of infrastructure which often require exposed upland sites which tend to be environmentally sensitive and relatively conspicuous within the landscape. In assessing this particular proposal, it has been necessary to consider whether the acknowledged impacts upon the environment and landscape are sufficiently great in this instance to outweigh the benefits of expanding renewable energy generation and/or any economic benefit which would be brought to West Dunbartonshire. 9.4 Policy 11 of NPF4 is one of the primary policies for the assessment of the development type proposed. Wind farms have the potential to impact on a wide range of features which is evident from the above assessment. The turbines proposed as part of the Vale of Leven wind farm are extremely large with a blade tip height of up to 250m. With a proposal of this scale, together with associated infrastructure inclusive of Battery Energy Storage System, significant adverse landscape and visual impacts are inevitable. 9.5 It is clear that the proposal has the potential to result in wide ranging visual impacts from a variety of locations. This includes from within existing settlements and it also follows that the proposed turbines will form a very significant feature within the landscape surrounding existing settlements. However, Policy 11(e)ii. of NPF4 explicitly accepts localised significant landscape and visual impacts and in this respect the position is thus weighted towards development’s contribution to renewable energy targets. In further considering the impacts It is considered that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape and the visual amenity of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area, and the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Loch Lomond and the surrounding area is a landscape asset of national importance, which is currently relatively unspoiled by major man-made development within the landscape. The large turbines proposed would occupy a prominent position within the setting of the National Park, and the introduction of a significant man-made element on the horizon could significantly detract from the setting of the National Park / National Scenic Area, the Lomond and the Trossachs National Park being only one of two National Parks in Scotland. Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot object to the proposal on this basis. The wind farm would also detract from the sense of remoteness and wildness provided by the Kilpatrick Hills and locating a wind farm in this location would have a significant impact on their setting. The existing landscape affords the opportunity for recreational use and users of existing paths for example and the wider landscape will also experience a significant and adverse impact. It is not considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh these significant impacts upon the National Park / National Scenic Area and the Kilpartick Hills which form part of the setting of the park. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be
Page 43
supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. Whilst Policy RE2 of the proposed Plan relates to the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy and would previously have been relevant, it conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy. 9.6 Built and cultural heritage assets would also be impacted. Having fully reviewed this potential and being guided by the position of the consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, it is considered that, subject to appropriate mitigation, there would not be significant detrimental impact on the majority of the designations and assets. However, the serious concerns of Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle are noted and Historic Environment Scotland object on this basis. The impact upon the setting of the scheduled monument of Dumbarton Castle/Rock – a national asset is therefore clearly of significant concern and with an objection from the government agency responsible for the care and promotion of Scotland’s Historic Environment, the impact cannot be considered acceptable and is therefore not supported by Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE1 of the proposed Local Development Plan. 9.7 Biodiversity matters such as the impacts upon designated sites, habitat, peatland, ecology, protected species and ornithology will be impacted upon by the proposed development. A variety of habitats will be impacted including blanket bog and wet modified bog. It is considered that subject to suitable mitigation measures including a habitat management plan together with the following recommendations from NatureScot, notably with reference to peatland restoration, the impact of the proposal upon habitats would be acceptable. In terms of protected and other species, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers in determining the application will fully consider the points highlighted by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, ensure identified mitigation measures secured, follow the recommendations set out in NatureScot’s consultation response and require the implementation of a suitable Habitat Management Plan to ensure any effects of the development are minimised. Species protection plans would also be required. With this approach, the impacts of the proposed development upon protected species and wider ecology could be considered acceptable. 9.8 Notwithstanding the above, in terms of the consideration of the impact upon designated sites, the applicant fails to consider or assess local designations relative to the proposed site. It is identified that there are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which would be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly. It therefore cannot be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites. Given this, a conclusion with reference to Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policy E3A of the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the Proposed Plan. 9.9 It is expected that wide ranging biodiversity enhancements are embedded into the final detail of the proposal and there is the question on whether any proposed biodiversity enhancements meet the requirements of Policy 3 of NPF4. It will ultimately be for Scottish Ministers as determining authority to consider this and ensure that conditions secure the delivery of meaningful biodiversity enhancement and nature networks across the site. NatureScot’s position that greater ambition is required in terms of the extent of proposed peatland restoration is specifically noted and it is expected that the extent of peatland restoration proposed will be considered in detail by the Scottish Ministers.
Page 44
9.10 In assessing residential amenity, impacts in respect of residential visual amenity have been considered and it is concluded these would be acceptable. Impacts in respect of air quality, noise and shadow flicker have also been considered, informed by the consultation response from the Council’s Environmental Health Service. Subject to the Scottish Ministers ensuring that all matters raised in respect of noise impact are addressed in the event that they were minded to grant consent, the impact upon residential amenity will be acceptable and there are no objections to the proposal on the impact upon residential amenity. 9.11 The various consultee responses to both the Scottish Government and the limited responses to the Council suggest that subject to conditions to address a range of different matters, the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable impacts on the remaining matters assessed in this report. The exceptions are currently NATS and Glasgow Airport whose consultation responses to the Scottish Government are currently objections. Ultimately, however, Scottish Ministers are the determining authority in this case and it is for them to consider the consultation responses and how they wish to address the concerns raised in coming to any conclusion on the application. 9.12 The planning history of the site is also a relevant consideration. In 2012 planning permission was applied for the erection of ten wind turbines (max hub height 79m and max blade tip height 120m) with a total installed capacity of around 20MW and associated works including the erection of a meteorological mast, control building, ancillary infrastructure, temporary ground works and construction compound. Whilst the current proposal is not related to this previous proposal, it is sited within the same area as the current proposal albeit with a different access route. The application was considered by Planning Committee and refused due to the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the Kilpatrick Hills Regional Scenic Area/Local Landscape Area, the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the setting of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area. The National Park Authority note in their objection to the Scottish Ministers that it was consulted on the previous proposal and raised an objection due to the predicted significant adverse visual impact. The Park specifically note that the turbines now proposed would be up to 250m to blade tip height which is more than double the height of the previous proposal. NatureScot (as Scottish Natural Heritage) also objected to this previous proposal on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact upon the integrity of the National Park and Loch Lomond National Scenic Area (NSA). 9.13 Overall, it is considered that there would be a significant adverse impact upon the National Park / National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Considering the impact upon the historic environment, the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle would also be unacceptably impacted upon. The adverse effects must, however, be weighed against the positive benefits of the proposal. It is accepted that it likely that the proposed development will provide a net economic benefit to the local area and community benefits would also likely be realised. The proposal will also contribute to renewable energy targets. However, the potential benefits cannot come at any cost. In respect of the National Park, National Scenic Area and Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area, significant adverse landscape and visual impacts are likely and it is concluded that these warrant objection from the Council to the proposal. Historic Environment Scotland highlight a significant adverse impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle also raises concerns to the point that it is considered that the potential impact upon this key historic national asset within West Dunbartonshire also warrants an objection from the Council. Finally, in terms of the potential impact upon the five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which the Council’s Biodiversity
Page 45
Officer advises has not been considered, a holding objection is warranted pending an assessment of the impact upon these locally designated sites being provided by the applicant for review. 9.14 It must be noted that should the Planning Committee accept the recommendation to formally object to the proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, this will trigger a Public Local Inquiry in terms of Section 62 and Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act 1989 unless the Council subsequently withdraws its objection. 10. COUNCIL’S POSITION ON THE APPLICATION 10.1 It is recommended that this Committee Report is forwarded in full to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s full formal response to the consultation and that it is highlighted that the Council objects to the application for the following reasons: • The Council objects to the proposal as the introduction of a wind farm into the Kilpatrick Hills could have a significant adverse impact upon the National Park / National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to Policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. • The Council also objects to the proposed windfarm as it could have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and it would therefore be considered contrary to Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy BE5 of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE2 of the proposed Local Development Plan. • The Council further submits a holding objection to the proposal in respect of the failure of the applicant to consider or assess local nature conservation site designations relative to the proposed site. In the absence of this, it therefore cannot currently be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites in accordance with Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policy E3A if the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the proposed Plan. 10.2 Finally it is recommended that, in as far as required, reviewing and responding to any additional details submitted in respect of the holding objection set out in paragraph 10.01 together with all matters arising in respect of any Public Local Inquiry are delegated to the Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration. Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 7th August 2024 ______________________________________________________________
Page 46
Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: james.mcColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix 1: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application documents 2. National Planning Framework 4 3. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 4. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 5. Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area – Statement of Importance 6. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 7. Naturescot - Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for Wind Farms Guidance 8. Scottish Government Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity 9. Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal Wards affected: Ward 2 (Leven)